Healthcare Systems Around The Globe - Assignment Example

Healthcare Systems around the Globe: USA and Norway Valerie Blemur Florida International NUR 4667 – Nursing in Global Health System October 8, 2012 Healthcare Systems around the Globe: USA and Norway Each and every country should be able to develop a working healthcare system. The question that begs to be answered is whether there is a need to have a policy in health care systems (OECD, 2012). Healthcare systems should be monitored by governments to enable them to identify and prioritize public health and research needs.

This, in turn, determines the priority areas in healthcare policy and legislation, new programs and how to appropriately fund them. Healthcare systems around the world have undergone rapid transformation as a result of new technological advances in healthcare management, new medications and procedures. There have also been gains made in the healthcare systems for a number of reasons. For instance, improvements in public health and sanitation and better public health education on risk factors have been the primary reasons for an improved and healthy society.

Norway has one of the most well developed healthcare systems in the world (OECD, 2012). Compared to the United States, OECD (2012) reports that Norway has an all inclusive state healthcare system that is universal to all and not discriminatory. It is also not complex in terms of the financing and the administration of the entire healthcare system. Norwegians have better access to healthcare personnel and facilities as compared to Americans. Health Statistics and Costs: Comparison between U.S.

and Norway The U.S. has varying statistics in regards to the healthcare system that clearly shows that most Americans are still unable to access even the most basic of health care (OECD, 2012). According to OECD (2012), in 2010 the percentage of Americans without health insurance coverage was 16.3%, representing 49.9 million uninsured people. It is noted that of those with health insurance 55.3% was due to employment, 9.8% through direct-purchase and 31.0% was government funded (OECD, 2012). Lack of insurance was mainly due to unemployment, termination of Medicaid benefits, ineligibility for health insurance coverage due to age or leaving school (Source: National Center for Health Statistics).

According to OECD (2012), 100% of the Norwegian population is covered by a National Insurance Scheme that is universal and funded by taxes mainly from the public. A number of Norwegians have chosen to go for private insurance which requires them to pay for medical costs directly from their pockets (Health, 2008). Norway represents a system that accounts for no copayments in cases of hospital admissions or medication, apart from the small copayments paid for treatment of outpatients. Health (2008) reports that a majority of the OECD countries have enjoyed increments in life expectancies in the recent past, with Norway’s 81.

2 years a year higher than OECD’s average of 79.8 years. This is an indicator that the standards of living are better and the public health interventions are working. Many countries have smokers; those in Norway were reduced to 18.5% in 2010 from 36% in 1980. In addition, Health (2008) reveals that obesity levels have recently increased, with the U.S. recording a massive 28% in 2010, nearly thrice the level of obesity in Norway, which was 10% in 2008, twice the valuation in 1995. Obesity is growing and its dominance represents major health problems like cardiovascular diseases and diabetes which will eventually result in high costs of healthcare in the future (Health, 2008).

Since 2010, OECD (2012) reveals that the U.S. government’s total spending in healthcare accounted for 17.6% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Norway, on the other hand, spends minimally on healthcare as compared to U.S. but has achieved a better healthcare system and thus a healthier population (OECD, 2012). OECD (2012) statistics show that in the year 2010, Norway had a total health spending of 9.4% of the GDP. Among OECD countries’ spending, Norway ranked second at 5, 388 US$ which was above the 3268 US$ valuation for OECD countries.

Norway’s spending per capita for 2010 increased by 0.8%, but this was an effect felt in other OECD countries, too. Norway accounts for a higher number of employees in the healthcare sector than any other OECD country. OECD (2012) statistics show that Norway had 4.1 physicians per 1000 population yet the OECD average was 3.1/1000 in 2010. In addition, Norway employed 14.4/1000 population which was above OECD’s valuation of 8.7/1000 population. The improvements in health facilities have led to Norwegians experiencing a higher life expectancy than USA, standing at 81.

2 years, lower than that of table toppers Japan at 83 years, and Switzerland at 82.6 years (OECD, 2012). Healthcare System Financing Comparison between U.S. and Norway The U.S. healthcare system is financed by different taxes that include Medicare tax from one’s salary or self employment income. For those employed both the employer and the employee remit equal amounts of 1.45% each towards health insurance (OECD, 2012). Those who are self employed pay the whole amount of 2.9%. Other healthcare taxes include Medicare Tax on investment income, the two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) Cap on Health-Care Flexible Spending Account Contributions and Higher Threshold for Itemized Medical Expense Deductions.

