To ira glazer who wrote:
>The latest WHO world health report (2004) is available at:
.......
>But just to give you an idea, for the Americas, the only countries classified
>as having 'very low child and very low adult mortality' are
>Canada, the United States, and .... Cuba. These are the only countries in the
>Americas classified as 'developed' with regard to the irrelevant and frivolous
>parameters of child and adult mortality. Kind of gives a different twist to
>the orthodox economic meaning of 'development'.
>
>With regard to infant mortality and under-five mortality rates, the infant
>mortality rate in Cuba is 7 per 1000 live births, while the under-five rate is
>9 per 1000 live births -- the exact same as for that other impoverished,
>economically backward country, the United States of America.
Of course these are great, & beat into the ground figues from other countries. For example the Alma Alta Health Declaration "for all" - suggested dramatic cuts in IMR. These were by and large not achieved in many countries. But it should be considered what has the most impact on these particualr figures; & what these figures possibly not reflect. The contrast is really in my view between: (i) Prevention of disease (Which is what these figures mainly reflect); and (ii)Curative processes of health care delivery (Largely these are not reflected in this I think).
Of course (1) & (2) interact - eg: No obesity - lower rates of ischemic heart disease. But this is still an issue to consider in my view, for a fuller interpretation of Cuba's achievements in health care strides. It is also important overall, in planning (Yes that word Justin, I regret) strategies for health care delivery - 'biggest bang for health care $' etc. Hari