Rational Arguments

Every time I bring up statistics on medical bankruptcies, I brace for a fight.  Here’s the deal.  No one ever goes bankrupt from one thing and one thing only.  So it’s impossible to determine, in any truly objective and perfect way, if a bankruptcy is a medical bankruptcy.  If you are $20,000 in debt and you have $10,000 in medical debt, is it a medical bankruptcy?  Does it matter if it’s the final expense that breaks you?  What if you pay off all your medical bills, so have no medical debt, and because of that you have tons of other debt which bankrupts you?  Like all research, there are imperfections in the studies that look at this issue.

But good studies, peer-reviewed studies, acknowledge these limitations, try to be the best they can, and let you be the judge.  Here’s the results from such a study:

Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%.

Over 60% of bankruptcies are medical; 75% of those are for people who had health insurance.

Many of you will cry foul and cite studies (are they in peer-reviewed journals?) that say it’s less.  Personally, I don’t care.  Any is too many.

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on medical bankruptcy.  A Hudson Institute Senior Fellow tried to testify that reform will increase bankruptices.  Senator Franken… well watch for yourself:

By the way, although he did an admirable job on the cherry-picking argument, he could have crushed her with this answer to the survival rates talking point.

(h/t Think Progress)

Many people think we have the best health care system in the world.  They’re wrong.  We have some of the best doctors in the world.  Some of the best hospitals.  Even some of the most advanced technology in the world.  But our health care system isn’t very good.

“Yet our survival rates for X are better!” people shout.  And while we can argue whether our ability to extend the life of a relatively small number of people a short period of time is the true hallmark of quality, it’s the use of survival rates instead of mortality rates that is even more telling.

Mortality rates are the number of people who die of a certain cause in a year divided by the total number of people.  For instance, that the mortality rate for people with lung cancer in the United States is 53.4 per 100,000 people.

Survival rates are something else entirely.  They calculate the percentage of people with a disease who are still alive a set amount of time after diagnosis.  The five year survival rate for people with lung cancer in the US is 15.6%.

But here’s the thing.  You can only decrease the mortality rate by preventing death, or preventing the disease.  That’s really it.  That’s a cure or a life extension.  Survival rate, however, can be increased by preventing death, preventing disease, or making the diagnosis earlier.

And there’s the rub.  Let’s say there’s a new cancer of the big toe killing people.  From the time the first cancer cell appears, you have 10 years to live, with chemo.  From the time you can feel a lump, you have five years to live, with chemo.  Let’s say we have no way to detect the disease until you feel a lump.  The five year survival rate for this cancer is about 0, because within five years of detection, everyone dies, even on therapy.

Now I invent a new scanner that can detect the cancer when only one cell is there.  Because it’s the United States, we invest heavily in those scanners.  Early detection is everything, right?  We have protests and lawsuits and now everyone is getting scanned like crazy.  Not only that, but people are getting chemo earlier and earlier for the cancer.  Sure, the side effects are terrible, but we want to live.

We made no improvements to the treatment.  We are making the diagnosis five years earlier, yet everyone is still dying five years after they feel the lump.  But our five year survival rate is now 100%!  Everyone is living ten years with the disease.  Meanwhile, in England, they say that the scanner doesn’t extend life and won’t pay for it.  Rationing!  That’s why their five year survival rate is still 0%.  U-S-A! U-S-A!

The mortality rate is unchanged.  The same number of people are dying every year.  We have just moved the time of diagnosis up and subjected people to five more years of side-effects and reduced quality of life.  We haven’t done any good at all.  We haven’t extended life, we’ve just lengthened the time you have a diagnosis.

Think this is far fetched?  Why do you think that in England women are screened by mammography every three years starting at age 50, yet in the United States the American Cancer Society recommends women are screened by mammography every year starting at age 40.  For a woman diagnosed with breast cancer in 2001, the five year survival rate in the US was 89.1%; in England it was 80.3%.  Go USA!

The mortality rates?  The American Cancer Society’s Cancer Facts & Figures 2009 reports it’s 25.0 per 100,000 women in the US and Cancer Research UK reports it’s 26.7 per 100,000 women in England.  Hard to believe we’re spending almost two and a half times per person for health care what they do over there.

(h/t Factcheck.org for some links)

UPDATE: This in no way means I’m opposed to mammography and/or early detection for breast cancer.  That can absolutely make the difference in outcomes.  But there is a point at which we go overboard.  We need to recognize that and find the sweet spot for screening.  Moreover, that’s not what this post is about.  It’s about cherry picking statistics to make us look better than we are.