They fail to note in the abstract that most people suffering from prostate cancer are on Medicare, the United States' single-payer system (more than 8 of 10 men with prostate cancer are over 65, I believe) I wonder how they identified breast cancer victims who lack health insurance and never visited a doctor to get a checkup or screening.
Anyway this will go into the "toxic sludge is good for you" category of "research", IMO.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15213.pdf
Samuel H. Preston, Jessica Y. Ho NBER Working Paper No. 15213 Issued in August 2009 NBER Program(s): AG HC
The NBER Bulletin on Aging and Health provides summaries of publications like this. You can sign up to receive the NBER Bulletin on Aging and Health by email.
Life expectancy in the United States fares poorly in international comparisons, primarily because of high mortality rates above age 50. Its low ranking is often blamed on a poor performance by the health care system rather than on behavioral or social factors. This paper presents evidence on the relative performance of the US health care system using death avoidance as the sole criterion. We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases
than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system.