U.S. Health Care System Ranked Last Among Developed Nations

Demonstrators that include mostly medical students protest a proposed repeal of the Affordable Care Act in New York, U.S., January 30, 2017. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

July 17, 2017

OAN Newsroom

As GOP lawmakers continue to work to repeal and replace Obamacare, a new study shows the U.S. in dead last when it comes to health care among high-income nations.

The report conducted by The Commonwealth Fund shows the U.S. is number 11 out of 11 developed nations included in the analysis.

The U.S. was also rated last or close to last in health care access, administrative efficiency, balanced care, and overall health outcomes.

The United States also spent the most money on health care.

The study says in order for the U.S. to improve it will need to pursue different methods of organizing and financing citizens health care.

  • Paula Swartz Mours

    Providing health care we may be dead last. Caliber of doctors and medical schools and hospital facilities we surpass the world. Our medical schools are full of foreign medical students and a good share go back to their countries to practice what they learned here. Seems you always hear of foreigners coming here for medical care, our citizens do not go there for it. No matter the program or insurance all will not be reached, this is unfortunate but only in a perfect world would all be reached. Personally I do not think the government should be involved in our health care at all other than the licensing of medical personal and inspecting the facilities where they practice and work. America is a beacon of light when it comes to medicine.

  • Franky Whiteeyes

    One thing about a national healthcare system. (One payer). Ask promoter Elizabeth Warren if she wants in? (She would choke) The system must include the whole of the population. Ask all the wealthy and all the politicans and all government employees, bureaucrats, and specialized union workers if they want in? Otherwise what ultimately will happen you will put the majority into a below Average program to accommodate the minority who do not provide for themselves. This will include the majority of what’s left of the middle class. What you end up having is a program that’s below average for the masses. Also to become successful the program must have wage and cost controls. I wonder what the nurses union will support if asked to reduce and or freeze wages. Ask your doctor what he thinks of Obamacare. My doctor said if you dump millions of more people into a system that is full what kind of care and wait times will you have? I am on Medicare. I had to pay my own premiums between the age gap because I retired early. (Costly mistake) Premiums are Very expensive? Many people who get to this age do not want to spend the money so they try and go with out coverage. It’s all very expensive. Do not retire early is one answer. You must keep working. The problem as usual is you have non contributors, Did you wonder why Congress did not go on Obamacare? Even though some members tried to vote for this. We could go on and on about healthcare. Ask all the politicans with law degrees why they don’t have radical torte reform, to bring cost down. We could go on and on but government always screws things UP.

  • Chuck Prosser

    capitalism folks,not socialism is what makes america different form the rest of the world.Go USA

  • J. Waltam

    If USA health care is so bad, why is it that the Europeans, specifically military exchange officers, spend most of their tours here in the US getting themselves and their families bodies restored back to working order before returning to the old country? BTW, visit South America and see how great their national health care works.

  • Tango Uniform

    The Commonwealth Fund has been cherry picking this data for a long time. The Federalist has a good article pointing out their shenanigans.

  • Linnie

    Typical Rueters article, everyone knows that this where people come for good medicine
    No mention of how rating works. Another opinion article without fact: one line propaganda as started by USA today and the fake news channel. Lol

  • scrumsey

    Who ‘ranked’ it? An Agenda? The Criteria?
    Why does America have the best doctors in the World?
    Develop most of the new medications in the World?
    Have people from other countries travel to U.S. Hospitals to get care they cannot get elsewhere?

  • 13thGenPatriot

    Well then, we should immediately cancel all visas granted for people coming to our country for medical care. We don’t want them to have the worst care. Sorry…the border is closed.

  • TwitterFace

    Such a ranking from the Commonwealth Fund should make anyone opposed to single-payer healthcare systems sleep a bit easier. But still sleep with one eye open to maintain this exalted position…

  • Brucew56

    Well, without the US, there would NOT BE any developed, free nations. They would all be facist or communist. The American People have given other nations trillions of dollars to survive. So, when I read this crap, it makes mad. They took our money and used it to enslave their citizens with nationalized healthcare. Now they can dictate who lives and who dies.

