International Health Systems

1

International Health Systems Medical care in developed countries including Germany, Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom is financed by the government. These countries have implemented health policies that compel the government to play the biggest role in supporting care delivery in public facilities (Bodenheime & Grumbach, 2020). On the contrary, U.S health care is financed and delivered through private institutions. An analysis of these health care systems indicates that despite having the most advanced health care, their health policies differ significantly. In Germany, for instance, the government plays a minimal role in financing and delivering health care (Bodenheime & Grumbach, 2020). Nongovernmental insurers referred to as sickness funds, administer health insurance. Germany has implemented policies making health insurance mandatory for everyone. Statutory health insurance covers over 86% of the populace. The insurance plan covers mental health, outpatient and inpatient services, and prescription drugs.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2

Canada has a single-payer health care system that is publicly funded through tax revenues. The Canadian health system prohibits private health insurance meaning that health insurance plans are similar for all people. In the U.K, health care coverage is financed by general taxation instead of health insurance plans, and all permanent residents are provided with public healthcare (Bodenheime & Grumbach, 2020). The U.K single-payer system differs from others in that health care is free at the point of need. The administrator of the U.K health care system is the National Health Service. However, the U.K health care system has not banned private insurance coverage. People can still enroll in smaller private health insurance if they wish.

Japan's universal health care system is financed through personal contributions and taxes (Bodenheime & Grumbach, 2020). Japan’s health care system requires people to enroll in either a residence-based or employment-based plan. Notably, all features of the Japanese health care system are regulated by the national government.

Instead of universal health insurance coverage, the U.S has a mix of health insurance programs, including private and public plans. Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP provide coverage to older people, children, the poor and people with disabilities. All aspects of the safety net and local coverage are paid for and managed by States (Greer, Jarman & Donnelly, 2019). The U.S care system, however, differs from other developed nations since it is predominantly private insurance coverage.

Scholars argue that despite comparative health policy analysis showing a single-payer system is not superior to others, the experiences of countries implementing this system provide useful lessons (Greer, Jarman & Donnelly, 2019). The U.S., for instance, could learn from the other nations that by implementing a universal tax-funded system, the government strengthens its image as a strong entity that supports the health and wellness of its people. A single-payer

3

system creates a platform on which all people are assured of quality health services at the point of need (Greer, Jarman & Donnelly, 2019). Implementing a single-payer system eliminates the requirement for uninsured people to pay out of their pockets.

The single-payer system can work in the U.S. The U.S has a politically hospitable environment that could facilitate the implementation of this system. The government, however, needs to implement supportive policies to address the challenges associated with connecting health care finance and reform. The government should involve the middle class to avert potential problems if the single-payer system is perceived as a program for the poor.

4

References Bodenheimer, T., & Grumbach, K. (2020). Understanding Health Policy: A Clinical Approach, 8th ed. McGraw-Hill Medical.

Greer, S. L., Jarman, H., & Donnelly, P. D. (2019). Lessons for the U.S from single-payer systems. American journal of public health, 109(11), 1493-1496. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305312