Should the future president be an expert in epidemiology?

The Washington Post ran a story today on Mr. Guiliani's claim that survival rates in the US for Prostate Cancer are higher than in Britain. In a post article titled "Guiliani is Still Standing by Questionable Figures" the claim is made that his ad contains erroneous figures. Fact is that survival rates in the US are marginally higher than in the UK. No one disputes that. The official number from the UK health secretary is "70% and rising" which is lower than the US rate of 82%. An OECD study showed a gap of 20 points (98-74%) The London Independent puts the numbers in clear focus "Comparisons between the UK and the US show a significantly better outlook for American patients, irrespective of what cancer they have. For some cancers the difference in survival rates can be enormous. The figures appear to show, for instance, that American men are twice as likely to survive for five years or more with prostate cancer than their British counterparts." The Boston Globe says, using the American Cancer Society as a source "Five-year survival rates were 95 percent in the U.S. and 60 percent in the United Kingdom, which includes Britain, in 1993-1995, the most recent time period with data to compare, the group said." One other source quotes the mortality rates - 15 per 100,000 in the UK and 12 in the US. So even among the experts there seem to be a lot of number floating around. One of the reasons for the higher cure rate in the US is a higher level of screening in the US, earlier detection means more cures.

But the purpose of the Post's article is not to get at the facts but rather to show up some more opinion. Guiliani's point about prostate cancer is his opposition to Hillarycare - single payer government run health care. An article in Medical News Today suggests that "At the moment, in the USA, as presidential elections loom there is a war of ideals(sic), with the Democrats pushing for universal health care and the Republicans wanting to keep healthcare cover in the private sector. " Ultimately political claims should be able to stand up to reasonable statistical review - and the way Guiliani used numbers here is questionable - but the point (that the US health system is better at diagnosing and treating his kind of cancer is correct.) That should be the real point here.