National health care not the answer

America's health-care woes all could be solved with a government-run universal-coverage system. Or so says Michael Moore in his new film, "Sicko," which claims that even Cuba's health-care system is superior to ours.

Although it's easy to dismiss Moore as a radical propagandist, his message is gaining traction in the policy community. The Commonwealth Fund, a prominent health policy research foundation, has produced a study that also portrays government-run health systems as far superior to ours.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Fund study and Moore's film are based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence.

Rather than use hard data, the Commonwealth Fund report relies on public-opinion surveys to conclude that Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom all provide better care than the United States — and for less money.

Patients and doctors were called and asked if they were happy with the quality, access, efficiency, equity and outcomes offered by their government-managed health-care systems. But phone calls do nothing to offer scientific data about whether these nations' systems outperform the U.S. system.

Consider access to timely care. Britain has more than 1 million citizens on its waiting lists for medical care, according to London-based Nurses for Reform. In Canada, a study found that more than 800,000 citizens are in the queue for medical procedures — and some will die, waiting for months and sometimes more than a year to obtain surgeries or treatments they need.

In the United States, we're used to speedy service. So it's hardly surprising that in a public-opinion survey, we would complain about any wait at all. But waiting lists like those in Britain and Canada would be a national scandal here. We simply wouldn't tolerate it.

And what about access to the latest treatments? In government-managed systems, bureaucrats and politicians decide which surgeries and new medicines will be available. In Britain, for example, two new drugs for kidney cancer are being denied to cancer sufferers because they're too expensive, according to news reports.

The Canadian government also refuses to buy newer drugs until they've been on the market for years. From 1997 to 1999, for instance, 100 drugs were introduced in America, while only 43 of those drugs became available in Canada.

In the interest of national budgets, state-administered health systems have an incentive to put saving money before saving lives. This affects more than just drugs. Each year, shortages of funds, personnel and facilities force the British system to cancel as many as 100,000 operations.