Health care systems are highly complex and require vast resources. Moreover, providing healthcare coverage to all citizens can be challenging for many countries. Different models and theories abound all over the world about how best to provide care and only the most developed countries have adequate resources to truly provide universal coverage to their citizens.
Looking at various systems around the world and how they came into existence provide useful comparisons and illuminate how different countries have responded to very similar needs of their citizens as well as how to mitigate limitations and marshal opportunities offered in the diversity of these systems (Johnson & Stoskopf, 2010). This paper analyzes several health systems throughout the world, specifically focusing on Japan, Australia, Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom and compares how these systems differ from those in the United States.
Is Universal Coverage the ‘Gold Standard’
Universal health systems with single payers were introduced by several countries of the world after World War II and sought to guarantee that all individuals received needed care. While a system that provides universal care that does not leave citizens uninsured or underinsured is alluring, the realities are sometimes a stark contrast when cost is controlled at the expense of access to care. Furthermore, “single-payer systems do not have built-in incentives to control costs. The great equalizer - market competition - is not present” (Litow, 2007, p. 18) and therefore, universal health care systems cannot be considered the benchmark – or ‘gold standard’ – by which the success of other systems are measured. Further examining the experiences of countries with national health systems “s...
... middle of paper ...
...ttp://www.amsa.org/programs/barriers/barriers.html
Johnson, J. & Stoskopf, C. (2008). Comparative health systems: Global perspectives for the 21st century. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Lauridsen, S. R., Norup, M. S., & Rossel, P. H. (2007). The secret art of managing healthcare expenses: investigating implicit rationing and autonomy in public healthcare systems. Journal Of Medical Ethics, 33(12), 704-707. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.018523
Litow, M. E. (2007). Confronting the fear factor: The coverage/access disparity in universal health care. Benefits Quarterly, 23(3), 17-21.
McLaughlin, C. & McLaughlin, C. (2008). Health policy analysis: An interdisciplinary approach. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Petrou, S., & Wolstenholme, J. (2000). A review of alternative approaches to healthcare resource allocation. Pharmacoeconomics, 18(1), 33-43.
An analysis of the US and Canada’s systems reveals advantages and drawbacks within each structure. While it is apparent that both countries could benefit from the adoption of portions of the others system, Canada’s healthcare system offers several benefits over the US system.
... of Health Care Systems, 2014: Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. (2015). Retrieved June 04, 2016, from http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2015/jan/international-profiles-2014
According to editorial one, universal health care is a right that every American should be able to obtain. The author provides the scenario that insurance companies reject people with preexisting conditions and that people typically wait to receive health care until it's too much of a problem due to the extreme costs. Both of these scenarios are common among Americans so the author uses those situations to appeal to the readers' emotions. Editorial one also includes logical evidence that America could follow Canada's and Europe's universal health care systems because both of those nations are excelling in it.
Shi L. & Singh D.A. (2011). The Nation’s Health. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Johnson, J.A. & Stoskopf, H. (2010). Comparative Health Systems: Global Perspectives: Global perspectives. Sudbury, MA. Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Longest Jr., B.B (2009) Health Policy making in the United States (5th Edition). Chicago, IL: HAP/AUPHA.
Reese, Philip. Public Agenda Foundation. The Health Care Crisis: Containing Costs, Expanding Coverage. New York: McGraw, 2002.
Universal health care refers to any system of health care managed by the government. The health care system may cover different programs including government run hospitals and health organizations and programs targeted at providing health care. Many developed countries such as Canada and United Kingdom have embraced universal health care with the United States being the only exception. The present U.S health care system has often been considered inefficient in terms of cost control as millions of Americans remain uncovered. This has made it the subject of a heated debate characterized by people who argue that the country requires a kind of socialized system that will permit increased government participation. Others have tended to support privatized health care, or a combined model of private and universal health care that will permit private companies to offer health care for a specific fee. Universal healthcare has numerous advantages that remain hidden from society. First, the federal government can apply economies of scale in managing health facilities which would reduce health care expenses. Second, all unnecessary expenses would be eliminated by requiring all states to bring together all the insurance companies into a single entity whose mandate would be to provide health insurance to all people. Lastly, increased government participation will guarantee quality care, improve access to medical services and address critical problems relating to market failure.
Despite the established health care facilities in the United States, most citizens do not have access to proper medical care. We must appreciate from the very onset that a healthy and strong nation must have a proper health care system. Such a health system should be available and affordable to all. The cost of health services is high. In fact, the ...
Universal healthcare: a term feared by many politicians due to the communist connotation, but is it really all that bad? Over 58 countries have some sort of universal health coverage, such as England and France, which have single payer healthcare, meaning the government provides insurance for all citizens and pays for all healthcare expenses. The United States of America has insurance mandated healthcare, meaning the government requires all citizens to purchase insurance, usually provided through their jobs. In America, over 45 million people are uninsured, 20,000 of whom will die by the end of the year, compared to England or France. All residents, legal or not, are covered.
The U.S. expends far more on healthcare than any other country in the world, yet we get fewer benefits, less than ideal health outcomes, and a lot of dissatisfaction manifested by unequal access, the significant numbers of uninsured and underinsured Americans, uneven quality, and unconstrained wastes. The financing of healthcare is also complicated, as there is no single payer system and payment schemes vary across payors and providers.
Barton, P.L. (2010). Understanding the U.S. health services system. (4th ed). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
Niles, N. J. (2011). Basics of the U.S. health care system. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
McLaughlin, C. & McLaughlin, C. (2008). Health Policy Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Everyone is always competing for the best health care. Different health care systems are different through out the world, but all with similar ideas of at least delivering some form of health care. Some countries in particular will be highly emphasized: Switzerland, United Kingdom, and Japan in how they work with cost, access, and quality with in the health care systems in their own countries.