The US and Denmark Healthcare Systems - Essay Example

The US and Denmark Healthcare System Abstract Basic health care has become unaffordable in most homes; many have been turned away due to pre-existing medical conditions. Other individuals get their health insurance cancelled upon losing jobs. The crucial issues are portability, affordability and accessibility. The cost is higher than wages and inflation. In the US, many individuals afford insurance only when their employers subsidize it. Healthcare in Denmark is well accessed, absolutely free and of high quality. Like many other healthcare systems in Europe, Denmark’s health care system is seen to target chronic conditions mostly. Moreover, the health care system in Denmark has had a long tradition of the provision of public welfare including decentralized welfare administration. Hospitals in Denmark were financed by county taxes in collaboration with charitable donations, patient fees and most often by employers and poor relief. Unlike the US, Denmark has a social policy in health and child care, education and protection of the unemployed. In the US, in the health industry, the decentralized health insurance system has created an incentive for much innovation. On the other hand, Denmark has a nationalized health care system. Additionally, in the US, the cost of health care is rising at a rate higher than inflation and wages. This study analyses the healthcare systems between these two nations. Introduction A health care system is a network of facilities, agencies, organizations as well as trained personnel that are engaged in the provision of health care within a specified geographic area. This paper compares and contrasts the United States health care system to the Denmark health care system, identifying their current issues, pros and cons, comparing the uninsured and the role of government policies in each system. US Healthcare In the United States, campaigns for universal government-funded health care is said to have stretched for nearly a century on several occasions. Advocates strongly believed to be on the verge of defeat, but they were always defeated. Evolution of the efforts as well as reasons as to why they never succeeded made an intriguing lesson in the US history, character and ideology. The US government, unlike other countries took no action to be able to subsidize the voluntary funds or to make sick insurance company (Elhague, 2010). Matters were left by the federal government to the States where the States left them to voluntary and private programs. The country had voluntary funds which provided for members in case of sicknesses and death. However, no public or legislative programs were there. Opposition from doctors, insurance companies, business and labor also made a contribution in the failure of efforts to achieve the compulsory national health insurance. Attempts for public health reforms kept on failing. In 2012, according to the US census bureau, 47.9 million people representing a 15.4% of the US population were without health insurance. The US together with Mexico are the only members of the OECD that do not provide universal health care (Elhague, 2010). Current Issues in the US Healthcare Americans are well aware of the issues and problems with their current health system. Basic health care and health insurance have become unaffordable in most working families. Pre-existing medical conditions and illnesses have seen many individuals being turned away from the country’s insurance companies. Other individuals lose their health insurance upon losing jobs or when they get laid off from work. The most critical issues are affordability, portability and accessibility. The cost of health care in the US is rising at a rate higher than inflation and wages. Study results showed that health care premiums are increasing at a rate of 87%, whereas wages increase at a low rate of 3.5%. Many of the citizens afford insurance only when their employers subsidize it (Kovner, Knickman & Jonas, 2011). Another issue with the current US health care system is portability. The majority of its health insurance coverage has been tied to employment making it extremely disruptive and inefficient. It has been estimated that about 24 percent of the uninsured are as a result of changes in employment or losing jobs. Under the current private US health care system, the companies are profit-driven. Cost is the primary reason as to why individuals lack health insurance. Access to medical care such as immunizations, checkups, prescriptions and mental health care by the uninsured is therefore limited. Lack of accessibility has also affected children whereby the uninsured ones are at a greater risk of missing school days, perform poorly than the insured. Many children suffer from diseases such as Asthma but cannot afford treatment; others fail to afford recommended immunizations. Many children also get ear infections that lead to hearing loss due to lack of treatment (Kovner, Knickman & Jonas, 2011). Denmark Healthcare Denmark on the other hand, has had a long tradition of the provision of public welfare including decentralized welfare administration. Before the 18th century, most of the Danish people would rely on artisan masters and landowners whenever they fell ill. However, the situation changed when feudal social relations broke down while the power of central state increased. By the 19th century, responsibility for health care and poor relief passed through towns to countries. The first hospitals were built and by the end of the century, hospitals were available in most of Danish towns (Verbelen, 2007). The hospitals were financed by county taxes in collaboration with charitable donations, patient fees and most often by employers and poor relief. In the second half of the 19th century, the country was characterized by a high degree of activities in organizing. During this time, health insurance first developed where workers joined unions, cooperative producers’ organizations were established by farmers and other laborers organized themselves. Health insurance funds got established, providing members with financial assistance. Health insurance schemes could cover the insured as well as their children (Verbelen, 2007). Current Issues in the Denmark Healthcare Denmark, unlike America, has a social policy in health and child care, education and protection of the unemployed. These areas are part of a solidarity system that ensures nobody faces economic despair. The Danes pay high taxes and consequently enjoy quality life that most Americans would find impossible to believe. Danish minimum wage is almost twice of the US and Danes who cannot take care of themselves get a basic income guarantee of 100 US dollars per day. Unlike America where health care is costly, importable and inaccessible for most citizens, health care in Denmark is absolutely free and of high quality. Their health care system is popular with patients’ satisfaction that is much higher than in the US (Verbelen, 2007). Danish citizens contrary to Americans can choose doctors in their areas. Prescription drugs that are costly in America are inexpensive in Denmark and free of charge for persons under the age of 18. The Danish system however is more cost effective than American where they spend 11% of their GDP on health care as America spends 18%. This is despite coverage being universal in Denmark. While child care is costly in America, Denmark covers three quarters of its Child care, especially for the low-income workers. Strong support is offered in support of expecting parents where mothers get a month of paid leave before delivery and another 14 weeks thereafter to attend to their newborn. Fathers also get weeks of paid leave and during the first nine years of their children, they are both entitled to more paid leave. Denmark also offers its citizens with unemployment insurance covers of up to 90 