Analysis of Healthcare Systems in The United States - Essay Example

Analysis of Healthcare System in The United s of America as Compared to Healthcare Systems in the United Kingdom (UK), Netherlands and Canada. Name Institution Date Abstract Many critics of the U.S healthcare systems look at models of other countries as perfect models of healthcare systems that the U.S should adopt (Tanner, 2008). Other countries spend much less compared to the USA’s expenditure on provision of healthcare services. However, a detailed analysis reveals that virtually all countries have healthcare systems that are struggling with maintaining the rising costs, inaccessibility of healthcare facilities as well as issues to do with financiers of their respective systems (Tanner, 2008). This paper analyzes the healthcare system of the United States of America and how it is delivered to its citizens while addressing the increasing costs of healthcare and healthcare system funding in comparison to the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada. Analysis of Healthcare Systems in The United States as Compared to Healthcare Delivery in the United Kingdom (UK), Netherlands and Canada. United States The United States healthcare system sees patients paying for services received from doctors. Tanner (2008) argues that this trend is an indicator that the U.S healthcare system is private-based; with insurance plans covering an approximated 85% of the whole population. In the U.S private insurance companies’ principal aim is to provide insurance cover to clients who pay monthly fee for the service, and consequently, the private company pays the client doctor for services rendered (Daschle, 2008). Clients pay in accordance with the risk they are keen to insure. Thus, for example, if a client pays less for an expense, then the company will charge more for the insurance, and similarly, if the client pays more for the same expense, then the insurance company will charge less for the insurance (Tanner, 2008). In the U.S, quite a small percentage of the population accounts for their own insurance, instead, most of the employers are charged with the responsibility to pay for worker’s insurance; a fee usually considered as an employment benefit that adds up to the employee’s salary. In addition, the government provides insurance cover via allocation of funds from the budget to healthcare activities. Furthermore, Tanner (2008) affirms that Medicaid, funded by both taxes by the state and federal government, accounts for the less privileged and those unable to afford insurance. On the other hand, Medicare, funded by federal income taxes, accounts for insurance cover for children and the ageing population. The United States is believed to have the most expensive healthcare system among the developed nations. The advantage is that the accessibility of healthcare has been made easy with the integration of technology which allows for patients to receive prescriptions online and other medical assistance at any time of their convenience. United Kingdom The UK employs the National Health Service system in delivering of its medical services to the citizens; a system that is highly centralized and pays directly for healthcare services (Tanner, 2008). The government funds the system via general tax revenues. Apart from minor copayments involving drug prescriptions, dental care and optician services, UK citizens or rather patients do not pay directly for their healthcare (Tanner, 2008). This single-payer system assumes all nurses and physicians are employees of the government. The key implication of this system is long queues since most of the people opt for medication regardless of the severity of the illness; hence resulting in patient jams at various healthcare facilities. To control this scenario of jams for diagnostic patients, the government formulated a plan to ensure diagnostic testing wait period did not exceed 18 weeks (Tanner, 2008). It then put in place measures to see coronary heart patients with more than 6 months of waiting time be offered four other alternatives (Tanner, 2008). Accessibility of healthcare services has hugely been stepped up with development of mobile clinics to attend to needs of patients from their location of choice at different places across the country. In addition, Daschle, (2008) asserts that technological advancement has largely eased the access of healthcare services via availability of electronic patient records to help patients with medical prescriptions and treatment. Netherlands The Netherlands has employed a system that is administered socially and receives funds from private health insurance, the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act and sickness funds. Sickness funds account for about 62% of the population, and the rest acquires private insurance (Kirkman-Liff, 1991). Contributions from employers, employees, unemployment funds and retirement funds as well as the general funding of the state go in supporting the sickness funds. When purchasing an insurance cover, the cost of the cover is heavily dependent on the sex and age of the client. In addition, the employer also contributes some amount to the insurance cover in cases where the client is employed. Furthermore, the cost of maternal care, long-term care, and children’s healthcare services are accounted for by the Exceptional Medical Services Act which receives support for its funds from binding contributions by the employees and government contributions (Kirkman-Liff, 1991). Doctors are, in most cases, family doctors or specialists and are paid for their services by private insurers or sickness funds. In the Netherlands, a doctor is the one to decide when a patient is to visit a specialist. Hospitals in the Netherlands are non-profit and receive annual funding from sickness funds and private insurers in their region (Tanner, 2008). In most cases, accessing healthcare facilities in rural areas is quite a task but urban population has easy access to healthcare services owing to improved infrastructure and developed technology. Canada Just like the U.S, Canada is a capitalist country whose healthcare system implements the fee-for-service system in delivering medical care to the citizens, only that government entities oversee the administration of the plan (Tanner, 2008). This system enables a universal coverage of the country’s healthcare services as well as ensuring there is coverage for citizens in all ten provinces. In Canada, Tanner (2008) asserts that most of the healthcare costs are accounted for by provincial governments via subscriber premiums and taxes together with additional funding sourced by the government through funds and grants’ transfer system generated from revenues collected from taxing of both personal and corporate income. A perfect example is where all residents of Ontario are subject to partaking in healthcare activities regardless of their age, financial and health status. Furthermore, taxation of employees’ accounts forms 13% of the system’s total expenditure while the rest of the province’s contribution is generated from general taxation (Tanner, 2008). The plan incorporates a number of benefits, for instance, office services and home treatment for doctors and patients respectively, but takes no account for dental care, cosmetic surgery as well as drugs taken while at home. Furthermore, payment of doctors is based on the established agreement between association of doctors and provincial governments. This ensures the government maintains a close monitoring and approval of all the expenses with respect to healthcare expenditures (Tanner, 2008). The accessibility of healthcare services is a problem in the countryside owing to poor infrastructure. Healthcare services can only reach those areas via seminars and camps organized by healthcare organizations so as to address healthcare issues. On the other hand, the internet and related technology has significantly shaped accessibility of many other healthcare facilities since virtually all the information about a patient and their disorders is available online, and in the databases of healthcare centers making it easy for access of services from any location. Conclusion Each country runs a healthcare system that is unique with respect to its conditions, history, national character and politics (Iglehart, 1992). With a clear view of healthcare systems in other countries, the healthcare system of the U.S is in deep problems that require immediate attention. The high cost of healthcare services limits the abilities of some Americans to pay (Anderson and Sotir, 2001). The U.S is best known for provision of quality healthcare, but the care is unevenly distributed; hence not all U.S citizens receive the care they deserve. Evidently, the U.S needs more of pro-market reforms to address these issues rather than increased government control (Iglehart, 1992). References Anderson, G. & Sotir, P.H. (2001). Comparing health system performance in OECD countries, Health Affairs 20.3, pp. 219-232. Daschle, T. (2008). Critical: what we can do about the health care crisis, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Iglehart, J. K. (1992). The American health care system. New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 2-7. Kirkman-Liff, B. L. (1991). Health insurance values and implementation in the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany. Journal of the American Medical Society, 265: 24-2502. Tanner, M. (2008). The grass is not always greener: A look at national health care systems around the world. 1-48. Read More