Australia and the USA have different health care systems whose aim is to promote good health of the citizens in the respective countries. Each of the countries has elaborate public and private health care systems managed by the governments, private health insurance companies, individuals, and other organizations. This essay aims at comparing the health care systems in the two countries with an objective to achieve an informed stance on the issue.
The Australian health structure is composed of both the private and public players. The system has an explicit financing control to enhance regulation of the essential service. Further, the system has a broad range of medical providers with practitioners in the government, private sector, and donor funded medical entities, all collaborating to serve the Australian public (Leeder, 2003). Clinics and hospitals are managed by professionals who are registered by the respective medical bodies. The financing of the health services is offered by health insurance companies, private individuals and the government consisting of the local and the federal government. However, the government funds most of the health services, consisting of more than 70% of the medical expenditures.
The federal government contributes 65% with the rest of the funding coming from other levels of government mainly territory and local government. The federal government makes use of subsidized health schemes to ensure that as many people as possible access the health care (Leeder, 2003). The central systems are Medicare, and pharmaceutical benefits scheme which subsidize medical payments to most of the outpatients. The two companies offer medical services and cater for the prescribed drugs. The federal and state governments jointly fund the Medicare scheme to avail free health care to the public. A combination of income tax and Medicare levy are the primary source of the health systems. The private health insurance premiums cater for the individuals who opt for private plans. The national rebate scheme provides an opportunity for the government to subsidize those who prefer private health insurance. The move aims at availing universal medical to all Australians irrespective of their social, economic backgrounds.
However, in the USA, 60% of the people access health care via private insurance medical schemes, 25% of the residents are covered by the public health systems while 15% do not have any form of medical cover (Barker, Gout & Crowe, 2011). One distinguishing feature of the America's health system is that there is a plan by the federal government that includes the elderly, people with disability and other special groups. The majority of the Americans have private medical covers mainly funded by the employers. Just like in Australia, the Medicaid scheme is a shared responsibility between the federal and state governments with the accessibility to the system being guided by specific requirements. The regulation of the medical practitioners is made by professional bodies just like in Australia, while the training is acquired mainly in the public and private institutions of higher learning.
The funding of health care in Australia is quite elaborate and well structured. Different levels of the government are involved in the financing. The efforts of the government are supplemented by private insurance programs. Medicare is the Australia’s national public health insurance scheme and provided by the government (Wilson, 1995). The comprehensive plan has provisions for medical services which allow appointments with the general practitioners as well as specialized medical personnel such as dentists. The scheme also covers the prescription of drugs and hospital treatments. On the other hand, the state governments fund some particular health programs, community health projects and also support most of the research within their areas of jurisdiction.
The territory governments support the Aboriginal health services which are a program for the native populations. The local government offers mental health services and the major health infrastructures. The individuals pay for the health services through the taxes while a proportion of the population pays premiums to the private health insurance schemes. In the American health care system, the funding is mainly undertaken by the private individuals while the government generates policies to regulate the industry.
The Australian health outcomes are quite high in comparison with the global average. The universal healthcare system in the country ensures that majority citizens access quality health care. The role of the government is prominent and hence empowering the private individuals to access superior health care under regulated, subsidized programs (Scheppers, et al 2006). In comparison with the middle-income countries, the Australian system is quite good and is considered one of the best in the world. The fact there is a good coordination between the federal and local governments in the provision of the health services ensures that the majority access treatment and medicine as required, which is contrary to the global average.
The American health care system is relatively superior in comparison to the world average despite the fact that there is a substantial proportion of the population who are not covered by any form of medical scheme (Collins et al 2014). However the medical plan for the elderly and the disabled rate the country quite high on the global average. Few countries around the world have such systems, which are fully funded by the central governments. With relatively higher incomes, the majority of the American citizen access medical health care via private health insurance plans which is a rare practice globally. Therefore, the Australian and American health care systems are reasonably superior to the global average. Only the rich countries of Europe, Canada, and Japan come close.
