Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Precisely.

Average lifespan is a terrible metric for quality of healthcare. There are dozens of confounding factors that can reduce lifespan even in the presence of high quality healthcare.




A recent podcast I listened to highlighted the US‘ child mortality rate as an indicator for the quality of their health care system.


A podcast you say!

Child mortality is even worse. Not all countries count neonatal deaths the same. In many countries premature babies that die are "stillborn" and not counted.

In the US, very, very premature babies are resuscitated and if they pass away, are averaging "zero" into the stats. So in fact, aggressive medical care in neonates can actually make mortality measures worse.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4560894/

The popularity of the infant mortality indicator notwithstanding, international variations in birth registration laws and practices have the potential to bias comparisons of infant mortality. Problems can arise from differential registration of live births and stillbirths, especially births occurring at the borderline of viability (e.g., gestational age <22 weeks or a birth weight <500 grams, who typically do not survive the neonatal period), and/or their classification as stillbirths versus live births


Thanks for pointers. I was actually curious about this. Didn’t want to imply that child mortality is a better metric.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: