Comparison Of Healthcare Systems Of Different Countries

Every country has their own healthcare system and it is because of the policies and the decisions the government takes in each country. In this article there are four countries with their own healthcare systems.

AUSTRALIA: There are three tiers of government in Australia: the national government or Commonwealth, the six State and two Territory governments, and local government. The critical division for the health care system is that the Commonwealth collects most taxes but the States administer or deliver most public services; in other words, fiscal and functional responsibilities are divided. Thus health policy-making in the Australian federal form of government is characterised by ongoing negotiations between

the Commonwealth and the States. Australia has a complex health care system with many types of services and providers and a range of funding and regulatory mechanisms. The Commonwealth funds rather than provides health services, funding the bulk of the health system, and subsidising pharmaceuticals and aged residential care (nursing homes and hostels). The States, with Commonwealth financial assistance, primarily are responsible for funding and administering public hospitals, mental health services and community health services, as well as for regulating health workers. Private practitioners provide most community-based medical and dental treatment and there is a large private hospital sector.

DENMARK: The Danish health care system is predominantly financed through local (county and municipal) taxation with integrated funding and provision of health care at the local (county) level. The majority primary care is provided by privately practicing GPs, who are paid on a combined capitation and fee-for-service basis, but the number and location of GPs is controlled by the counties and GPs' fees and working conditions are negotiated centrally. Hospital care is mainly provided by hospitals owned and run by the counties (or the Copenhagen Hospital Corporation in the Copenhagen area). Private hospital providers are limited, accounting for less than one per cent of hospital beds.

FRANCE: The French health care system is predominantly funded through tax revenues and social health insurance contributions from employers and employees. Health care is purchased and paid for by health insurance schemes and the government and provided by private (self-employed) practitioners and public and private (non-profit and for-profit) hospitals. Most general practitioners and specialists in the ambulatory sector are paid on a fee-for-service basis according to agreed fee schedules, while staff working in public hospitals is salaried. French patients have free alternative of doctor and hospital.

NEW ZELAND:

New Zealand's health system is financed predominantly from general taxation and covers all residents in the country. Public hospital outpatient and inpatient services are free; however most people meet some costs of primary health care (although some groups are exempt or have health concession cards), and make a co-payment for pharmaceuticals. New Zealand targets subsidies for primary care and prescriptions on low-income patients (using concession cards), children and high users of services. Health services are delivered by a mix of public and private providers. The New Zealand health care system has undergone several phases of restructuring. The Labour/Alliance coalition government (1999- ) has ended the strict purchaser/provider split, returned to regional funding and delivery of health services, and is moving toward more comprehensive access to primary health care through capitation funding to general practice groups.

• Juliana Breckinridge
• 27/03/2009, 10:59 PM
• 0 Comments