Study: Dutch healthcare system best in Europe

[Tender Branson]

Caroline White
Friday, 14 November 2008

The Dutch healthcare system is Europe’s best, according to a comparative analysis of 31 countries, scoring 839 points out of 1000.

The UK manages 13th place, overall, with 650 points, 201 ahead of Latvia at the bottom of the league table.

The Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI), which has been carried out annually by Health Consumer Powerhouse, a private healthcare analyst, since 2005, uses national health data and survey questionnaires to assess performance.

Indicators include patient rights, e-health, waiting times, outcomes, the range and reach of services, and the availability of pharmaceutical products.

This year’s strongest performers were Denmark, Austria, and Luxembourg, while Cyprus, France and Portugal, fared worse than last year, the analysis shows.

Denmark scored the best for patient rights and e-health, while Germany, Luxembourg, and Switzerland topped the league on waiting times.

Sweden came first for outcomes, and the Netherlands performed best on range and reach of services. Austria came top for access to medicines.

Estonia comes top of the “bang for buck” league, delivering quality with relatively little outlay, according to Health Consumer Powerhouse President, Johan Hiertqvist.

The UK ranks 12th for its per capita spend on healthcare. Of the developed western European economies, only Sweden spends less, the analysis shows.

But Mr Hiertqvist points out that extra funds don’t always translate into better healthcare.

“The conclusion is that when working to improve healthcare it is important to recognise the link between medical outcomes and the easiness of access to services and quality information for patients. Good healthcare management and reform is not only a matter of money,” he says.

“In the past four years, The Netherlands have been in the top three among European healthcare systems in all our general healthcare indexes. It is justified to say that the Dutch have the best healthcare system in Europe,” he contends.

The performance of the NHS gets something of a lukewarm reception.

“The NHS shares some fundamental problems with other centrally planned healthcare systems, such as Sweden. Would require some really top class management for that giant system. In top four for e-health. Superbug problems improving, but still bad,” says the report.

But there are reasons to be cheerful on the e-Health front. Health Consumer Powerhouse believes that e-Health can “radically reduce costs,” improve rapid access to treatment and enhance patient safety.

The Department of Health did not take part in this year’s analysis and the findings have been dismissed by the NHS Confederation, which represents most NHS organisations.

Policy Director Nigel Edwards, said: “The Euro Consumer Health Index should carry its own health warning pointing out that anything but the broadest comparison using their figures is meaningless.”

“The figures take different data collected in different ways from health services that do not even offer the same range of services.  At the same time, no account is taken of whether people have to pay for some services or not,” he continued.

“Everyone involved in the NHS knows that it needs to improve but these figures have little to add in helping that process.”

http://www.onmedica.com/NewsArticle.aspx?id=1e1d72ec-920b-46d4-af36-95b2b0c6888c

http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=27

[Keystone Phil]

Now would this awesome system cover the forced abortions that were proposed about a year ago? How about the forced contraception?

[afleitch]

Now would this awesome system cover the forced abortions that were proposed about a year ago? How about the forced contraception?

Probably quite easily.

Part of the success of European health care systems is that they can easily adapt to changes in medicine, new drugs/treatments etc even with the costs involved. They also have a better arrangment with pharmaceutical giants so it drives the cost of drugs and prescriptions down.

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

[Keystone Phil]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

[afleitch]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

Well if it's good enough for the army, the police, the fire department, the public school system....

[Keystone Phil]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

Well if it's good enough for the army, the police, the fire department, the public school system....

Yes, they work for the government.

I'd really appreciate if a difference in ideology didn't translate into, "What? These people aren't good enough for you?"

[afleitch]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

Well if it's good enough for the army, the police, the fire department, the public school system....

Yes, they work for the government.

I'd really appreciate if a difference in ideology didn't translate into, "What? These people aren't good enough for you?"

I do not see the difference in people paying for fire coverage and police coverage through taxation and paying for healthcare coverage through taxation. It is the same principle. The relationship between a US police department and state/federal government is the same as the relationship between a UK hospital and the government.

Because of that relationship, I consider opposition to taxpayer funded healthcare, but not opposition to the police, fire dept etc as hypocritical.

[Keystone Phil]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

Well if it's good enough for the army, the police, the fire department, the public school system....

Yes, they work for the government.

I'd really appreciate if a difference in ideology didn't translate into, "What? These people aren't good enough for you?"

I do not see the difference in people paying for fire coverage and police coverage through taxation and paying for healthcare coverage through taxation. It is the same principle. The relationship between a US police department and state/federal government is the same as the relationship between a UK hospital and the government.

Because of that relationship, I consider opposition to taxpayer funded healthcare, but not opposition to the police, fire dept etc as hypocritical.

Asking most people to pay for their healthcare on their own is far more reasonable, in my opinion, than asking them to fend for themselves in terms of fighting fire, enforcing the law, protecting the country , etc.

I see where you're coming from. I just disagree with your way philosophy and the rhetoric that some of us don't think people are good enough for healthcare. It's a low blow.

[afleitch]

I see where you're coming from. I just disagree with your way philosophy and the rhetoric that some of us don't think people are good enough for healthcare. It's a low blow.

It's not a low blow - it is supposted to be a 'plea to the gut'

What concerns me is that there is so much blockage put in the way of an honest debate on these matters - 'socialised medicine', 'government chooses your doctor' crap.