The health care spending per capita is higher in the USA than any other country across the globe. For example, in 2013 the government spent $5950 which was higher than even in the countries that have universal health care systems (Collins et al 2014). In the same year, the only country that spent more on health was Switzerland. The American citizens pay the highest health taxes in the world, despite the fact that the health care system is mostly private. In the USA the government spends 50% of the health budget on the schemes such as Medicare, Medicaid and veterans schemes (Collins et al 2014). In the year 2013, the USA government spent a whopping $188 billion or 6.5% of the total health budget on government employee’s private medical insurance schemes (Collins et, al., 2014). The full amount of the health care plans is much larger than that of Australia. One distinguishing feature of the USA and the Australians health systems is that most US citizens are still cannot afford health insurance premiums, which is contrary with Australia. The reality is harsh to the taxpayers whose deductions are misappropriated by insurers and pharmaceutical companies. Overall, 33 million Americans have no form of medical insurance schemes
The Australians Medicare levy was initiated in 1984 to supplement other sources as a measure to facilitate the government affords the extra expense to fund the universal health care program (Barker, Gout & Crowe, 2011). As a result, the Medicare levy of 1.5% of employees' taxable income was introduced. Low-income employees were exempted from the tax and would only pay reduced levy. Higher income individuals without hospital insurance covers would pay an additional 1% of the wages under the program. In 2012, the Medicare scheme paid benefits amounting to $16.4 billion, which was equivalent to $720 per individual.
The Australian government has healthcare policies for the indigenous Aborigines and Torres Strait Islander as some form of affirmative action to ensure that low-income persons get access to quality health care (Leeder, 2003). The plan aims to offer affordable health care at the expense of the taxpayers. The impact of the policy is that the communities are empowered and hence contribute to the Australia’s economy. In the USA, there are medical insurance policies for the elderly, the physically challenged and the veterans. The concept is aimed at providing healthcare to the most vulnerable members of the society for cushioning them from the insurance premiums that they not afford. The concept has been active so far and has stabilized the lives of the individuals by eradicating the uncertainties occasioned by lack of the medical insurance covers due to low or no income. The scheme has a lot of social impacts as relatives are not burdened with the extra responsibility to cater for medical expenses of the aged parents and could, therefore, focus on paying their own medical schemes.
The Australia's health care system is comprehensive and hence provides one of the best health models in the world. It offers universal health care to the majority, including the poor as well as the indigenous communities. However, the system does not provide a wide range of options for the wealthy in the society. Rather the rich pay extra 1% of the taxable income to fund public health scheme, Medicare. The American health system is friendly to the most vulnerable individuals in the society. As such, it shows that in both America and Australia, allocations for the vulnerable people in the society are made, which is an essential aspect in the promotion of health care in the country. However, there are notable differences in the financing model where the rich in Australia pay an extra tax, while in the US, the working population contribute to the financing significantly.
The health care system in Australia is flexible and provides the citizens with a broad range of options because it is primarily run by the private sector. However, the American citizens are overburdened by health care taxes, yet a substantial number of the population remains without medical covers. Further, the system makes no attempt to introduce universal health care to the Americans, despite the fact that the country spends a significant fraction of the budget on health (Yeni, et al 2004). The health care system lacks the necessary structures to address the income disparities among the population as the medical requirements of individuals requires private arrangements.
Australia has a health promotion program that aims to improve the health care of the indigenous communities through preventive measures of the chronic diseases. Under the program, there is a structured systems approach that advocates for proper practices to prevent diabetes and cancer among other chronic illnesses. The breast cancer care program for the indigenous populations aims at creating awareness on cancer detection, treatment, and management. Under the program, there are comprehensive screening campaigns to ensure that the disease is detected early enough for prompt treatment (Epping-Jordan, et al 2004). The Aboriginal youth health access program aims at appropriate youth programs among the aborigine community to provide access to health care (Scheppers, et al 2006). The program also offers campaigns to ensure that the youths are educated on the preventive measures and healthy eating practices (Babor, & Higgins‐Biddle, 2000). The alcohol and other drugs among the indigenous communities is a project aimed at discouraging the abuse of alcohol and other drugs as a measure to fight various ailments.
