How could you compare the health systems of the world in terms of outcomes with plausible verisimilitude, in other words by making assumptions that don’t just give you junk? I was sceptical when I read of this index, but think it’s a pretty good, though like any such exercise it’s not hard to see that it’s not perfect. Anyway, Bob Hahn and Peter Passell’s regulation2point0 newsletter drew my attention to this paper. And this is how they explain the methodology.
In order to provide a more precise measure of the outcomes that may legitimately be attributed to health care interventions, researchers have developed the concept of “mortality amenable to health care”. Amenable mortality is generally defined as premature deaths that should not occur in the presence of effective and timely care. It takes into account premature deaths for a list of diseases, for which effective health interventions are deemed to exist and might prevent deaths before a certain age limit (usually 75, though sometimes lower).