Healthcare in the US vs. Other Developed Countries
The first fact that can be pinpointed about US healthcare compared to other countries’ systems is the high expenditure required to meet the population’s needs. For example, in 2016, the US spent almost 18% of its gross domestic product on healthcare, compared to less than 10% in Australia and 12,4% in Switzerland (Papanicolaset al., 2018). Such high expenses are due to the high cost of medicine and administrative costs.
My previous assumption was that the US does indeed spend more on healthcare than other high-income countries. However, I was not aware that the disparity was so highlighted. For example, Switzerland has the most expensive healthcare in Europe, yet it is still far from reaching the financial requirements of the US. The data highlights the need for reforms to improve the situation and reduce expenditure.
Another fact is that the USA does not experience the higher outcomes typically associated with higher expenses. Instead, in specific metrics such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and adverse diabetes outcomes, the country performs worse than other developed countries (How does the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?). The findings suggest that higher investments do not necessarily yield better outcomes; instead, funds are misallocated, and optimization measures need to be implemented. The information is inconsistent with my previous assumptions that excessive spending on medicine in the US is justified by the results achieved.
In addition, the fragmented nature of the country’s healthcare system has been discussed. Namely, there is a mix of private and public healthcare. In other developed countries, the focus is either on private or public services, yet it is rare for the disparity to be so insignificant (Frontline, 2008). Nonetheless, the reliance on the government is much higher. In countries with universal approaches, taxpayers are the contributors to most services. In the US, most citizens rely on private insurance companies, which are primarily regulated by market forces rather than government policies.
The payment method also differentiates the US from other countries. A multi-payer approach is employed, with private insurance being the primary source of medical service resources. Simultaneously, government programs, such as the Affordable Care Act, are used to assist vulnerable populations (Chaffee et al., 2020). In other developed countries, a single-payer or multiple-payer system is used, meaning either a single state insurer or multiple insurers are responsible for covering services. The information is consistent with my previous assumptions.
Misconceptions
The first misconception I had about other healthcare systems was the predominance of a single-payer payment system. Even though in certain countries the government is responsible for funding and distributing funds, a variety of options exist. For example, Japan and Germany have social insurance models that differ in how coverage can be acquired. In one case, it is obtained through work, while in Germany, citizens choose their insurance company individually (Frontline, 2008). My misconception was that most countries, such as the UK and Canada, have universal healthcare.
Another misconception is that developed countries employ a uniform method. Namely, one or two methods considered the most effective are implemented across all regions, as they are the most evidence-based for generating positive health and economic benefits. However, evidence shows that a variety of strategies can be efficiently applied depending on the socioeconomic and political needs of a specific territory. For example, Taiwan’s system is similar to the U.S. Medicare program but applies to all citizens through a single government-run insurer (Frontline, 2008). The pattern illustrates that the success of the medical sector is not necessarily linked to its nature but rather to its execution and alignment with the broader country’s context, both internally and externally.
Questions
One question that I have as a result of studying this week’s content is how each system hinders or maximizes inequality. Specifically, it would be helpful to know how the healthcare models are viewed from the perspective of vulnerable, low-income populations. To answer the question, I would have to determine the health disparities between different classes. Health outcomes can be identified through life expectancy and mortality rate, as exemplified among people with high socioeconomic status and demographics with minimal resources.
Another question I can pose on the subject concerns public opinion on the various approaches to health. Namely, does population satisfaction correlate with the employment of either a single, multi-player, or hybrid framework? To answer the question, I would start by looking at existing polls that ask citizens of different countries to rate their healthcare programs based on their perceptions. Instead of examining health outcomes, it can be necessary to determine the overall satisfaction with the services. This includes how individuals view waiting times, ease of use, the quality of medical providers, and their attitudes toward the taxes that fund universal healthcare, depending on the country.
References
Chaffee, M. W., & Leavitt, J. K. (2020). A framework for action in policy and politics. In D. J. Mason (Ed.), Policy and politics in nursing and health care (8th ed., pp. 1–28). Elsevier.
Frontline. (2008). Five capitalist democracies & how they do it | sick around the world | frontline. PBS.
Peter G. Peterson Foundation. (2020). How does the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? PGPF.
Papanicolas, I., Woskie, L. R., & Jha, A. K. (2018). Healthcare spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA, 319(10), 1024.