ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Fact-checking Rudy's cancer numbers

Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:47 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ’s Matthew E. Berger
On its face, the numbers are startling. According to the latest Giuliani campaign radio ad, the survival rate for prostate cancer is almost twice as high in the United States as it is in Great Britain. But cancer experts suggest the numbers used by the Giuliani campaign are out of date and misleading.
 
“My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82 percent,” Giuliani says in the ad, now running in New Hampshire. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine.”
 
The Giuliani campaign cites City Journal, a conservative quarterly magazine, as its source. The journal’s Web site describes it as “the nation’s premier urban-policy magazine” and says it served as an “idea factory” during Giuliani’s tenure as New York City mayor. It’s an arm of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.
 
The fact came from an article this summer entitled, “The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care.” It says that the prostate cancer survival rate is 81.2 percent in the United States, 61.7 percent in France and 44.3 percent in England. But author David Gratzer doesn’t provide a source for those numbers. His office said they got the numbers from a 2000 Commonwealth Fund report.
 
The British government’s National Statistics Web site lists prostate cancer survival from 1999 to 2004 at 74.4 percent. The American Cancer Society says 99.9 percent of Americans survive prostate cancer.
 
Cancer experts say survival rates may also not be the best indicator because there is more prostate screening in the United States than the United Kingdom. Survival rates show the percentage of people who are living five years after diagnosis, whereas mortality rates show the number of people who actually die from the disease.
 
Age-standardized prostate cancer mortality rates are 15.4 per 100,000 people in the United Kingdom and 12.0 per 100,000 in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society.

“The former New York City mayor is an avid reader of City Journal and found the passage in the article himself,” says Giuliani campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella. “He cited the statistics at a campaign stop, and the campaign used a recording from that appearance in the radio advertisement.

“The citation is an article in a highly respected intellectual journal written by an expert at a highly respected think tank which the mayor read because he is an intellectually engaged human being.”

*** UPDATE*** Dr. Patrick Walsh, a prostate cancer expert from Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, said there is no doubt that screening and treatment for prostate cancer in the United States is better than in England, but said the numbers don’t tell the whole story.

"I don’t know where Giuliani got those numbers,” said Walsh, a university distinguished service professor of urology. “You can’t exactly compare death rates” because many prostate cancer patients technically die of pneumonia.

Walsh said that when he travels to England, he sees patients frustrated with the level of national care.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Another gigantic lie by a republican, surprise surprise.
Just because it has been written does not mean it is true. What are the AMA stats? I would be more inclined to belive the AMA than a think tank and would even view those stats as suspect.
Nice work! That's a fact check that warms a wonk's heart.

Bonus points: will the lede the next time Giuliani repeats these numbers be "Rudy Giuliani continued to use outdated, misleading statistics that make the survival gap between the US and Britain seem larger than it really is"? Or will it just make Ted Koppel's head hurt?
He is using post 9/11 math.
It will be funny to think six months from now, about how he was the leading candidate for the republican nomination...


Van
The mysterious First Read fact check that only seems to surface on candidates other than Hillary.  No doubt another fax from the Clinton machine on their direct line to First Read asking to push this story.  First Read, if you are only selectively going to fact check please admit it.  I don't recall any statistics being quoted as "left leaning" when they come from places like Media Matters or other covert Clinton organizations.  Plus since you call Giuliani figures out of date and don’t offer something else it shows that rather than research the issue you are only pushing someone else’s propaganda.  Spare us!
You can only fact check Guliani, how about Hillary Clinton. Another media bias.
bb- I'm sure Rude would tell you that, since 9/11, we have 9/11 learned that, post 9/11, there are worse things, horrible 9/11 things, than the little lies, 9/11, that are necessary to protect our babies from fiery 9/11 type deaths and that if we, 9/11, give in to Uni9/11versal health care then we are 9/11 accomplices to the painful, horrific, mind scaring, 9/11 dismemberment burnings of our innocent 9/11 children.
Boo!
bb,

Surprisingly for Guliani, this is actually true.  New or newer, experimental care for chronic illness (cancer, heart disease, etc) is very rarely done under any kind of a single payer system, but these systems do a much better job of the routine kind of care that makes up the bulk of people's medical care.  This is why you will have Canadians/Europeans come to the U.S. for these types of treatments, and American's go to Canada to buy much cheaper prescription drugs.  Always a trade off.
Another lying repuke in a red dress. Sucking up to red states where he thinks all the stupid people there will believe his lies.  Well it worked for shrub. He forgot to say in his sucking up stance that only God can cure cancer.  That will cement his nomination!
I'm sure there would be some fact checking for Hillary Clinton if she had something that was worth fact checking about....

