Access to HealthCare in the United States - Research Paper Example

Access to HealthCare in the United s College: Access to HealthCare in the United s For any given country, access to health care is an important aspect of the social welfare. The health status of the populations is a priority for the government and the health indices are used to rate the performance of the government. The government is responsible for developing effective health policies that ensure that every person in the country has access to healthcare within the environment that they live in. The efficiency of the health and insurance policies and the availability of medical facilities determine the structure of the health system and the accessibility of health facilities. A modest health framework is one that remains dynamic and changes with the changing health needs of the population. For the purpose of this research, a comparative approach will be applied to rate the effectiveness of the health systems in United States. The United States healthcare system will be compared with that of UK and Canada. The government health policies in a country determine the efficiency of the healthcare system. In the United States, the government provides an integrated approach to medical care insurance. A combination of private and public insurance policies are available for the public and the have a liberal choice to select one or several that best suit their needs. In the UK, the National Hospital service programme provides the public with a free medical healthcare system that guarantees every patient the right to free health services. The UK government budget allocation to healthcare is greater than that of America by 8%. In Canada, the government instituted the Canada Health Act that demanded that all health services be government funded. In terms of funds allocation, the Canadian government spends a greater proportion of its income that either UK or US. In UK and US, healthcare is taxpayer funded and the policies strive to ensure that the rich take care of the expenses of the poor. This mechanism of funding is completely different from one used by Canada, where the government funds most the health budget (Ham, 2011). In this light, the health policies in US seem more hostile that those applied by both UK and Canada. The UK healthcare structure is divided into strategy, policy and management and the actual medical care sections. Again, the medical care section is divided into primary or community care, secondary and tertiary care. Both public and private health services have existed since the history of healthcare in this country. Just like in UK, both private and public health services are available for the citizens of Canada. In US, a more integrated structure exists and both government insurance policies, combined and private health care insurances exist. Medicare is the government insurance program that paid by payroll taxes and the eligibility is determined by the federal government. On the other hand, Medicaid is a combined health insurance that encompasses the federal and state government. Medicaid is funded by the state and federal taxes and some federal standards are applied when determining eligibility. Most of the healthcare providers in US, as opposed to UK, are private and there is insignificant federal presence in the health environment. In the UK, there is a balance between the private and public health providers, a situation that is completely different from that of US (Marchildon & European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2013). These different structures of health systems underpin the difference in the efficiency of healthcare systems in these countries. Owing from the different health structures in UK, US and Canada, there is a great variation in the outcome of the health systems. In the US, the Medicare facility seems to take care of the special needs of the population in the society. The eligibility criterion is strictly defined and allows only those who are defined as old and disabled in the US society. The Medicaid insurance is partially state and federally funded, and this gives the federal government the right to define the eligibility criteria (Musgrave, 2011). The citizens have the liberty to choose an insurance policy that satisfies their health but have to fund the services. Given that there is minimal government intervention, the private insurance policies are expensive making it hard for the citizens to afford. As such, many citizens who are economically disadvantaged find it almost impossible to afford these insurance policies. This has limited accessibility to healthcare services in the US as most people find it hard to pay for modest insurance policies. On the other hand, the UK government provides the people with a government funded insurance policy that provide each and every citizen with the right to access the social health. The health system structure allows every citizen to access healthcare not on the basis of their affordability but on the basis of citizenship. The National Hospital service is government funded and all citizens are eligible. However, the people have the right to access private hospitals, another alternative of healthcare, but in this case they have to meet their health expenses. The fact that the private health providers are expensive makes most citizens to prefer the NHS health program creating congestion in the public facilities. In this light, those who can afford find their way to the private hospitals to accord long queue evident in public health facilities. In Canada, the health system if government funded and serves more like the US system (Musgrave, 2011). Unlike US and UK, the Canada health system is more extensive and there adequate facilities to take of the public needs without there being any congestion. As such, the structure of the health system in Canada is more efficient than that of US and UK. National Health Indicators help to analyse the performance of health systems in different countries. In Canada, most people are able to acquire insurance coverage for other benefits that are not enforceable in the government Medicare policy. Statistics indicate that over 65% of the citizens are able to purchase the private insurance coverage. This is due to the fact that all other needs are taken care by the government and this makes these policies affordable. On the other hand, in US, the private insurance policies take care of 56% of the population. This low coverage is associated with the high costs charged by the private service providers. This indicates that most of the citizens in the US cannot afford medical services. In Canada, only 2% of the citizen population are registered in other insurance programs and private insurance policies are preferred for surgery and other serious diseases. Canada health system is rated as the best in the world while UK and the US follow in that order (Gillies, 2009). The low mortality rate and the high doctor patient ratio in Canada point out that their health system is better than that in US and UK. Another way to look at the performance of health policies within a country is to evaluate the citizen satisfaction. The citizens in any given country are satisfied if they have access to modest health care, they can afford it and that they receive quality services in the hospitals. Research shows that 87% of the Canadian population are satisfied with the health services they receive. In UK, 70 per cent consider the NHS systems as superior and feel that it is remains their favourite policy. In US, over 30% of the citizen population testify that the medical insurance policies are beyond their means and majority of them cannot afford them. As such, over 45% of the US citizens have opted to stay without the coverage of private policies (Glennerster & Lieberman, 2011). These statistics point out that the Canada health system is the most satisfying followed by the UK system, with US system being the last in the list. UK is one of the countries that have strived to reform their health system in the recent past. In 2013, the UK government allowed private practitioners to provide health services as long as they meet the standard by the NHS program. This aims at increasing the accessibility to health care on behalf of the citizens. The US government has remained static and always defended their health care system without considering reform. Although Barack Obama has proposed several amendments, the changes are still to take place and the government refuses to adopt the NHS facility that has proved superior in the UK. The Canadian health system has evolved and seems to be satisfactory so far (Marchildon & European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2013). There have been no major reforms in their health system. In conclusion, a close evaluation of the health systems in US, Canada and UK reveals that US health system is still lagging. As compared to UK and Canada, the US health system is unaffordable to due to the high cost that the private insurance policy provides charge the citizens. Consequently, most citizens cannot afford these services and prefer to remain uncovered. The US health system has a lot to borrow from the Canada health system that is government funded and provides primary, secondary and tertiary health care services to its population. Also, the US government should increase their health sector budgetary allocation like the UK has done to make their health services more affordable for the citizens. References Glennerster, H., & Lieberman, R. C. (2011). Hidden Convergence: Toward a Historical Comparison of U.S. and U.K. Health Policy. Journal Of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 36(1), 5-31. doi:10.1215/03616878-1191090 Gillies, A. (2009). What makes a good healthcare system?: Comparisons, values, drivers. Abingdon, U.K: Radcliffe Medical Press. Ham, C., (2011). Money Can’t Buy Satisfaction. British Medical Journal, 330(7491), 597- 599. Marchildon, G. P., & European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. (2013). Health systems in transition: Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Musgrave, F. W. (2011). The economics of U.S. health care policy: The role of market forces. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. Read More