comparative health systems

Health Care Systems
Comparison of The UK and UK Health Systems
A health care system, in a given country, which is also referred to as a health system, is the organization of a country resources, institutions and the medical personnel with an aim geared towards providing sustainable health services. These systems do vary from country to country. As much as there are differences, more are the similarities. Why? Simply because these systems fall under the same sector which is health .perhaps, in the case where a system of a certain country fails, the next thing is always either making necessary adjustments to it or just copying a health system of another country which is facing little or no challenges. Let’s take a look at the health system of the USA compared to that of the UK.
A health system should ensure that there is a balance between the services demanded to those that are provided. Consequently, it should minimise or rather prevent any failure within the health sector, given its importance and sensitivity to the public interest. The UK tries to limit or prevent failures within the market by limiting regional monopolies as well as negative externalities which may cause a turbulence to the system. As an icing on the cake, it also has measures in place to limit informational asymmetry. With all this measures still put in place, the UK public funded health system-the NHS-suffers inefficiencies caused by misallocation of resources and unproductiveness that arises from this. On the other hand, the us health system enjoys a market model which is has a upper hand compared to the UK in terms of the quality of the services, management of resources and innovations.
The UK provides free health care to its citizen through the NHS programme. The programme’s source of funding is through taxation. The same people who raise this tax are the same people who at the end benefit from it. Apart from the NHS, there is also a parallel private programme that provides medical services to those who are able and willing to pay for the services. What about in the US? Purchases of health insurances and employment are what provide financial medical cover to most of the citizens. What is provided freely by the state is emergency services. Other than that, the citizens are supposed to take care of their own medical costs. This is regardless of a person’s disability, age or even his or her capability to afford the medical services.
Demand for health care exists at maximum when its provision is free. This is because the consumers, who happen to be the citizens in this case, have the burden of costs eliminated considering it’s the major determinant of whether a person will seek for Medicare or not. On the other hand, the governments supply depends on the costs that are incurred in production as wells as the level of taxes that a country raises.
From this can see that both systems have their own pros and cons. As much as the UK provides free medical services to its citizens through the NHS programme, it’s more likely to experience financial constrains since the system has no measures in place to collect incentives from the public. In the case where the government enters in a financial crisis, the probabilities are high that the whole health system will as well crumble down. The advantage the US health system has is that its competitive market nature provides, and or rather creates room for market optimality. That is, the demand is more or else equally the same compared to the UK where its supply is more compared to the demand .Therefore, the few monopolies in the system gives room for economic efficiency

Work cited
NHS Workforce Statistics – October 2018 – NHS Digital. (2019, January 24). Retrieved from
Practice Level Prescribing – November 2018 – NHS Digital. (2019, January 24). Retrieved from



"Is this question part of your assignment? We Can Help!"

Essay Writing Service