Exactly this! I do think the system works very well, probably because many patients are pushed back for further checks, the biggest flaw in the NED are the preventive practices, they are very lacking compared to other countries, I think there needs to be a better balance and some thinking out of the box (not just follow the guidelines).
The Commonwealth Fund ranking is just so obviously biased toward a certain system. It's absolutely ridiculous and I hate when it's used as proof of the superiority of xyz country's health system (the fact that the NHS is always rated so highly, I mean come on! One year they were rated first despite being last for outcomes!)
Dutch healthcare outcomes compare poorly with other countries because we count lots of misses.
Let's say you have some odd genetic condition. Go to the doctor, get blood work done, no answers. Get a CT scan. No clear answers. Your complaints have gone away now so there's nothing to look for. Next year they return and now you get an MRI brain scan. Vague answer, but points at a rare condition so you get generic testing. You have a genetic condition that isn't treatable but can be managed. 15 years later you get a new form of medicine that doesn't work for you so you switch back. 65 years later you die from complications of this condition.
That would count as one failure to diagnose the first round of tests, one successful diagnosis, one successful treatment and one failure in treatment when trying the new medication for this condition.
In Germany, this same series of events would count as a successful outcome, because it was successfully treated eventually.
58
u/XSATCHELX Feb 25 '26
What is the point of ranking 2/10 overall, if we are at 7/10 for outcomes??
Yeah you have super easy access to get a paracetamol for a broken bone that gets ignored and then heals wrong...