Comparing Apples to Apples in Health Care II

My first Apples to Apples post is here.

Often, the health care systems of various nations are compared by infant mortality rates, a scale upon which the United States ranks badly. But the comparison is awash with inconsistencies that distort the national scores based on the national rules of self-assessment. Some examples of regional rules:

• the U.S. tabulates every birth, even in poor, small and remote areas, while other countries are not always so meticulous.
• We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.
• much of Europe treats babies born before 26 weeks' gestation who later die as miscarriages rather than infant deaths.
• Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive, thus disqualifying smaller babies from infant mortality numbers.
• Along the same lines, Canada, Austria and Germany only count babies weighing at least a pound as live births.
• many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. About half of infant mortality in the USA takes place in that same one-day period.

Also, ethnicity and lifestyle choices make huge differences in infant mortality. Thus, our national diversity and freedom of choice also work against our infant mortality rate.

Once again, the claims that the American health care system is a national shame are discredited. Remind me, why is it we're so convinced it needs major reforms?

Note: This article was also posted on my new blog site. It's still very rough and incomplete, but it allows users to sign up and leave comments. Unlike this blog, it even has a mechanism to quote from the article and others' comments.