According to OECD (2012), Health care in Norway is funded from revenue collected by the government in the form of taxes. The contribution comes from all Norwegians living in the Norwegian Continental Shelf, residents of Svalbard and Jan Mayen employed by Norwegian employers were insured by the National Insurance Act before they immigrated to these areas (Pipes, 2010). The contribution may also come from a certain category of Norwegians who work abroad. The public sector accounted for 85.5% of Norway’s health spending funds in 2010, which was above the average of OECD countries, set at 72.

2% (OECD, 2012). Healthcare Administration Comparison between U.S. and Norway Healthcare administration in United States is governed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly referred to as ObamaCare legislation (Pipes, 2010). The principal aim of this legislation is to reduce the overall healthcare costs through the provision of mechanisms that include but are not limited to subsidizing the costs of healthcare and offering tax credits to both individuals and employers in an effort to increase access to healthcare (OECD, 2012).

This is achieved by requiring all insurers to offer healthcare coverage to all the applicants regardless of any condition that may have prevailed before the insurance policy was acquired (Pipes, 2010). In Norway, the healthcare system is governed by a body known as The National Insurance Administration, that is solely mandated to run a national insurance scheme known as the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) (Pipes, 2010). The primary mandate of this scheme is to provide a universal cover for the citizens.

The cover includes illnesses, accidents, bodily defects, pregnancy, birth, disability, death, and loss of the benefactors, unemployment and old age (Saltma, Bankauskaite and Vrangb?k, 2007). Healthcare Personnel and Facilities: Comparison between U.S. and Norway According to US (2010), the U.S has one of the best healthcare personnel and facilities in the world. These include numerous healthcare facilities and research institutions that are well equipped. Healthcare in Norway is provided by doctors and consultants working in the numerous hospitals (Pipes, 2010).

Citizens are required to register with a doctor of their choice who must be a doctor contracted by the state healthcare insurance scheme (Pipes, 2010). Any visit to a doctor not contracted or funded by the state attracts extra costs that are paid by the patient. Health care is principally provided by the state in Norway through 85 public medical facilities situated in the major cities. There is, therefore, minimal participation by private healthcare providers whose key role is to offer a complimentary role to the services already provided by the state (OECD, 2012).

Access and Inequality Issues: Comparison between U.S. and Norway Accessibility to healthcare is relatively high in Norway (OECD, 2012). This is because access to in-patient treatment at any state hospital is free to all those who qualify. There is, however, an exemption whereby any visit to a consultant or specialist will attract an extra cost that is paid by the patient. Norwegians also pay from their own pocket, for services such as prescription medicine, laboratory and radiology charges and non-emergency evacuation of a patient (OECD, 2012).

It is necessary to note that emergency care is free to all citizens regardless of their healthcare insurance status. Accessibility to health care in the U.S. is determined by the type of insurance policy that an individual possesses (US, 2010). This has, however, been repealed by what is known as the ObamaCare which, though noble, has not been well received by a considerable portion of the American population, especially the Republicans (US, 2010). The USA has been listed among the top spending countries in the healthcare sector and service provision.

Most of the U.S. healthcare facilities are determined by the insurance schemes taken by the client, something that is being reassessed via the implementation of the ObamaCare which has negatively been met by some Americans. On the other hand, Norway continues to prosper in healthcare facilities via its funding scheme that sees public sector account for huge sectors of the spending. In addition, quality provision of services from its facilities makes it easy for its nationalities to live longer, around 82 years.

References Health Care Around the World: Norway (2008). Retrieved from http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/. OECD Health Data (2012). Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/norway/BriefingNoteNORWAY2012.pdf. Pipes, S. (2010). The truth about Obamacare. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub. Saltman, R. B., Bankauskaite, V., & Vrangb?k, K. (2007). Decentralization in health care: Strategies and outcomes. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill. United States. (2010).

The patient protection and affordable care Act. Washington, D.C: U.S.G.P.O.