Other then Chinese dishwashers and money bundlers....
Hello!  This was all over the postings yesterday.  Rudy was in a prostate rage! He's typical republican! Making misleading statements, lies, and Rove style statements.
Thank you for fact checking and reporting it.  We need more of this on all of the politicians. Thank you again.

Just because he now knows the figures are wrong doesn't mean he won't continue to use them.

Lek & Not a Lemming, I don't think you have proof of that bias claim. That hasn't been my perception, but there has certainly been too little fact checking of all candidates and especially on the sitting president and his lackeys.
Somebody get Tootsie and the rest of the Republicans a dictionary -- or 'plain to them what "socialism" is and what it means.

There is not plans for socialism or socialist meds in the USA.  None.

Just more stupidy and BS from the GOP and it is time someone called them on it.
Does Rudy point out that someone who has no health insurance has an even lower survival rate? Rudy has excellent healthcare provided by the taxpayers.
"Walsh said that when he travels to England, he sees patients frustrated with the level of national care."

Amen to that.  A large number of my colleagues are former NHS doctors.  Although they praise the availability and efficiency of routine type of medical procedures (break your arm, sinus infection, etc.) you do not want to be on an NHS waiting list for, say, an organ transplant or to get an MRI.  When you listen to any politcian talk about health care, remember that there is always tension between cost, innovation, and availability.
Kudos for the fact check, MNSBC.  Please keep them up on both sides!
Let's take the "real" numbers, Britian 74.4 percent survival, America 99.9 percent survival. Yep, socialized medicine is better,,,,,if you want a 25% increase chance of death.
Rudy has no facts...he has fear and the easily conned will fall for it everytime
what would mr. guliani's chances of recovery be if he were un-insured and not wealthy in the u.s.?

 having good doctors and hospitals does not do one much good if you can not access them

 vote for change edwards 08
In related news:

Shortage turns Britons into Do-It-Yourself dentists

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL1610030720071016
geez, lying about dying... oops, that's the gop way
NAL & Lek,
Typical Conservative spin...Rudy got caught using numbers that don't make sense to a protate cancer expert, numbers that are at least 7 yrs. old and from a CONSERVATIVE quarterly magazine. That surely makes sense to rightwing nuts, but won't resonate with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. Sorry Rudy.
Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana

Gary-
Sorry I missed you Sunday. Sadly, we'll most likely have MORE opportunities to march against this stupid war.


Van
"He is using post 9/11 math.
It will be funny to think six months from now, about how he was the leading candidate for the republican nomination..."

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:00 PM)

Yet another thing we can agree on. Twice in one day; I am beginning to get a little worried.
"bb- I'm sure Rude would tell you that, since 9/11, we have 9/11 learned that, post 9/11, there are worse things, horrible 9/11 things, than the little lies, 9/11, that are necessary to protect our babies from fiery 9/11 type deaths and that if we, 9/11, give in to Uni9/11versal health care then we are 9/11 accomplices to the painful, horrific, mind scaring, 9/11 dismemberment burnings of our innocent 9/11 children.
Boo!"

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:06 PM)

Haha. I actually laughed out loud at that one.
Yes... the numbers being used by Giuliani are misleading... but any numbers used in this context will be in conflict with somebody elses numbers. So what?

Regardless... Giuliani is not a Republican... he's not a conservative and he will not win the GOP nomination... Giuliani is actually very much like Hillary when it comes to many social issues... the only big difference between the two... Giuliani actually wears womens' clothes!
Why can't we have the best of both worlds, a national heath care system for everyone and supplemental catastrophic health insurance which those who can afford it are welcome to buy and use. This will keep the costs down for the taxpayer and provide fast "Cadillac" expensive care for those who can afford it.
If you folks could read you'd see that he understated the figures for the USA.

"The British government’s National Statistics Web site lists prostate cancer survival from 1999 to 2004 at 74.4 percent. The American Cancer Society says 99.9 percent of Americans survive prostate cancer."