percent of their earnings for as long as a period of two years (Hart, 2010). Pros and Cons of the US Healthcare system Employer-based health insurance has been controversial in the United States. Its proponents have described the positive aspects as well as its critics while identifying the system’s flaws. Pros It avoids the problem of any adverse selection mainly by pooling different employee risks such as the healthy and young with the sick and old. The decentralized health insurance system has created an incentive for much innovation in the health industry. This is in contrast with Denmark that has a nationalized health care system. Cons A large number of individuals are excluded from this kind of health care system. It distorts employees’ decisions that may lead to job lock. The system has been found to be the major cause of bankruptcy among many US families. This kind of system limits the set of options available for health insurance for the workers. Administrative costs for such kind of a health system are extremely high, thus being unaffordable for low income employees. The system may lead to economic inefficiency as a result of limited flow of human capital within the labor market. Job lock can lead to reduced productivity in some sectors of a nation’s economy. A decrease in unionized laborers may result to a decrease in health insurance. Pros and Cons of the Denmark Healthcare system The universal health care system in Denmark has also had its advantages as well as disadvantages just like the employer based has in the United States System. Pros The system promotes a healthy living for all its citizens. This kind of system has reduced economic despair in the country. Child care that is supported by the state reduces the missing of school due children illnesses. It also ensures reduced infant mortality due to improved care given to expecting parents including fathers. The system offers covers and guaranteed payments for the unemployed thus improving the living standards of people in the country. The system leads to a happier society by caring for the aged and vulnerable population. Individuals are provided with the freedom of choosing doctors right from their areas. It provides easy access and portable medical services. The universal health care system leads to improved economic productivity. The system prevents medical bankruptcy among families. The right to health care encourages entrepreneurship and benefits private businesses in the country. The system ensures a high percentage of patient satisfaction. Doctors are able to concentrate on each and every patient not considering insuring and other factors since they are all under one system. Cons Universal health care systems lead to the heavy tax burden on the tax payers. The system may lead rationing of medical services by the government. The system usually has many rules and regulations to be followed. The system eliminates free markets for health care where prices may be provided at much lower cost. Comparison of the uninsured in the systems The United States had a total number of 48 million uninsured individuals in the year 2012. The employer provided a system of coverage has also declined steadily since the year 2009. The employer provided based coverage also differs with the wage levels. Firms with large numbers of low wage laborers rarely provide accessibility to the health insurance coverage. The system also tends to increase the uninsured due to job losses and especially as a result of the world recession. Minorities in the society and children are also disproportionately uninsured. Research has shown that about 80% of the uninsured are citizens of the United States. Among the families that have incomes termed as below its federal poverty level, 40% percent are uninsured (Elhague, 2010). United States economic conditions have been historically tracked by trends in the uninsured. The ACA has, however, established reforms that will help people to maintain coverage by making insurance accessible and affordable. A large percentage of the uninsured claimed that it was due to the high cost of insurance while others had lost their jobs. A majority of the uninsured came from lower income working families. Adults were more likely to be uninsured than children, the people of color were also at a higher risk of being uninsured than the non-Hispanic Whites (Elhague, 2010). Denmark on its part has a universal health care system that covers its entire population. All citizens have equal access where they register with the Danish Health Insurance Service. The country does not have medical insurance companies seeking profit, therefore nobody is uninsured (Hart, 2010). Government roles as regulators Most Americans recognize the significance of some level of medical safety regulation by the government. The US government has been one of the biggest sources of biomedical research funding. The public policy indirectly influences medical innovation. The government also enhances managed care and Technology diffusion in the country. The US federal government also provides insurance benefits as employers. The government has played the role of safety regulator, purchaser and partial provider as well as the role of limited market place regulator. The US health care law has made the government into a large scale regulator of its health care marketplace (Kovner, Knickman & Jonas, 2011). The Danish government has divided the regulation of its health sector into three political, administrative levels that is national, regional and the local services. The system has been organized in such a way that the services provided lie with the lowest administrative level. The ministry of health together with the National Board of Health is restricted to supervision and provision of advice (Verbelen, 2007). Conclusion Personal thoughts and opinions Based on this research, universal health care system has proven to be more efficient than the employer-based system. America, being the largest economy in the world should also establish a universal health care system similar to Denmark for improved services. With a large number of immigrants, the system would ensure that no citizen suffers from economic despair. The universal health care system would also reduce medical bankruptcy among lower income families (Hart, 2007). Health care services should be made available to all people because we all have a right to live. Health care, thus protects lives and should be given priority in all economies. America and Demark differ in their population density as well as their health care systems. With America’s employer-based health insurance system, most people have been at a great risk of being uninsured. Loss of jobs and low incomes has seen a rising rate of the uninsured persons in the country. Private insurance companies that are profit minded make it hard for a majority of people to live uninsured. This poses as a challenge to individuals with low incomes, children and the aged making them unable to access medical care services Denmark on the other hand has a universal health care system that ensures nobody is uninsured. Despite the resulting higher tax rates, the system leads to improved economic productivity with easy accessibility of affordable medical covers. Countries should therefore emphasize on covering their citizens. References Elhauge, E. (2010). The fragmentation of U.S. health care: Causes and solutions. New York: Oxford University Press. Hart, V. (2010). Patient-provider communications: Caring to listen. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett. Kovner, A. R., Knickman, J., & Jonas, S. (2011). Jonas & Kovner's health care delivery in the United States. New York: Springer Pub. Verbelen, B., & University of Southern California. (2007). The impact of public expenditures on health care on total health expenditures: An exploratory analysis of selected OECD countries. Read More