  • ReevaDiva

    ranked by libtards! why do they think we even believe these polls?

  • BillVA

    I wish I knew enough honest, knowledgeable people to sit down for a day and discuss this subject.

    -What ARE the current cost-drivers?
    -How did we pay for care just a generation or two ago, and what changed?
    -Has insurance caused harm by insulating the consumer from the costs?
    -Is insurance appropriate for routine issues, or should it be solely for catastrophic care?
    -How much DOES malpractice insurance increase my premiums?
    -How much DO the uninsured who get “emergency room care” cost us?

    I recently went to my doctor, took up 5 minutes of her time (just a cursory exam to see if the nodes in my throat were swollen), and walked out with a bill for $210. (I am uninsured for the first time in my 60+ years…it’s a long story). I consumed nothing but 5 minutes of time, and am in a very rural county.

    The other cost driver that most every industrialized nation has staring them in the face is the groundswell of baby boomers entering our “golden years” where end-of-life care costs are upon us. You never hear discussions of old people being the largest consumers of care (it’s always “for the children”), most likely because we vote. I hate to think of what the solution for THAT might be.

    • PatrickJ

      I’m by no means an expert on the subject, but I believe our growing population, especially by illegals flooding our Emergency rooms, and by doing that, getting in the way of real emergencies, are a part of it.

      Our system simply can’t support all of the poor people in the world who seek refuge here. It simply over burdens our ability to care for so many people who pay nothing for the service.

      • BillVA

        It is interesting that even (what used to be) smaller, more closed/homogeneous cultures are discovering the “Single Payer” cannot work, either financially or in terms of performance. And I don’t believe it is immigrants causing the issue there. I just don’t think the taxpayer can carry the burden of these costs. And of course government screws up anything it touches…if bureaucrats had job skills, they would be working in the private sector.

        But when I was a kid (and our doctor worked out of his house in the neighborhood), I recall that things were cash basis…which raises an interesting issue. The administrative burden imposed by having so many insurance carriers certainly adds cost.

        As I said, I would pay to sit down for a day with fair-minded well-informed people just to pick through it.

        • Yachts

          And your neighborhood doctor did not make millions of dollars a year as some of our doctors do.

  • BillVA

    I’ve always had a problem ranking healthcare systems with “outcomes.”

    Many “outcomes” are behaviour-driven. Talk to people who come to this country from elsewhere. They are shocked at our serving sizes. Even our plates are larger.

  • donna kovacevic

    Canada is the worst!

  • dan Lindsey

    Bull crap—this really explains why people want to come here from all over the world to get healthcare better and more advance than in their socialized medicine countries. Reality is the ultimatecprokf of any dogma or study finding—reality does not jive with the findings of this bogus report.

  • PatrickJ

    We need to study other countries healthcare systems. Look at Singapore for instance. The former British colony spends just 3% of GDP on health insurance compared to our 18% and yet its people are far healthier on average than Americans.

  • Bill Jr

    As of This Moment America Is Still Under Obama Care, Dear Democrats We Are In Last Place, What A Great Legacy he’s Left Us. Aren’t You Leftists Proud?

  • Congress has been dealing with the wrong aspect of our healthcare from day 1.

    There needs to be a set flat rate amount for all procedures, with set amounts for all items used, and an overall price cap on everything. Healthcare prices need to be reigned in before you can honestly figure out how much insurance should cost.

    Every procedure has several different price points, dependent upon who is paying. We, as Americans, should get whatever the lowest price is, and it should be a fair amount for all involved.

    • BillVA

      Right.

      Price controls ALWAYS encourage innovation and yield the best product.

      /sarc

      • Healthcare is a service, much like auto repair. Price control for auto repair has kept shops from gouging customers for decades.

  • Mark

    Now that is an OMuslim legacy.