But don't let the facts get in the way. No wonder your party can't accomplish anythng. Someone UNDERstates something, and we get the "intellectuals" on here writing their "intelligent" posts like "another repuke in a red dress" and wannabe hippies who miss the 60s looking forward to more marches. It is to laugh.
Good thing Rudy has that great health insurance or the chance he would get those life saving drugs goes down dramatically...ever notice how the ones who try and make national healthcare equal to socialized medicine don't actually pay for their own healthcare? Yessirree they are welfare cases on their employers insurance
 vote for edwards or put up with rudy for four years.

 the choice is yours
It's for things like this that Giuliani loses two-to-one against Clinton in a new poll from New York: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/morning-polls-so-much-for-giulianis.html
  Toby Hill good stuff, I neeeded a good laugh. I was wondering who would be the first idiot republican to try to use these numbers for political gain. What about the 1/5 of our population that do not have health coverage. We cure 99.9 % of people that have health care coverage. Can you quote me how many americans died  that had no health coverage? Another question to all republican toadies, what do we do to people that need health care but have no coverage? WHAT DO WE DO TO THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE NO HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. Lock the emergency room doors if you have no coverage. The bottom line is I do not gives a rats ass about any cancer survival rates until all americans can at least have basic health care. Quote all the damn cancer facts you want, my first question back is, what do we do with the people without health coverage? What good is all the care in the world if you can not receive it. So all you idiot republicans that use cherry picked, outdated, and tainted facts to justify what, not covering all americans. Why do you blindly support the rich. It's alright for the rich to get the best care in the world but not the poor. I really love the compassion oozing out of these compassionate conservatives.
Did'nt Rudy get health insurance through the government of New York City for his treatment?
If Socialized Medicine or some form of goverment managed health care is so bad, why haven't these democratic countries adopted our wonderful system?All of Western Europe considers health care a right of their citizens,yet we run it as medicine for profit.You are not talking about shopping for a car here, you are talking about peoples' lives!Rudy twists the numbers to scare the public.Maybe he is a real republican.The politics of fear is their forte. I trust the government more then the health insurance companies.
Rudy the lying rat might have an 82% chance, with his excellent health care plan, but a person without health care sure don't have that good a chance.
My $0.02 on how to fix health care in this country, in order. Something to offend everyone!

1.  Computerized medical records.  A large portion of medical costs come from duplicate procedures.  A nationwide, computerized database of patient's medical records could cut down on this.  Obama, Clinton, and Edward have all rightly spoken about this as a way of controlling costs.

2.  Don't pay for medical mistakes or per-procedure.  Insurance should pay for a course of treatment in its totality, not every band-aid used.  Sen. McCain spoke about this.

3.  Caps on malpractice lawsuit payouts.  More and more doctors are closing up shop because they simply can't pay the malpractice insurance premiums.  Tort reform that caps the amount malpractice attorneys can make from any settlement.

4.  Subsidized medical school/nursing school tuition.  When every doctor comes out of medical school $250,000 in debt, they have a pressing incentive to (over)charge for basic procedures and perform unneccessary procedures.

5.  Risk pricing.  If you smoke, drink to excess, eat poorly, you are driving up everyone's costs, and should pay more.

6.  Means testing Medicare.  A non-trivial number of people can pay for there own medical insurance.  This should include retirees.

7.  Risk pooling:  Both your employer and you (if you can afford it, see #6) should pay into a national risk pool.

8.  Preventitive care:  Stop smoking programs, weight management programs, nutritionists, etc.  Will bring down costs over the long term.

9.  Medical tourism.  Some procedures can simply be done more cheaply overseas.  If we can fly someone to India (very good doctors) more cost-effectively than we can do it here, let's do it.  