I choose my own doctor, if I don't like his opinion I can see another. I have an NHS doctors surgery 200 yards away with 4 doctors to choose from or I can go into the next town. I can choose what hospital I want to visit if I am sick. My local hospital was re-built and was opened in 2005; it's clean and modern and world class.

If I am severely ill (God forbid) there are world class specialist hospitals within the NHS system up and down the country I can be cared for or operated on in. If I don't want to use the NHS, I can still pay for treatment privately or even mix and match.

When my tax is taken off my wages a few pounds a month of that proportionately goes to fund everyones healthcare. That's all I have to do. I pay a little for dental treatment and glasses and that's it

It's not complicated or restrictyive. All you need is the political will and an honest debate about what universal coverage really entails.

[Keystone Phil]

I see where you're coming from. I just disagree with your way philosophy and the rhetoric that some of us don't think people are good enough for healthcare. It's a low blow.

It's not a low blow - it is supposted to be a 'plea to the gut'

You're not making a plea to my gut by basically telling me that these people mean nothing to me. You talk about raising the level of debate and then throw in that kind of rhetoric. Not wise.

[© tweed]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

we still spend more government dollars per capita than any other country on the planet, so you suggest we are being ineffective out of principle?

[Keystone Phil]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

we still spend more government dollars per capita than any other country on the planet, so you suggest we are being ineffective out of principle?

I don't understand who the "we" is here. I would say that that fact is further proof that the idea of universal healthcare in this country would be an even bigger waste.

[Franzl]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

we still spend more government dollars per capita than any other country on the planet, so you suggest we are being ineffective out of principle?

I don't understand who the "we" is here. I would say that that fact is further proof that the idea of universal healthcare in this country would be an even bigger waste.

And you don't believe that universal healthcare will reduce the overall cost?

[© tweed]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

we still spend more government dollars per capita than any other country on the planet, so you suggest we are being ineffective out of principle?

I don't understand who the "we" is here. I would say that that fact is further proof that the idea of universal healthcare in this country would be an even bigger waste.

I'm not so sure why health care in the US is so much more expensive for the government to provide than anywhere else, that we have to pay $18k per capita to leave 50mil uninsured.  some reallocation of all of that probably would do a lot of good.  but power doesn't want that.

[afleitch]

I see where you're coming from. I just disagree with your way philosophy and the rhetoric that some of us don't think people are good enough for healthcare. It's a low blow.

It's not a low blow - it is supposted to be a 'plea to the gut'

You're not making a plea to my gut by basically telling me that these people mean nothing to me. You talk about raising the level of debate and then throw in that kind of rhetoric. Not wise.

I wasn't saying anything about you. I was talking about general political discourse.

[Keystone Phil]

And you don't believe that universal healthcare will reduce the overall cost?

After we're paying an arm and a leg for it in taxes, oh, sure. Absolutely.

I see where you're coming from. I just disagree with your way philosophy and the rhetoric that some of us don't think people are good enough for healthcare. It's a low blow.

It's not a low blow - it is supposted to be a 'plea to the gut'

You're not making a plea to my gut by basically telling me that these people mean nothing to me. You talk about raising the level of debate and then throw in that kind of rhetoric. Not wise.

I wasn't saying anything about you. I was talking about general political discourse.

Then you're talking about other people which I still don't think is wise if you want to have a fair conversation on the topic. If you don't want us to say "misleading" things about universal healthcare, don't using misleading rhetoric about people not caring about those that are suffering.

[Bono]

Unfortunately your compatriots don't seem to think the American public are good enough to be granted the same standard of health care provision.

Or we just don't think it's the role of the government to provide for every single person. 

we still spend more government dollars per capita than any other country on the planet, so you suggest we are being ineffective out of principle?

I don't understand who the "we" is here. I would say that that fact is further proof that the idea of universal healthcare in this country would be an even bigger waste.

I'm not so sure why health care in the US is so much more expensive for the government to provide than anywhere else, that we have to pay $18k per capita to leave 50mil uninsured.  some reallocation of all of that probably would do a lot of good.  but power doesn't want that.

While there is an inefficiency component, most of the difference is spending is because health care is simply a superior good--the more wealthy people are, the greater share of their income they'll want to spend on it. The US are wealthier, so they'll want to spend more. If per capita spending is all you're concerned about, I could "reform" the US health system to have a $1000 per capita spending any day....

[© tweed]

why do countries with higher per capita GDP than the USA spend less on health care and insure* more people?

*probably the wrong word, but you get the idea

[and I should probably point out that I don't necessarily support universal health care, and certainly not single-payer, but this stat has always struck me]

[DownWithTheLeft]

I do not see the difference in people paying for fire coverage and police coverage through taxation and paying for healthcare coverage through taxation. It is the same principle. The relationship between a US police department and state/federal government is the same as the relationship between a UK hospital and the government.

Because of that relationship, I consider opposition to taxpayer funded healthcare, but not opposition to the police, fire dept etc as hypocritical.

That is a horrendous analogy.  The police and fire department are necessary to maintain order in society, people cannot simply go out and buy a police officer or a fire department.  Theoretically yes they could buy a personal security guard but that is highly impractical.  It is far from highly impractical for one to purchase their own medical coverage.  The police also serve the entire population and do not cost more or less based on how many people use their services, something that UHC does.

I fail to see how they compare in the slighest