  • Jim Healan

    Funny–when anyone in the world outside of the USA needs complex medical care, what country do they come to? You’re right–the good ole USA. Yes, the country that is so-called “last” in health care!

    • donna kovacevic

      True! Many Canadians go to America for MRI’s Scans surgeries ets. Here you have to wait forever!!!

  • owleyes1

    The definition of medical insurance has been redefined. For instance, you pay a fixed amount every month to insure your life so when you die, your beneficiary gets a fixed amount. Of course you better be of good health and not on death’s door in order to get insured. The same with medical insurance. You pay a fixed amount to insure your health so when you get sick or injured, you get a fixed amount to pay your medical bill.
    Of course, you better be in good health to be insured. If you don’t pass the medical exam, there may be some exceptions to your coverage. Insurance companies are there to make a profit and your monthly payment are calculated based on data collected from the health of the general population.

    • BillVA

      Part of the issue is that health insurance covers routine issues. My car insurance does not cover non-collision repairs, tune-ups, oil changes, etc.

      And getting an exam that foretells your likely maladies so as to exempt them from coverage kinda kills the benefit from having insurance in the first place. Heck, genetic research might impact all of us in that area.

  • Matt

    This is Obamacrap and it’s ranked LAST
    too bad our so-called media won’t report this on the evening news

  • Really, No REALLY?

    What nations were included? I wonder how many of them are socialist countries…

  • willnkc

    Everyone has the right to buy insurance and/or healthcare, just like we have the right to buy water and food. But there is no guarantees that you will get it unless you pay for it.

    • Tango Uniform

      There’s also no guarantee you’ll get it even if you pay for it. Remember that doctor we were told we could keep? Some of them quit, while others stopped taking Medicare and Medicaid. Just because we buy/ have coverage doesn’t mean we get care. The only guarantee is concierge medicine.

  • jc Dalia

    The Bill of Rights protects individual liberty.
    What does it mean to say that healthcare is a human “right”?
    Does that mean that it should be free and those medical student protesters, hoping to become doctors, should treat people for free? Drugs/med equipment should be free? Setting broken bones? Life saving operations?

    Is having a job a human “right”?
    Is being fed a human “right”?
    Is shelter a human “right”?
    Is childcare a human “right”?
    Is a cell phone a human “right”?
    Or are they necessities/desires we are free to pursue?
    Churches/charities historically provided for the needy with voluntary charitable contributions.
    I really just don’t get the justification for such protests.

    • Heremeroor

      the more, more, more (as long as someone else gets the bill) crowd.

    • stevens123

      Healthcare is a service, not a right. A service is the product of another’s labor. No one has the right to someone else’s labor.

      • jc Dalia

        Thank you. That certainly reflects how I view it. After so much harping and distortion by the socialists, I begin to imagine I am losing perspective.

        • BillVA

          That’s the idea.

          Not to go to far astray, it’s just another data-point in the “having a penis does not necessarily mean you are male” insanity.

          Once you need someone else to tell you the fundamental truth of what gender some naked human is, then there is nothing you know for yourself.

  • willnkc

    A bunch of socialist comparing our system to their scams. Sure, pay 90% of your income to the state so you can have insurance, but when it’s time for healthcare, forget about it.

    • Lawmadsen

      I also wonder how many of those nations that outrank us rely on our military protection freeing up their budget.

  • mkdavis

    Ask the parents of Charlie Chard, the 11 month old British boy who has a rare medical condition how they feel about their national health care system . The British national health care system will not allow his parents who have the money and are willing to come to the United States for experimental treatment on Charlie because the British Govt has decided they should make Charlie comfortable and allow him to die. That folks is the British National Healthcare death panel that Sarah Palin was talking about that could happen in America if we allow socialised medicine.The govt will decide who lives and who dies, not God, not the parents.

    • stevens123

      Not sure the Chard case is the best example. The reason the courts ruled against the parents is because the case was successfully made that the child could experience undue suffering during the trip and the probability of success. They are ruling to protect the child’s well-being as an individual over the parents’ want to keep their child alive.

