# data[].attributes.headline
Life Expectancy in less developed countries 

# data[].attributes.subject
Life Expectancy in less developed countries 

# data[].attributes.body
Rachel Kero

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Life expectancy in less developed countries: socioeconomic development or public health? - PubMed - NCBI

# data[].attributes.headline
Government Spendings on Health Care by country

# data[].attributes.subject
Government Spendings on Health Care by country

# data[].attributes.body
Rachel Kero

# data[].attributes.body
Alyssa Bloomer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
► Subscribe to FT.com here: http://on.ft.com/2eZZoLI Women in South Korea will by 2030 be the first to claim an average lifespan of more than 90 years, overtaking Japan, according to a study by researchers at Imperial College London.

# data[].attributes.body
This life expectancy map throughout the world displays the correlation between rich and wealthy countries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Life Expectancy of Americans to Europeans

# data[].attributes.subject
Life Expectancy of Americans to Europeans

# data[].attributes.body
Rachel Kero

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To see how the United States measures up in terms of life expectancy, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention compared its death rates in 2012 with those of a dozen other countries with similar economies, including the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and other European countries.

The researchers found that men and women in the United States lived 2.2 fewer years than residents in similar countries. American men and women could only look forward to a life expectancy of 76.4 and 81.2 years, respectively, compared with the 78.6 and 83.4 years of their peers abroad.

"The idea that Americans live several years shorter than we would expect them to, given the level of development, is sort of already known, but every time I come across that number it seems staggering that we get two fewer years of life just for living here," said Andrew Fenelon, a senior service fellow at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics and senior author of the study, which was published on Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The current study didn't look at which U.S. age groups were at the greatest disadvantage in terms of life expectancy, "but from my experience the largest gaps are between 25 and 65, so this prime middle-age adulthood," Fenelon said. However, other age groups in the United States, including infants, have also been known to face higher death rates, he added.

Fenelon and his colleagues took their investigation one step further and asked what is killing Americans. They focused on injuries, which are the leading cause of death for Americans between 1 and 44 years of age. Among injuries, those that are responsible for the greatest number of deaths are drug poisonings, gun injuries and motor vehicle crashes.

They found that these three causes of death were responsible for 48% of the gap in men's life expectancy between the United States and similar countries, and took about a year off their lives in the United States. For women, they accounted for 19% of the discrepancy, costing them about half a year of life.

"I was really surprised at just how large the contribution is" of these three causes of death, Fenelon said.

Many of the drug-poisoning deaths, Fenelon suspects, likely involve prescription opioid abuse and heroin use. These deaths are probably largely accidental, although some may be due to people taking their own lives, he added. The deaths due to firearm-related injuries are probably mostly suicides, and also some homicides, whereas motor vehicle crashes are probably overwhelmingly accidental, Fenelon said.

An earlier study found that death rates among middle-aged white Americans, unlike other age groups, have been on the rise since 1999, largely because of increases in rates of drug and alcohol abuse and suicide. The current findings support the idea that these types of injuries are major causes of death, and they have probably all been on the rise in recent decades, Fenelon said.

Ellen Meara, associate professor of health policy and clinical practice at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, said that the new study agrees with what we already know -- there is a big discrepancy in life expectancy in the United States. "But it's an important point that's worth restating from time to time," she said.

"Our rates of drug poisoning and all of these external causes (of death) are so much more than other countries," Meara said.

However, this has not always been the case. "If you go back far enough in the 1980s, we compared much more favorably in life expectancy with other countries, and gradually over time they improved more than the U.S.," Meara said. "We have to look to see what we are doing or have been doing differently since the 1980s -- it's not like we can't achieve what other countries have."

It could also bear looking at what the United States is doing differently in terms of addressing other causes of death as well. The remainder of the life expectancy gap is probably due to a combination of causes, including higher infant mortality rates here and higher rates of deaths related to smoking, Fenelon said.

