At 19:04 18/11/2016 +0000, Kornbrot, Diana wrote:
>thanks. that is interesting day ... but the estimate of 66 billion is
>based on per capita US$ equivalent spend, NOT on % GDP
>i.e. (france per capita $ - uk per capitaS) * UK population form world bank
Thanks. Yes, I realised that (well, worked it out!).
However, as I recently wrote, health spend (however expressed), per se,
means very little on its own - it's far from impossible that a higher spend
could be associated with a poorer quality/quanity/speed of healthcare
provision (perhaps most obviously when the 'higher spend' relates, at least
partially, to a profit-making healthcare system). As with most things in
life, 'more expensive' does not necessary mean 'better' - it can simply
mean 'rip off'!
Kind Regards, John
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|