      There is no good answer here. There was a similar incident about 12 years ago with the Terri Shivo case. Parents wanted to keep their braindead daughter alive, but her husband wanted to pull the plug.

      • willnkc

        How is letting this kid die without a fight looking out for the well-being of the child? They started Shiavo to death, that wasn’t looking out for her either. This is exactly why government should not be involved in healthcare.

        • stevens123

          You say they starved Teri Shaivo. I say they kept her from a better place by force feeding her. Rather difficult to determine who is right.

          • jc Dalia

            Incidentally, I am curious…are you a proponent of euthanasia?

          • stevens123

            I’m a proponent of free will. Would I want to ‘live’ like Teri? No. My fondest hope is there is a better existence than what we have here on earth. There is a price for something better. You need to be a good person.

            God gave us magnificent brains. Sometimes, however, we can be too smart for our own good. In the Shivo case, I genuinely believe she was being kept from a better place, for understandably selfish reasons, by people who genuinely loved her.

            Again, at what point to we cross from prolonging life to medical torture?

          • jc Dalia

            Well, yes. At what point? Who decides? Hope for miracles vs scientific “certainty”?
            Take medicine out of the mix, who survives?

          • stevens123

            If you took medicine out of the mix, both Shivo and Charlie would never have survived as long as they did/have.

          • jc Dalia

            Absolutely. Along with millions over the decades, myself included. So, here we are again….when do we stop trying? I, personally, have a living will, but children cannot. Parents usually have legal responsibility for their children, healthy or sick, truancy or good behavior… In this case, their authority has been stripped, and basically told they’re unfit to decide. There are likely plenty of similar cases that never make headlines.
            Nice to discuss with you, stevens123…I enjoying hearing opinions of deep thinkers.

          • stevens123

            You as well. Cheers!

      • jc Dalia

        How odd, parents fighting to keep their child alive.
        You’re rather suggesting that the government has their child”s best interest more than do the parents who love him.

        • stevens123

          I’m suggesting the government is impartial. Understandably the parents want to keep their baby, but is that really in the child’s best interest? It begs the question of when do we cross the line from medical innovation and the prolonging of life to medical torture and further suffering by those who can’t speak for themselves?

          Again, no easy answers. The questions go far beyond simple cost savings and profit motive.

          BTW – I am not a proponent of government intervention in most cases, but this is different. The parents could potentially be blinded to the realities of their child’s situation, causing it to suffer needlessly.

          • jc Dalia

            Well, not sure I want to get into an ethics discussion. Modern medicine has introduced a plethora of unanswerable questions regarding life saving measures–newly developed treatments vs suffering, resuscitation vs DNR, quality of life vs death….add to that levels of insurance coverage, timelines, etc…

          • stevens123

            It’s an uncomfortable topic. However, modern medicine has progressed to the point where it needs to be discussed. Should doctors prolong life regardless of the quality of life as a result? If a treatment has a 1% chance of success (however that is defined) who should pay? Teri Shivo was costing more than $1 million per year for almost 10 years, during which time she didn’t even open her eyes.

            These questions are not going away and will get more frequent.

          • jc Dalia

            Again, Shivo was a different case.
            I wonder about many cases that are kept “alive” through modern medicine. Do hospitals treat because insurance pays–something socialized medicine wouldn’t be as likely to do?

          • stevens123

            Shivo is just a known example.

            You’d be surprise how many. You’d be even more surprised the organization that deals with this the most and spends the most is medicare. It is scary how much medicare spends keeping people alive.

            Take cost out of it and look at it from a different angle. Who is more deserving of an organ transplant, the 75 year old grandma or the 50 year old man with a family to feed? Who gets to make that call? It happens all the time.

          • jc Dalia

            No, I wouldn’t be surprised. I have two siblings in the medical field, one a doctor, the other an NP, who see Medicare patients, as well as illegal immigrant care. There are plenty of scams perpetrated against Medicare and SSI to steal from citizens.

