Polls Are Probably Inaccurate. Are Surveys Any Better?

Polls Are Probably Inaccurate. Are Surveys Any Better?

By

Leonard Zwelling

The news media cannot get enough of presidential polls in the run up to the actual election. Much is being made now that Vice President Harris has surpassed Mr. Trump’s previous lead over President Biden in a number of battleground states. But is this a reflection of events on the ground? Who knows?

Polls are notoriously error-prone. Even when they report out their results there are significant error bars around those results. Thus, Ms. Harris’ lead of four points in many of these battleground states is actually within the margin of error and thus, pretty meaningless.

This got me to thinking about all of the surveys to which Dr. Pisters submits the MD Anderson including the US News and World Report annual places for cancer care which MD Anderson has led for the past many years. Much is made of the Anderson “winning” in this and other nationwide surveys. But what does any of it mean for an individual patient? Nothing.

Here’s what I believe.

I believe that MD Anderson’s long history of cancer care sets it apart automatically from most other providers of cancer care. It’s been in the business for 80 years. Many innovations have come from Anderson over the years and people like J Freireich, Mickey LeMaistre, and John Mendelsohn have set the bar very high at the institution. That carries over into the polls and surveys taken today and affects what people say when they respond to the surveys.

What I really want to know is how easy is it to get seen at Anderson? Are the results of Anderson care really better than those elsewhere? Are patients treated personally with more consideration at Anderson?

I know it is a challenge to get seen at Anderson for a host of reasons from busy clinicians, multi-layered entry points, and the difficulty of assessing any prospective patient over the phone. Doctor-to-doctor consults are still the best way to get in.

Are the results of care at Anderson better than elsewhere?

My guess is that they are because I believe that Anderson has the best cancer surgeons, best radiotherapists, and best experimental medical oncologists around. The latter group also prides itself with having access to all of the latest drugs for any malignant disease. However, I have no data. I’d like to see such data if anyone has it. What percentage of patients that come to Anderson are better off for having come and what did MD Anderson uniquely contribute to the better outcome? Does anyone know?

Finally, I am quite sure that patients treated at Anderson feel better about how they are cared for because of the caring attitude of everyone who works there.

Like political polls, any survey of a medical facility is only a snapshot of the moment of the questions being posed and is greatly influenced by feelings as much as by data. Polls and surveys are subjective instruments with subjective results. It’s political science, not hard science.

Wise political analysts put limited credence in political polls. They are error-prone and selective. Have you ever given your opinion to a pollster? I may have just once. Who really gets asked? Who answers?

In these surveys of the quality of health care at various medical institutions, the data used are provided by the institutions and may or may not reflect reality. I wouldn’t put much stock in such surveys.

Polls and surveys are fine at what they do. They glean data of a less than objective nature and try to paint a picture of reality. In elections, there is only one poll that counts—the results on election day. As for health care institutions, the only things that matter are the experience of the individual patient and the degree to which the natural history of his or her disease was altered by the doctors at the institution. I don’t think US News and World Report really captures that. I’m not sure any survey does.