News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why a Health Program That Works in America Failed in Britain by pjc50 on Saturday October 24, 2015 @10:27AM (#10443683)
Lede is buried in the middle:

One reason the U.K. results were so lackluster might be that the Lancet study compared home-visiting to “usual care,” or the health care new moms would receive anyway. But since the U.K. has universal health care and the U.S. does not, it could be that there was less of a difference between the two British groups than the two American ones.

Re:Why a Health Program That Works in America Failed in Britain by sago on Saturday October 24, 2015 @10:45AM (#10443735)
Also

most of the American studies on NFP were conducted by the program’s own developer

Re:Why a Health Program That Works in America Failed in Britain by mike_hearn on Saturday October 24, 2015 @10:54AM (#10443765)
Scientifically, it’s not ideal to have the same person who came up with a program trying to determine whether the program is any good.

Not ideal?

This is a great example of the use of understatement if there ever was one. I'd say such a conflict of interest would put the credibility of the entire study at risk.

Re:Why a Health Program That Works in America Failed in Britain by mrweasel on Saturday October 24, 2015 @11:55AM (#10443944)
Also important

>The study also focused on young moms, using their youth as a proxy for low income, so its subjects might have been less disadvantaged than their American counterparts to begin with.

The article does mention that similar programs did show good results in the Netherlands and Germany (if at a smaller scale than in the US). I don't think the article really answer the question it raises. It seems odd that you would keep smoking or drink just because you have universal healthcare. It that was the case it would indicate that we care more about our finances that our health (which might be true).