          • Brucew56

            @stevens123 The point is, it’s not the government’s place to decide medical situations about who should live or die. The government, in this case, is not being impartial. It is telling the parents they know better than the parents. The decision is the parents alone. This is the problem with governments involvement liberals ignore.

          • stevens123

            I understand. However, who’s to say the parents know better? The government did not make its decision arbitrarily. They considered the testimony of experts from both sides.

            I am the biggest proponent of small government there is, but this is one case where government needs to be the one to consider the child.

          • Brucew56

            As I said, unless parents are not providing care or abusing the child, parents should be able to go as far as they want to save a child in cases where there is a chance for a decent life.

          • stevens123

            Define a ‘decent’ life. Teri Shivo’s folks were satisfied she had a decent life for 10 years as a vegetable.

          • jc Dalia

            Is Charlie considered braindead?
            Did you hear about the young woman in a coma who awoke after 20 years?

          • Brucew56

            When you explain why a government should have the right to determine life or death.

          • stevens123

            In theory it is up to the government to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Shivo was incapable of taking care of herself. Her husband wanted to pull the tube, but her parents didn’t. Someone had to make a call. In Charlie’s case, he isn’t old enough to tell us how he feels or what he wants. The government may be speaking on his behalf.

          • jc Dalia

            So you advocate socialized medicine? That’s what govenment involvement means, as in the UK.

          • stevens123

            Absolutely not. However you are correct that this is exactly what socialized medicine does.

      • jc Dalia

        Also, pulling the plug on adult braindead Terri is not the same as wanting the slim chance of another treatment for your baby boy.

        • stevens123

          Sometimes, hard as it may be, reason must supersede emotion.

          • mkdavis

            My wife and I have four children, piss on your reason vs emotion theory. I would scoop my son up and head for American and see how bad the British wanted to stop me. If my son had a chance to live I would walk through hell with a gas can to give him that shot at life.

          • stevens123

            That’s all well and good, but you are missing the point. The government is (hopefully) looking out for the best interest of the child, not the desperate hope of the parents.

          • mkdavis

            I didn’t miss a thing. So looking out for the best interest of the child is to let him die when there’s a possibility of a cure here in America, and the parents have the means and the will to come to America in the hope their son survives. So who are you or the British Govt to tell these parents they can’t do that. I will walk through hell if I thought it would give my son a chance at life. I say scoop Charlie up and head to America and dare the British Govt to stop me. The Government is not God.

          • stevens123

            Neither are you or the parents. How do you know it’s not God’s will to take the child? At what point are we playing God with medical technology?

          • jc Dalia

            I prefer reason softened with emotion.
            My objection remains with the government denial of parental wishes at this point. I also believe in miracles.

          • stevens123

            And that is my point. The purpose of government is to protect the child, not honor the wishes of the parents.

          • mkdavis

            You’re not protecting the child by letting them die when there is the possibility of a cure.
            That’s called a goverment playing God.

          • stevens123

            How is the government playing God any more or less than the parents? If the parents were not able to afford the trip and treatment, would we even be having this discussion?

          • jc Dalia

            But they do, so it changes the discussion. I think they should be allowed to try the 10% option.

          • stevens123

            Even if it is causing the child to suffer? The problem is poor Charlie can’t tell us what he wants.

          • jc Dalia

            Please note my qualifier “at this point”.

          • stevens123

            I think the real challenge is determining the difference between wanting what’s best for the child and what is actually best for the child. I am taking a BIG leap of faith that is what government is trying to do.

          • jc Dalia

            Yes, a BIG leap.

          • Brucew56

            @stevens123 It’s not emotion, it is faith and hope; a concept many people in the secular world many have no concept of.

          • stevens123

            I have faith and hope there is another world out there, better than this, waiting for people who have tried to be decent by their fellow man. I hope that if I were in Teri Shivo’s position someone would not deny me the opportunity to move on to that place simply because they would miss me.