10.  Allow anyone to enroll in Medicare on a means-tested basis.
vanreuter, NY NY
We'll be back.  It was quite a crowd. Quite a wet crowd. We got there pretty early and were toward the front. About midway we got on the side walk and watched the parade thinking you might walk by and see us. It was good to see blocks and blocks of people walk by and see them stretch as far as the eye could see down Broadway.
Did you see the guy with the big foam chicken that looked like Bush? I told him he wasn't being fair...
to chickens.
Next time, man.
Holy crap! I didnt know Rudy had a prostate, thought he was a woman.....
Could the 44.3 percent in England be the poor bastards under the national health care that can't afford to seek private care? Maybe a little fact check?
I would like to see all the candidates statements checked.  It would make sense to see if all of their statement were verified so all could see who made the least mistakes.  If they were spinning the numbers, that should be put in there as well.  I don't care which candidate it is; if they make a statement based on incorrect or misconstruded facts, nail them on it.  If I were to run for office (or be in office), it would hurt for a bit to be correct.  If it corrects wrong beliefs or bad policy, then it is for the best most times.
Nuanced, great suggestion and I believe that's exactly what we'll end up with once the insurance companies strangle the Golden Goose, sit down to a nice goose dinner, and bed down under a goose down comforter.  Congratulations conservatives, you found one statistic where the United States is somewhat better than some other countries.  Overall we're still the 37th best health care system and still pay  one third more than the next most expensive system.  And Giuliani exaggerating and misleading to make his point?  Business as usual for Rude E.
I recall reading reports of a recent study showing that the British are, on average, in far better health overall than Americans. What does that tell us about the relative merits of the two systems? About as much as Giuliani's cherry-picked slice of information.
"The British government’s National Statistics Web site lists prostate cancer survival from 1999 to 2004 at 74.4 percent. The American Cancer Society says 99.9 percent of Americans survive prostate cancer."

 your 99.9% is bogus, none the less what is the percentage of americans that survive prostate cancer who can't afford the treatment? this is the number of importance chiefy. 99.9% dead most likely. but I suppose that is acceptable since they were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth?
And your qualifications for being elected President of the United States: 0
nuanced, you continue to amaze me with your ability to see the nuances. Why can't American politics be as nuanced?

"Why can't we have the best of both worlds, a national heath care system for everyone and supplemental catastrophic health insurance which those who can afford it are welcome to buy and use." Makes too much sense.
Here's perspective:

The entire U.K. is no bigger than the state of Idaho

They eat differently.....Do they even have a overwhelming problem w/prostrate cancer (like the USA) or do they have to search for stats?

If you're even moved by this article you haven't thought it through!
Giuliani is on Hillary regarding Healthcare because even he knows --- IT'S TIME TO CHANGE OUR HEALTHCARE in this country.  On healthcare, the GOP should see this issue in the same light that I do....by having a national system, and no longer listing people on their credit report for "getting sick", and not being able to pay....this can only help the economy.  Think of the houses you can buy and the cars you can lease once your credit report is FREE of old medical bills.
I thought Bush was ignorant. Giuliani brings it to a whole new level. Please no more republicans....
Did'nt Rudy get health insurance through the government of New York City for his treatment?

ABSOLUTELY!! - he was Mayor at the time
What a hypocrite.  No way did he use his own money - unlike Bloomberg, who won't even live in Gracie Mansion or take a dime in salary from NY, cause he's rich enough not to live off taxpayers.  While Rudy's not in Mike's class (in ANY way), he certainly has enough to pay his own way, but surely did not while Mayor.  You almost couldn't get him out when his term was up!
I like the people who also quote "statistics" that the US survival rate isn't exactly something to brag about for THE 45 MILLION UNINSURED - of which Britain HAS NONE!
Forgot a few:

11. Reduced or no co-pays for yearly checkups/physicals.  Any ailment you might possibly have is cheaper when detected earlier.

12. Walk in clinics:  There is absolutely no reason why a qualified LPN or RN can't capably perform a host of procedures currently only we doctors are allowed to do, and for much less.

Adam Prussin, New York, N.Y.

"I recall reading reports of a recent study showing that the British are, on average, in far better health overall than Americans. What does that tell us about the relative merits of the two systems?"

Not very much actually.  You'll find the same discrepency between the US and almost any EU country.  In Europe, people tend to live much closer to work, shopping, school, etc, and simply walk to these places more, and get more exercise, thus they are healthier even though Europeans tend to smoke **much** more than Americans. I don't know if you've ever been to the UK, but the average refridgerator is very small in comparison to what you will find in the US.  People will shop for food more frequently, and thus purchase more fresh ingredients and more in-season produce and meats, rather than in the US where everything is packaged in plastic, irradiated, and covered in pesticides.  That stat is more reflective of simple zoning issues (local grocers in the EU vs. big-box grocery stores in the US.) than anything indicitive about the health system per se.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=438127

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google