Question

If there truly is a link between “new and advanced clinical technology” and its application in the US healthcare model and its impact on the total cost of care on a per citizen basis, then why is the overall demonstrated clinical outcomes (e.g. average lifespan, etc.) rated lower than other industrialized countries?

Answer 1

The United States stands first in terms of health care spending per capita but ranks low in ( 39^th) infant mortality, adult female mortality, adult male mortality, and (36^th) life expectancy. The 2006 data also shows that U.S. performance not only is poor but the improvement is also slower than other countries.

The U.S. health care reforms and technology have been targeting expanding insurance coverage and decreasing the growth of costs through improved efficiency and decreased costs, and expanding prevention and wellness programs. But these alone are not necessary for improving clinical outcomes like life span. A whole lot of other factors play a key role in determining these outcomes.

The diseases that significantly affect the outcome measures are not impacted by technology to a significant extent. For example, heart disease affects outcome measures significantly. The US mortality rates due to heart diseases are quite high. Technology has done little to improve these diseases so far.

The role of technology still seems to be low in prevention of such diseases. Probably technology can help in early detection of diseases but without changes in patient treatment and prevention efforts this mere detection proves to be in vain

Outcomes like mortality rate are affected by other factors like includes dietary changes, lifestyle changes like smoking cessation, increased physical activity. This requires a lot of policy changes and programs aimed at prevention. So unless a holistic approach is taken towards healthcare, such health conditions cannot be improved only with technology