USA versus the NHS
Margarette Driscoll and Roger Waite
...excerpt
“Anybody looking at the American system from the outside would say it needs radical reform,” said Anna Dixon, director of policy at the King’s Fund, a medical think tank. “America is spending more than anyone else, yet millions of people are either uninsured or underinsured. That’s not sustainable. The signals have been there for some time, with companies wanting to pull out of providing employees with insurance.”
Does it mean reducing standards to those of the NHS or is there an alternative? BOTH the United States and Britain could learn from other European healthcare systems, says Gubb. “There are insurance-based systems in Europe which provide universal coverage,” he said. “In Switzerland and the Netherlands, for example, every person has to have health insurance cover and every patient is ensured cover by the state if they cannot afford it.
“They have a choice of health plan and there’s a minimum standard of care those plans have to cover. For me that sort of idea would make a lot more sense in terms of the US debate than looking at the NHS.”
Neither the United States nor Britain compares well with the results achieved by some European countries. The model of compulsory insurance for all, used by France, has led the World Health Organisation to rank it the most efficient service in the world. France spends 11% of its GDP on health; yet its infant mortality rate, life expectancy and mortality rate for cardio-vascular illness are all better than the United States and Britain.
The diagnosis seems to be that both Britain and the United States are in need of treatment – and a European-style combination of insurance backed by a government safety net may be the best outcome.
Read the entire post at timesonline.co.uk |
