Global Health Care, how do we stack up here in the U.S.

Health Care Abroad and Here

James Wise

Class: HCA205

Abstract

This paper takes health care economics to a new level by taking a global view of different developing countries health systems. Addressing the differences in each system we can gain a new perspective when looking at what is working or need of reform. We will explore four health systems; America the origin of this paper, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Israel. We will start with Israel and introduce each country and the end of each section.
Israel’s Health System

Israel administers a national health insurance (NHI), funded by employers, wage tax and out of pocket which is among the highest in Europe. Health care expense is 9.1% of GDP or $1890 per person. There is no coverage for dental, medication or for anyone receiving service from a private physician. The core culture is Jewish with diversity in Arabians who are ether Christian or Muslim. Disparity does exist with the palatines stated by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society that 22 enclaves are without healthcare.

With that said however, Israel statistically is one the healthiest society in the world and have more doctors per capita than any other nation. Also the biggest factor that provides health is 95% of the populist is highly educated. The statistic that highlights this value best is in the fact that Israel is a terrorist zone and their consuming of alcohol is very low. They are a role model for a healthy lifestyle, making rational health decisions. What we can take away best from Israel’s culture in health is their focus on education which transfers to providing health into their system. Next we will explore the United Kingdom’s health care system.

United Kingdom Health System

The United Kingdom has the fourth largest economy in the world and cares for almost sixty million souls’. They employ a National Healthcare System (NHS) and everyone can receive services on a point basis, or anytime someone needs to see a physician or medical service it is free. The (NHS) is funded through income taxation and the Government distributes and regulates the system, insomuch setting the price for prescriptions. Sustainability has been a problem with the UK and bottle necks at the point of delivery has become a real concern. To address this the United Kingdom is allowing the private sector to have a larger foot print in their health system and allowing for private insurance plans for businesses and citizen who wish to opt out of the National Plan. This will open the bottle neck to those who wish to receive private insurance and faster service and at the same time relieve public centers.

Another point worth some attention is the United Kingdom implementing the United States founded DRG’s system to better regulate price for service. The Problems the UK has that are similar to the United States is the size of the population leads to the greater complexities and cost to the health system. The UK also suffers from high alcohol consumption, Obesity, and poor lifestyle choices not unlike America. Our critical thought here is a question, “Does entitlements in free health care lead to personal irresponsibility with health issues?” Next we will take a look at Sweden.

Sweden’s Health System

Sweden has nearly a perfect blend of high-tech capitalism and a social health system. They are also rated as having the highest level of healthcare in the world. Sweden also has one of the lowest infant mortality rate and a high average life expectancy. Furthermore the quality of life is evident and continually enhanced. Sweden has an extensive and comprehensive welfare state health care system and blends the funding with two main focuses. The first focus is comprehensive funding and treatment of the maternity and rearing process. All necessary medical needs are offered as well as funding for childcare for the first five years. Up to 480 paid days are given two the parent from birth of child to eight years of age. Simply the promote the family system and gives resources to enhance child rearing. The second focus is on Sweden’s old. In short they care for the old and those with mental problems. The funds are administered through the old pension fund and provide income to those who are unable to work. We find our way now in the middle of the age spectrum, the age that provide health. Through taxations the Government pays 85.3% of total healthcare expenditures, modest out of pocket cost make up the difference. These are set at yearly limits; $115.00 for doctor visits $230.00 for pharmaceuticals, and $10.25 per day for Hospital inpatient status. Once these caps are met per year all health care is free, including dental. Sweden is at 9% of GDP or per capita $27,271 in healthcare cost. Recently they have allowed private health care organizations in their health system to achieve sustainability. They provide between 5-15% of the populace and are geared for the rich. However, since the allowance of private industry they are already competing with the egalitarian system in terms of quality of service. We saved the United States for last; being the largest health system than any other we have touched on.

United States Health System

Comparatively speaking we have address populations of 6 million in Israel, 60 million in the UK, and 9 million in Sweden. In contrast each other nation has a core culture and limited diversity. In the U.S. we host 300 million souls with no noticeable core culture and people with vast diversity; the complexities this causes are beyond the scope of this paper, but are many. The U.S. are the pioneers in new medical technology and pharmaceutical discoveries. This of course has a great cost. Health care is funded through many sources, Government through Medicare and Medicaid, through private insurers obtained personally or offered through your company, and many HMO’s and PPO’s organizations. We have deep divides in basic access to health care services, concentrated in the areas of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Our heath cost is enormous 1.7 trillion, which is almost 15% GDP or $5,267 for every person on health care. We are 53% higher in cost then both the UK and Sweden, however our health statistics in infancy mortality and life expectancy are worst then the other three nations. Over all distribution suffers as well because we are largely a fragmented system. We will conclude with three thoughts.

Overall the universal health care system proves to be more efficient and lower cost with better results in health statistics. Our first thought goes to Israel and focus on education. This is important when you look at historical timeline; twenty years ago you could start a career with an A.A. degree that now requires a BA or BS degree. Ten years later it now takes a Masters degree. We need as a nation to better fund education. Our second thought takes us back to the UK who regulates the cost of pharmaceuticals but also rewards research. Our pharmaceuticals are out of control here, because it does not operate on a fair global market price. Our last thought takes us to those who do it best Sweden. We know that taxes for this system are high to fund focus on families and children coupled with long term healthcare. However the trade off is well worth the price. Focus on family and children relieve stress and empower the parent to put focus on their children. They dignify their aging with compressive coverage all the way to death. This system inherently relieves stress on their people and enhances life at all ages, it is no wonder they hold the best statistics in quality of health. In contrast we struggle here in America with accessibility, we allow our elderly to buy down to poverty and then they can receive Medicaid and long term healthcare. There is no focus on family, but allocations when the family becomes a single parent. America can learn from Sweden where for the most part they left capitalism out of the health care equation, seeing healthcare as a right not a responsibility. With focus on education, regulation that answers to a global market, family systems and complete accessibility we should succeed to a better system. Our final thought is healthcare systems should be on social venues with the invitation of private industry, but be regulated and operate to partner with the social value of the system.

Reference:

Holtz, Carol. (2008). Global Health Care: Issues and Policies. Sudbury, MA.
Jones and Bartlett Publishers