New Zealand Introduced A Tax Based Financing Health Care System Essay

The health care system varies from country to country although a factor they all have in common is that great measures of research are taken in order to find results and achieve a good health care system for the economy. Between Australia and japan, there are great initiatives taken to help in association to this, including economic, social and political circumstances, all influencing the way in which the countries health care system is shaped and run.

The healthcare system in each country is intended to meet the best possible medical services needs of its citizens. One country’s healthcare system can vary from another. This is according to their administration strategy, training, education, technology, and spending plan. Social, economic, political, and physical parts of the nation also play huge role in defining a country’s healthcare system. There are many similarities in the delivery of medical services between United States and Nepal. For the middle class people, affording a good healthcare system is still an unresolved issue of these two countries. The issue of financing the system of healthcare has been the biggest challenge to the government of Nepal, and it is similar to the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the United States. Although Nepal and the United States have similarities in healthcare system, they also equally share significant differences in providers, spending and the medical professionals. Some people consider that the healthcare system in the U.S. is superior.

Health care expenditure has been rising steadily due to a variety of factors that in most nations add on to the challenges of an already complex system. In an environment of limited financial resources, increased longevity and innovative health technology providing ever increasing options for care, defining healthcare funding and delivery arrangements within the framework of equity and efficiency poses a global challenge. Advances in medicine and technology in the last decade has further increased the gap between the economic growth and the growth in health expenditure. Governments all over the world have an instrumental role in slowing down the growth in health expenditure without negatively affecting the health outcomes particularly

In 1928, a national health insurance scheme was proposed but not implemented because it would have required businesses to provide contributions to health insurance for their employees (Evolution of Government Involvement in Health Care, n.d). Another national health insurance scheme was proposed in 1938 but it was also rejected (Evolution of Government Involvement in Health Care, n.d; Hilless & Healy, 2001). The next proposal was the 1945 Pharmaceuticals Benefits Act. This Act was not implemented because the Australian Medical Association challenged it in the High Court of Australia and it was decided that parliament had “exceeded its constitutional power” (Hilless & Healy, 2001). In 1946, under the Hospital Benefits Act, the Commonwealth began to subsidise public hospitals under the condition that patients would not be charged (Evolution of Government Involvement in Health Care, n.d; Hilless & Healy, 2001). This act is similar to the current Medicare system.

In our world each country has a set of standards to follow in order to establish health care insurance for people in different communities. The state contributes about 40% of all the expenditures on health while the public health sector delivers 80% of the population. Many resources are concentrated in the private health sector. These resources see to the health needs of the remaining 20% of the population. Public health consumes around 11% of the government’s total budget. The way the resources are allotted, and the standard of health care delivered, varies from country to country. Although there are similarities between South Africa and the United States regarding healthcare, South Africa remains at a lower

The healthcare system in Australia is complex involving many funders and healthcare providers. In 2011 to 2012 the health expenditure in Australia was estimated to have been $140.2 billion, which made up 9.5 percent of gross domestic product in that year (AIHW, 2013). Responsibilities are split between different levels of government, and between the government and non-government sectors. With non-government sources funding for about 30 percent of the total health expenditure each year (AIHW, 2013). Australians make their contribution to their healthcare system through taxes, including the Medicare levy, and through private financing such as private health insurance. Private health insurance in Australia is a voluntary facility for private funding of hospital care and ancillaries. Insurance funds may cover the costs of treatment for private patients in private or public hospitals and can include some services that Medicare does not cover. The Australian governments fund for almost 70 percent of the health expenditure each year (AIHW, 2013). The federal government contributes to approximately two-thirds, while State, Territory and local governments together contribute for the other one-third (AIWH, 2013). As a generalization the Australian government is primarily responsible for the funding of healthcare, through health insurance arrangements and direct payments to the state and territories, while state and territories are primarily responsible

Starting with the organizational structure of the NHS, it is basically an umbrella organization that comprises of four regional branches, in particular, NHS (England), NHS Scotland, Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland and NHS Wales. The financing for all these institutions comes from a universal source, particularly the tax-payer money of residents of UK, although they operate to an extent as self-governing institutions. The treasury allocates money to the department of Health, which in turn allocates money to NHS England (Understanding the new NHS). In other words, the top executives of these four institutions take decisions independently for day to day operations although they abide by broader governing directives applicable to the UK region as a whole. Governance is an important aspect of the operating of the NHS, for without it exploitation by private vested interests is likely to happen. (National Health Service (NHS): A study of its Structure, Funding and Regulation, Strengths and Weaknesses, n.d.)

This movie went around the world to different countries to show the comparisons and differences in healthcare compared to each other and the U.S. The first country that was visited was the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom spends 8.3% of their GDP on healthcare. The citizens pay nothing for premiums, all of it is paid trough taxation. Some services require co-pay, but all young people and all elderly are exempt from drug co-pays. The United Kingdom calls their healthcare system “socialized medicine”; the government provides for and pays for all healthcare. The taxes that Britons pay gets distributed up to different healthcare providers. Since the United Kingdoms’ system is taxed,

Health care systems are different in every country around the world. There are four main components that complete a health care delivery system, described by Shi and Singh (2015) as the quad-function model, which includes insurance, financing, payment and delivery of care (p. 5). Along with the components of the quad-function model it is important to analyze a countries access to care, their health outcomes and how public health is integrated into the health care delivery system. The United States has a unique health care system that is like no other country. Great Britian, in contrast, also has a unique system that is very different than the United States.

The Australian population currently exceeds 20 million, with most of the population located primarily in the cities and along the coast; it also spreads to rural and remote indigenous communities. The Australian Government spends in excess of 66 billion dollars per year on health care, averaging out to approx $3,300 per person. (Medicare Australia 2009)

This essay discusses the history and inception of the Australian Healthcare system, how it is funded through the Government and the public income. How and where healthcare is delivered and its effectiveness, including issues and priorities according to current healthcare policies and national standards.

If we compare the health care financing of past and that of recent times, there exists a dramatic shift in the trends of the issue. In the past times, the

To get my health care reform started, the basic format of Britain’s National Health Service will be followed. It will feature large tax-based financing to fund

Healthcare financing is proven to be challenging. A balance between adequate access, acceptable quality and affordable cost are the main objectives of a healthcare system (Paterson, 2014, p. 13). The island of Tekram is finding extremely difficult to achieve a solution to the current crisis of their healthcare system. The objective to this case study is to recommend a new healthcare strategy to island government.

If this particular system isn't working, then what will? The possibilities are numerous considering many countries around the world offer different types of healthcare. In the film, "Sickness Around the World," a reporter T.R. Reid visited 5 wealthy/developed countries: the United Kingdom, Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland, and Germany (Palfreman 2008). Each of these countries has it's own pros and cons when it comes to healthcare. For instance, the UK has singular government run system that it's citizen's do not have to pay for. However, waits to receive treatment can take a long time and taxes are much higher. Whereas, in Japan, the government regulates all the costs and prices yet, services are largely privatized. This puts hospitals and doctors offices in financial deficits. In the small country of Taiwan, leaders took bits and pieces other systems around the world. Leaving them with, one government insurer who collects money, competitive medical providers, and low premiums. The Swiss, have a system where only certain types of care can be profited from. And lastly, the Germans pay premiums based on income and pharmaceutical drugs are cheaper because the sickness funds are negotiated with medical providers. Yet, because of all the sacrifices the providers makes, they often feel underpaid for their services (Palfreman 2008). It is important to note, that these systems did not appear overnight, they would shaped and changed many