How do you fix this problem, though? Unless the claim is that the triage system is flawed (i.e. patients are being treated in the wrong order, and patients who don't need treatment are using resources that should go to these other patients), the only way to reduce these numbers would be to increase the number of doctors/hospitals/etc to cover the shortfall.
While it might seem like you should obviously spend more if you can save lives, there is obviously a trade off... how many of those people would have died with treatment anyway, and what would you give up if you spent more money on health care?
By itself, this data doesn't tell us if anything is being done wrong here. It could be that the triage system is perfect, and these people who are dying were on waitlists because they couldn't be saved by treatment anyway.
I know there is a gut instinct that we should spend whatever it takes to save every single life, but there has to be limits. Is spending 100 million dollars for a 5% chance to save a 60 year old worth it? It sounds horrible to ask the question, but it has to be asked.
So first, obviously waitlists beyond something like a week mean the capacity of the medical system is insufficient. Apparently some waitlists are 9 years long, and the average waitlist is 30 weeks, or more than 7 months.
The problems also aren't limited to people dying, there are other problems that have worse outcomes due to delay. Once cataract leads to blindness, for example, odds of fixing it plummet. That blindness is easily preventable. But above all many cases of permanent, preventable, pain. Or, cancer becomes less treatable the longer diagnosis takes, and this is especially bad in younger people.
Also waitlists have been growing for over 15 years, indicating that not only is medical capacity insufficient, the problem is getting worse every year. So increasing spending to the point it stops getting worse seems like the bare minimum that should be done. I'd say that's the answer to your question of how to fix it.
> waitlists beyond something like a week mean the capacity of the medical system is insufficient
It means that the medical system doesn't have unlimited money/resources.
Voters hate reality: medical systems grow to take as much resources as you can give them. Waiting lists are often accepted in situations where a dollar limit is disliked.
Noone wants to say what a life or procedure is worth, yet a medical system has to indirectly do so because of finite resources (taxation, insurance premiums, donations).
While it might seem like you should obviously spend more if you can save lives, there is obviously a trade off... how many of those people would have died with treatment anyway, and what would you give up if you spent more money on health care?
By itself, this data doesn't tell us if anything is being done wrong here. It could be that the triage system is perfect, and these people who are dying were on waitlists because they couldn't be saved by treatment anyway.
I know there is a gut instinct that we should spend whatever it takes to save every single life, but there has to be limits. Is spending 100 million dollars for a 5% chance to save a 60 year old worth it? It sounds horrible to ask the question, but it has to be asked.