Follow CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
why americans don't live as long as europeans - cnn.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Americans don't live as long as Europeans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To see how the United States measures up in terms of life expectancy, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention compared its death rates in 2012 with those of a dozen other countries with similar economies, including the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and other European countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Alyssa Bloomer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What Is Medical Tourism? http://testu.be/1j41Myr Subscribe! http://bitly.com/1iLOHml U.S. health care costs are higher than any other country in the world. So what is it about America's system that makes it so expensive? Learn More: Why Americans Are Drowning in Medical Debt http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/why-americans-are-drowning-in-medical-debt/381163/ "After his recent herniated-disk surgery, Peter Drier was ready for the $56,000 hospital charge, the $4,300 anesthesiologist bill, and the $133,000 fee for orthopedist.

# data[].attributes.body
Rachel  Kero

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Right now in the United States, there are at least 47 million uninsured individuals with no way to pay for their health care. 47 million men, women, and children live day to day without knowing how to pay their doctor or hospital should they get hurt accidentally or caught a life-threatening infection, or found a suspicious mole on their skin. I'm sure you can develop a very long list of other scenarios where an individual, by no fault of their own, will need medical care at some time in their life. Some will do whatever it takes to avoid getting medical care; others will have no choice because their medical condition has become so bad or life threatening that they have to be treated. Most times, these individuals in the latter will seek care, but it would be too late to change the outcome. Millions have died, at times unnecessarily, because their access to health care has been compromised. Right now, in the United States, access to care is directly tied to their ability to pay.

And the cost of health care in the United States has been and continues to skyrocket out of control in the past 3 decades.

And the reasons why this continues are best described here ( source):

With the downturn in the economy since 2008, the top 3 reasons (cost, lost job, changed employment, employer did not offer insurance) became even more substantial.

So if cost is a major factor in the number of uninsured patients, and costs continue to skyrocket...what is causing the cost of healthcare to rise?

The answer is elusive and depending on who you ask, you'll probably get a different answer. And this graph only give a partial idea of the driving costs of healthcare ( source):
Here is my answer:
In the United States, we as a society have prioritized procedures, drugs, and futile, heroic treatments rather than focusing on prevention and early intervention. Even if we as a society "know" that prevention and early intervention are better approaches, "doing" the action and encouraging the "doing" is not happening.

We, as a society, have not realized or understood the impact of untreated mental health conditions on the cost of society as a whole. We have not realized that there are proven interventions available to improve outcomes to reduce that cost on society and we have not focused or efforts to support these programs and interventions, especially for children.

We, as a society, believe that health care is a commodity and not a right for everyone.

We, as a society, believe that there is an infinite pool of money to fund technologies and treatments that may or may not improve health outcomes and that the free market is the final answer to all of the problems health-care related.

I argue that these beliefs are what is ultimately driving the costs of healthcare out of control.

I argue that these beliefs can be changed. I know that I might be crazy, but I don't think I'm alone.

With this backdrop of information, I'll talk about the next headline...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Many Individuals Remain Uninsured or Have Limited Access to Health Care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Right now in the United States, there are at least 47 million uninsured individuals with no way to pay for their health care. 47 million men, women, and children live day to day without knowing how to pay their doctor or hospital should they get hurt accidentally or caught a life-threatening infection, or found a...

# data[].attributes.body
A young child in a wealthy country like Japan is expected to live much longer than in a poor country such as Zimbabwe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
World Health Report: Life expectancy falls in poorest countries

By Barry Mason
12 January 2004

Stark global inequalities in health are revealed in the latest World Health Organisation (WHO) report. World Health Report 2003 highlights "the slowing of gains and the widening of health gaps."

A baby girl born in Japan can expect to live to 85 years of age, have sufficient food, vaccinations and a good education. On average she will have $550 spent on medication per year for her needs, with more available if necessary.

If she were born in Sierra Leone she would have a life expectancy of just 36 years, not be immunised, be undernourished and if she survived childhood would marry as a teenager and give birth to six children. Childbirth would represent a high risk to her. One or more of her children would die in infancy. She could expect only $3 a year to be spent on medication.

Life expectancy has increased globally by almost 20 years over the last half century. In 1950-1955 it was 46.5 years and in 2002 it was 65.2 years. But this overall rise masks a terrible decline in life expectancy in the poorest countries. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa adult mortality rates are now higher than they were 30 years ago.

In Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Zimbabwe the life expectancy for men and women has been reduced by 20 years. A man in Zimbabwe can now expect to live to 38 years of age.

