title: Questioning the claims from Kaiser.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The article by Feachem et al, published in the BMJ in 2002, claimed to show that, compared with the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS), the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in the United States (US) has similar healthcare costs per capita, and performance that is considerably better in certain respects.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the accuracy of Feachem et al's comparison and conclusions.
  
  
  METHODS
  Detailed re-examination of the data and methods used and consideration of the 82 letters responding to the article.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Analyses revealed four main areas in which Feachem et al's methodology was flawed. Firstly, the populations of patients served by Kaiser Permanente and by the NHS are fundamentally different. Kaiser's patients are mainly employed, significantly younger, and significantly less socially deprived and so are healthier. Feachem et al fail to adjust adequately for these factors. Secondly, Feachem et al have wrongly inflated NHS costs by omitting substantial user charges payable by Kaiser members for care, excluding the costs of marketing and administration, and deducting the surplus from Kaiser's costs while underestimating the capital charge element of the NHS budget and other costs. They also used two methods of converting currency, the currency rate and a health purchasing power parity conversion. This is double counting. Feachem et al reported that NHS costs were 10% less per head than Kaiser. Correcting for the double currency conversion gives the NHS a 40% cost advantage such that per capita costs are 1161 dollars and 1951 dollars for the NHS and Kaiser, respectively. Thirdly, Feachem et al use non-standardised data for NHS bed days from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, rather than official Department of Health bed availability and activity statistics for England. Leaving aside the non-comparability of the population and lack of standardisation of the data, the result is to inflate NHS acute bed use and underestimate the efficiency of performance by at least 10%. Similar criticisms apply to their selective use of performance measures. Finally, Feachem et al claim that Kaiser is a more integrated system than the NHS. The NHS provides health care to around 60 million people free at the point of delivery, long-term and psychiatric care, and continuing care after 100 days whereas Kaiser provides care to 6 million people, mainly employed and privately insured. Important functions, such as health protection, education and training of healthcare professionals, and research and development are not included or properly costed in Feachem et al's integrated model.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We have re-examined the statements made by Feachem et al and show that the claims are unsupported by the evidence. The NHS is not similar to Kaiser in coverage, costs or performance.
authors.affiliation: Public Health Policy Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London, London.
authors.forename: Alison
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Talbot-Smith
authors.forename: Shamini
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Gnani
authors.forename: Allyson M
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Pollock
authors.forename: Denis Pereira
authors.initials: DP
authors.lastname: Gray
mesh_terms: D000367:Age Factors; D002140:California; D006279:Health Maintenance Organizations / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards*; D006291:Health Policy; D006296:Health Services / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D011787:Quality of Health Care; D013222:State Medicine / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards*; D006113:United Kingdom