      • mkdavis

        I listened to Sean Hannity last week. He interviewed a women who is best friends with the mother of Charlie. She is watching Charlie several times a week ( about 16 hr’s per week). This women is a mother of two small children also. She was asked by Hannity if Charlie was suffering or in pain. This women said absolutely not. She also said that the British govt and the hospital will not give much information out about Charlie’s condition due to laws and that’s more than likely how all this misinformation gets started. The parents have the money and the will to take Charlie to the U.S. hoping it will save his life. Who the hell is the British govt to tell these parent they have to just let Charlie die. My wife and I have four children and I can assure you if I was in this British parents shoes I would be ready to scoop my son up and run for American, screw the British politicians and their death panels.

        • stevens123

          Teri Shivo’s parents kept claiming she was responding to their voices and not just having an involuntary muscle twitch. Their qualifications were the same at the best friend of Charlie’s mom, which was 0.

          As I said in another reply, there are no easy answers here. We have no way to know if the child is suffering or not. Sometimes you have to take emotion out of the equation and take a hard look at things.

      • BillVA

        But Shivo was between family members, not between parent and the State, as I suspect already occurred to you as you typed it.

        • stevens123

          so?

      • Brucew56

        @stevens123 WHY should a court be involved, period, unless the parents are abusing the child or failing to provide care, which they are not. This is an example of government overreach. They are worried if they allow the parents to take their child out of the country and treatment helps, it will show how bad NHS is.

        • stevens123

          Define abuse. Is it beating the child? Sure. What about keeping a child alive because the parents understandably have trouble letting go even though the child may be suffering?

          • Brucew56

            Denial of any form of physical, mental support to allow the child reach its potential. Who decides whether it’s faith and hope or weakness?

  • Mark Burns

    The free shytt crowd

    • R A.

      No shytt!!

  • No Mas

    I vote no to US Govt run healthcare, I vote no to Insurance run healthcare.
    Tell the healthcare providers to tell us what they will like to offer Americans without subsidies from other taxpayers.

    • stevens123

      They will offer whatever you are willing to pay for.

    • willnkc

      Insurance is a business, if you don’t want it, you shouldn’t be forced to buy it. The Obamacare scam is not only unconstitutional, it is bad for everyone involved, and a single-payer system would be worse.

  • stevens123

    The Commonwealth Fund is a proponent of single payer. No wonder they ranked the US last.

  • peanut1000

    John McCain gets great care on us tax payers at the Mayo Clinic which by the way doesn’t take Medicaid. Must be nice when you can vote yourselves exemptions while you stick it to those that live outside the Washington bubble of the global elite and the politicans.

    • No Mas

      One law that should be made, is “No lawmaker or government employee shall be exempt from any law it passes for Americans!”

      • mkdavis

        Amen

      • mkdavis

        Lawmakers are govt employees, they work for the American people.

        • BillVA

          Good luck standing in front of a Waters or an Obama or a Clinton and reminding them that they are public servants.

          • mkdavis

            You got that right !

        • Yachts

          I have a very easy solution to this health care mess. Pass a law that prohibits any federally elected official or government employee from getting their health care at government expense from any entity other than the VA health care system. This would do two things, it would force the government to clean up the extraordinarily bad VA health care system and put an end to one payer options. Politicians should never exempt themselves from any law they pass.

      • willnkc

        And no law or government should force someone to buy anything, for any reason.

      • Cody

        What are you talking about? In Tennessee there was a case of bribery. Last time i looked he was in jail doing time for it. His name is Leonard Ray Blanton, look it up. The only person I know in recent time that should have gotten in trouble is Obama’s daughter Malia Obama for smoking pot in a non legal state (MD). Now if she did it in DC it would be legal.

        • BillVA

          What are YOU talking about?

          Just because some politicians are held to account for breaking some laws does not mean they are subject to every law they impose on the rest of us. Obamacare is just one such example.

      • Marty Kirkpatrick

        I thought that law was already in the books.