It is not only Africa which has suffered a decline in life expectancy. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union a man can expect to live to only 58.

Even countries that have seen an improvement in life expectancy now face a sharp decline. China rates as a low mortality developing country, with less than 10 percent of deaths currently occurring below the age of five years. In Africa 40 percent of deaths are in this age range. But this relatively favourable position is threatened by the destruction of the Chinese health care system with the reintroduction of unfettered capitalism and the mounting AIDS epidemic.

Worldwide an estimated 10 million children are dying unnecessarily every year. Most of these preventable child deaths occur in developing countries-half in Africa. Of the 20 countries with the highest child mortality rates, 19 are in Africa, the only exception being Afghanistan.

Rates of child mortality in some countries are also increasing. While the global trend is for child mortality to decline, 16 countries, of which 14 are in Africa, have higher rates than in 1990. In nine countries, of which eight are in Africa, the child mortality rate is higher than those recorded over 20 years ago.

The report attributes this reversal to the impact of HIV/AIDS. The causes of childhood deaths in some of the developing countries, in the Eastern Mediterranean, Latin American and Asia, have shifted toward the pattern of childhood deaths in the developed countries. It lists these as birth asphyxia, birth trauma and low birth weight-the conditions that arise in the perinatal period. The pattern of deaths in sub-Saharan Africa, however, is dominated by malnutrition, diarrhoea, malaria and infections of the lower respiratory tract.

Some of these conditions such as malaria and diarrhoea could be easily prevented given clean water and basic precautionary measures such as insecticide-treated nets and more effective malarial drugs if resources were available. The HIV/AIDS endemic raging in Southern Africa is exacerbating child mortality. About 90 percent of all HIV/AIDS and malaria deaths in children in developing countries occur in sub-Saharan Africa.

Non-communicable disease amongst adults, such as cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, is also becoming more prominent in developing countries. Tobacco companies, faced with a more restrictive marketing climate combined with a certain level of heath education on the harmful effects of smoking in the developed world, are targeting developing countries. In an overview of the report the WHO states, "The consumption of cigarettes and other tobacco products and exposure to tobacco smoke are the world's leading preventable cause of death, responsible for about 5 million deaths in 2003, mostly in poor countries and poor populations. The toll will double in 20 years unless known and effective interventions are urgently and widely adopted."

Lee Jong-wook the Director General of the WHO wrote last December in the British medical journal the Lancet, recalling how in 1978 the WHO had laid out its commitment to health equality in the Alma-Ata declaration. Its goal was for all people to have sufficient health to have "a dignified and productive life" by the year 2000. That goal was not achieved. He attributes this failure to lack of political commitment, poverty and the impact of HIV/AIDS.

He acknowledges that provision of health care has been reduced as governments privatise services. He says, "delegates at Alma-Ata could not have anticipated today's complex service delivery landscape in which non-governmental organisations and the private sector operate in the gap left by states' withdrawal from healthcare provision-a withdrawal often encouraged by international financial institutions and interests uncritically supportive of healthcare provision."

While the report tries to put the most positive gloss possible on these disastrous figures, and the WHO has announced yet new health goals, there is no strategy for reversing a growing trend toward rising mortality rates in the world's poorest countries. It is a trend that arises not from the failure of this or that government or the inadequacies of some particular health initiative, but from a long term and systematic assault on the living standards of the vast majority of the world's population by a tiny minority of the obscenely wealthy and the giant corporations they run. In a period when medical technology and public health measures could ensure an increasing life span for evermore people, the figures published in the WHO report are a damning indictment of an economic system and a social order that is costing the lives of millions.

To fight this blacklisting:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World Health Report: Life expectancy falls in poorest countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Barry Mason 12 January 2004 Stark global inequalities in health are revealed in the latest World Health Organisation (WHO) report. World Health Report 2003 highlights "the slowing of gains and the widening of health gaps." A baby girl born in Japan can expect to live to 85 years of age, have sufficient food, vaccinations and a good education.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Most Efficient Healthcare Systems in the World

# data[].attributes.subject
The Most Efficient Healthcare Systems in the World

# data[].attributes.body
Alyssa Bloomer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As supporters and opponents of the Affordable Care Act debate the best way to overhaul a clearly broken health care system, it's perhaps helpful to put American medicine in a global perspective.

