Introduction
Healthcare is one of the most crucial issues in the United States today. The nation has traditionally used a hybrid public/private healthcare system, subject to much debate over the years. Under this approach, Americans can acquire government-subsidized health insurance or seek the same from private insurance companies. Federal and state governments fund Medicare and Medicaid social insurance programs, while the private sector offers numerous other offerings. However, private health insurance dominates the landscape, while many people use out-of-pocket payments to settle their medical bills. As such, the United States healthcare system is in a suboptimal state that can be improved by learning from other similarly developed countries like The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Advantages
Being a free market, the healthcare system in the United States offers top-quality services. The US healthcare industry generates substantial revenue annually, providing an incentive for providers to ensure access to the latest technologies, best staff training, and interventions for even the rarest conditions (Zieff et al., 2020). Individuals with the necessary financial resources always receive outstanding health care. Institutions across the country have highly qualified staff, access to the latest medical equipment, and innovative programs that cater to all patient needs (Crowley et al., 2020). The United States has some of the most advanced medical research systems and institutions in the world, made possible by the economics of its healthcare system.
The US healthcare system is renowned for its short waiting times, even for complex procedures. The period between making a request and seeing a specialist is short because of their numbers and the relatively high amount involved (Crowley et al., 2020). The health system in the US is also well-supplied with adequate resources for medical staff and patients. This is possible because of the competitive landscape as different providers seek to offer differentiating products and services (Zieff et al., 2020). As such, the country is well-supplied with medication and equipment.
Disadvantages
Many Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s healthcare system because of the high costs of medical services. Under-insured individuals or those lacking insurance have to pay out of pocket, and even short-term hospital stays are costly, prompting the need for insurance. The uninsured have access to few and limited services because of the high expenses incurred in a system that favors the wealthy over everyday people (Crowley et al., 2020). For instance, most Americans access health insurance via their employers, meaning many lose coverage when their employment is terminated. Those without jobs cannot keep up with insurance payments and lose coverage after a short while (LiPuma & Robichaud, 2020). On the other hand, companies and the rich make their payments with pre-tax income. This high-income group is also afforded several incentives like tax breaks that other Americans do not.
Another important issue with healthcare in the US is the lack of price transparency. A vast majority of medical services in the country conceal the medical costs incurred during service provision (LiPuma & Robichaud, 2020). Healthcare is the second-costliest item on the average American household’s budget, making transparency crucial. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that each medical institution is profit-oriented and might be motivated to exaggerate costs to generate higher returns.
Differences between American and British Healthcare Systems
American and British healthcare systems are very different, with contrasting characteristics. This is especially visible in terms of the model, cost, and efficiency. America has one of the most extensive networks of private sector systems, while Britain is home to one of the largest public sector systems. The British government offers universal healthcare coverage to all UK citizens (Montgomery et al., 2017). The funds used to pay for the vast coverage are derived from income tax. The government allocates a significant portion of its taxes to the NHS, but the amount varies depending on collected revenue (Montgomery et al., 2017).
Therefore, the UK model is characterized by national ownership, universal coverage, and controlled factors of production. The drawback of this socialized system is decreased hospital responsiveness and a shortage of general practitioners.
On the other hand, the privatized US healthcare system relies on purchased private health insurance. While healthcare in the UK is considered a basic human right, it is largely perceived as a privilege in the United States. Apart from Medicaid and Medicare, private sector entities provide healthcare via various programs like monthly premiums, co-payments, and deductibles (LiPuma & Robichaud, 2020).
The US system is characterized by employer-based coverage, where employers offer health insurance as an employment benefit. The American approach has been associated with unparalleled responsiveness, cost-saving, and significant advancements in medical technology wrought by the high levels of competition between providers. However, it has also led to inequality in medical access, as shown by the high number of uninsured individuals.
The American healthcare system is associated with different advantages and disadvantages. The hybrid approach features private and public health insurance, a stark opposite of the universal healthcare coverage in some similarly developed countries like the United Kingdom. The British model involves a socialized system that ensures every UK citizen can access medical care when they need it, irrespective of their social class or level of income. The US model is characterized by a highly competitive free market that has made possible high-quality care and short wait times but at a high cost that only favors companies and high-income individuals. On the other hand, the British model does not discriminate against anyone but is associated with decreased hospital responsiveness and a shortage of general practitioners.
References
Crowley, R., Daniel, H., Cooney, T. G., Engel, L. S., & Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians. (2020). Envisioning a better US health care system for all: coverage and cost of care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(2_Supplement), S7-S32. Web.
LiPuma, S. H., & Robichaud, A. L. (2020). Deliver us from injustice: Reforming the US healthcare system. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 17(2), 257-270. Web.
Montgomery, H. E., Haines, A., Marlow, N., Pearson, G., Mythen, M. G., Grocott, M. P. W., & Swanton, C. (2017). The future of UK healthcare: Problems and potential solutions to a system in crisis. Annals of Oncology, 28(8), 1751-1755. Web.
Zieff, G., Kerr, Z. Y., Moore, J. B., & Stoner, L. (2020). Universal healthcare in the United States of America: A healthy debate. Medicina, 56(11), 580. Web.
