Not the best time for a parallel coordinate plot . . . but it’s not actually so bad here

Ben Hyde and Aleks both sent me this:


The graph isn’t as bad as all that, but, yes, a scatterplot would make a lot more sense than a parallel coordinate plot in this case. Also, I don’t know how they picked which countries to include. In particular, I’m curious about Taiwan. We visited there once and were involved in a small accident. We were very impressed by the simplicity and efficiency of their health care system. France’s system is great too, but everybody knows that.

6 thoughts on “Not the best time for a parallel coordinate plot . . . but it’s not actually so bad here

  1. I like the chart.

    3 dimensional scatter plots are not easy to read.

    Perhaps a scatter plot where the points are bubbles representing the number of doc visits?

  2. I wasn't suggesting a 3-D scatterplot. I was suggesting a 2-D scatterplot, with lifespan on one axis and spending on the other.

  3. Doubly fair comparisons are likely more than doubly hard to make.

    Some methodological work has been done on causal inference in cost/benifit analyses (aka health economic analysis), but likely more is needed.

    Here the apparent dramatic differences in outcomes and costs might make conclusions less tenuous, but getting a fair comparison is going to require substaintial methodological work if not development.


  4. I'd recommend use log cost not cost and equalizing some measure of variation(such as standard deviation) for the two measures. Now cost varies a lot more (spatially) than life expectancy.

Comments are closed.