The infographic below is based on a recent Bloomberg ranking of the most efficient countries for health care, and highlights enormous gap between the soaring cost of treatment in the U.S. and its quality and effectiveness. To paraphrase Ricky Ricardo, the American health care system has a lot of 'splainin' to do.

It's remarkable how low America places in health care efficiency: among the 48 countries included in the Bloomberg study, the U.S. ranks 46th, outpacing just Serbia and Brazil. Once that sinks in, try this one on for size: the U.S. ranks worse than China, Algeria, and Iran.

But the sheer numbers are really what's humbling about this list: the U.S. ranks second in health care cost per capita ($8,608), only to be outspent by Switzerland ($9,121) -- which, for the record, boasts a top-10 health care system in terms of efficiency. Furthermore, the U.S. is tops in terms of health care cost relative to GDP, with 17.2 percent of the country's wealth spent on medical care for every American.

In other words, the world's richest country spends more of its money on health care while getting less than almost every other nation in return.

It's important to note that this data doesn't necessarily reflect the best health care in the world; it is simply a measure of overall quality as a function of cost. Bloomberg explains its methodology as such:

Each country was ranked on three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60%), relative per capita cost of health care (30%); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10%). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost per capita as a percentage of GDP per capita. Absolute cost is total health expenditure, which covers preventive and curative health services, family planning, nutrition activities and emergency aid. Included were countries with populations of at least five million, GDP per capita of at least $5,000 and life expectancy of at least 70 years.

So what can the U.S. learn from the many countries that get more bang for their health care buck? Unsurprisingly, there is no one formula for success when it comes to efficient medical care. The systems that rank highly on Bloomberg's list are as diverse as the nations to which they belong. The unifying factor seems to be tight government control over a universal system, which may take many shapes and forms -- a fact evident in the top-three most efficient health care systems in the world: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan.

Ranking third on Bloomberg's list, the Japanese system involves universal health care with mandatory participation funded by payroll taxes paid by both employer and employee, or income-based premiums by the self-employed. Long-term care insurance is also required for those older than 40. As Dr. John W. Traphagan notes in The Diplomat, Japan controls costs by setting flat rates for everything from medications to procedures, thus eliminating competition among insurance providers. While most of the country's hospitals are privately owned and operated, the government implements smart regulations to ensure that the system remains universal and egalitarian.

Meanwhile, Singapore's health care system is largely funded by individual contributions, and is often hailed by conservatives as a beacon of personal responsibility. But as conservative David Frum notes, the system is actually fueled by the invisible hand of the public sector: individuals are required to contribute a percentage of their monthly salary based on age to a personal fund to pay for treatments and hospital expenditures. In addition, the government provides a safety net to cover expenses for which these personal savings are inadequate. Private health care still plays a role in Singapore's system, but takes a backseat to public offerings, which boast the majority of doctors, nurses, and procedures performed.

Despite being considered by some as having the freest economy in the world, Hong Kong's universal health care system involves heavy government participation; its own health secretary calls public medicine the "cornerstone" of the system. Public hospitals account for 90 percent of in-patient procedures, while the numerous private options are mostly used by the wealthy.

All this government care isn't taking much of a bite out of the state's bustling economy: According to Bloomberg, Hong Kong spends just 3.8 percent of GDP on health care per capita, tied for the third-lowest among nations surveyed and good for the most efficient health care system in the world.

For the rest of the top-ten most efficient health care systems, check out the slideshow below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
INFOGRAPHIC: The Most Efficient Health Care In The World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As supporters and opponents of the Affordable Care Act debate the best way to overhaul a clearly broken health care system, it's perhaps helpful to put American medicine in a global perspective. The infographic below is based on a recent Bloomberg ranking of the most efficient countries for health care, and highlights enormous gap between the soaring cost of treatment in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
This video explains how a lack of healthcare in poor countries results in lower life expectancy rates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The reality of healthcare in developing countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Would you take your child to a 'quack' doctor for treatment? See why public health services are desperately needed in India. Find out more: http://is.gd/kXE0

# data[].attributes.body
As medicine has become more advanced over the years, the life expectancy in the U.S. has also increased

# data[].attributes.body
Alyssa Bloomer