Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
I have my reservations about the wording of the title of this
article. First of all: the use of the adjective "efficient". Efficient is
used to describe the act of performing or functioning in the best possible
manner, and indeed with the least waste of time and effort. So, despite that it
appears that the term cost-effectiveness and efficiency are inter-exchanged, probably they should not be.
Moreover, quality of life and morbidity cannot be neglected and data may
differ from those of mortality.
Secondly, quoting the paper verbatim: "With regard to the 'better than
expected' UK clinical outcomes, it must not be forgotten that despite the
UK having among the biggest reductions in mortality, UK 'adult' rates are
fifth highest among Western countries and their 'older' rates sixth
highest, so there can be no grounds for complacency...".
It seems to me that what can be said on the basis of the study is that
where there is a universal, public, healthcare cover the Authors found
better results in terms of mortality reduction among the Countries under