By the way . . . My doubts over health system’s ‘star rating’

THERE is a quote attributed to the former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics . . .’

A statistic that will give many readers pause for thought comes from a recent report by the Commonwealth Fund think tank, which declares the NHS is the best, safest and most affordable healthcare system out of a group of 11 countries analysed.

The finding is astonishing to all of us engaged in the provision of care, and probably to many who are on the receiving end, too.

While it is true that, in many areas, the skills, expertise and service within the NHS are beyond compare, when you look closely at the analysis, the think tank seems happy to underplay the fact that for health outcomes — that is, whether people get diagnosed and treated successfully — the NHS ranks near the bottom of the list.

In a study of the qualities of any service, it all comes down to which questions are asked and which are conveniently ignored — depending on the story you hope to tell.

As a comparison, a few years ago, the Government happily rated diesel-fuelled cars as the best on the grounds of superior fuel economy. Now we hear that the pollution from such vehicles is the worst — a fact previously ignored — leading to a turnaround in policy. In the same way, the Commonwealth Fund has focused on the excellence of NHS mechanisms, but is conveniently ignoring its poor results when compared with others.

These experts used declining premature death rates (longer life expectancy) as a sign of success. Yet, as much as anything, this has been the result of public health policy, such as the huge drop in people smoking.

It’s all very well being top dog in terms of affordability — easy when you squeeze the budget — but what about our poor five-year survival figures for some of the most common cancers (breast and colon, for example) when compared with other countries?