The Aboriginal men's health and the well-being program endeavor to enlighten the males from the communities on the need for healthy practices such as exercise and proper nutrition (Abdullah & Husten, 2004). The Australian domestic wellness program is a diabetes management and care program whose objective is to enlighten the Australian citizens on how to manage and cater for diabetic patients (Armstrong, et al 2007). The program is well structured and involves local communities in the intensive programs. Most of the programs are financed by the individuals, governments, non-government organizations and donor agencies.
In conclusion, the Australian health care system is one of the most comprehensive and inclusive in the world. The plan is organized in such a way that the territory/local, federal governments, individuals, non-government agencies and the donor communities collaborate to finance the health care at various levels. The majority of the Australians is covered by public schemes such as Medicare, which offers both inpatient and outpatient covers. Further, Australia health care system has some health care campaign and promotion programs whose objective is to create grassroots awareness of various prevention and management measures in a broad range of diseases. In the USA the health care system is under the administration of the private health insurance companies. There are elaborate health schemes to cater for the elderly, the physically challenged and other vulnerable members of the community. The country has a large number of private providers, but there has been numerous concerns over the rising cost of health care in the country. Such concerns have affected a large number of people, who mostly lack insurance schemes to support their health care needs. Additionally, the financing has been an issue and the working population has been made to pay for health care that primarily provides care to the ageing population. As a result, the majority of the citizens feel overburdened and a change of policy in future might make them vulnerable.
References
Abdullah, A. S. M., & Husten, C. G. (2004). Promotion of smoking cessation in developing countries: a framework for urgent public health interventions. Thorax, 59(7), 623-630.
Armstrong, B. K., Gillespie, J. A., Leeder, S. R., Rubin, G. L., & Russell, L. M. (2007). Challenges in health and health care for Australia. Medical Journal of Australia, 187(9), 485.
Babor, T. F., & Higgins‐Biddle, J. C. (2000). Alcohol screening and brief intervention: dissemination strategies for medical practice and public health. Addiction, 95(5), 677-686.
Barker, L. A., Gout, B. S., & Crowe, T. C. (2011). Hospital malnutrition: prevalence, identification and impact on patients and the healthcare system. International journal of environmental research and public health, 8(2), 514-527.
Berwick, D. M., & Hackbarth, A. D. (2012). Eliminating waste in US health care. Jama, 307(14), 1513-1516.
Bodenheimer, T., & Pham, H. H. (2010). Primary care: current problems and proposed solutions. Health Affairs, 29(5), 799-805.
Collins, K. S., Hughes, D. L., Doty, M. M., Ives, B. L., Edwards, J. N., & Tenney, K. (2014). Diverse communities, common concerns: assessing health care quality for minority Americans. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
Epping-Jordan, J. E., Pruitt, S. D., Bengoa, R., & Wagner, E. H. (2004). Improving the quality of health care for chronic conditions. Quality and safety in health care, 13(4), 299-305.
Hacker, J. S. (1997). Market-driven health care: who wins, who loses in the transformation of America’s largest service industry. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 22(6), 1443-1448.
Leeder, S. R. (2003). Achieving equity in the Australian healthcare system. Medical Journal of Australia, 179(9), 475-479.
Mackenzie, E. R., Taylor, L., Bloom, B. S., Hufford, D. J., & Johnson, J. C. (2003). Ethnic minority use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM): a national probability survey of CAM utilizers. Alternative therapies in health and medicine, 9(4), 50.
Productivity Commission. (2006). Australia's health workforce. SSRN Working Paper Series.
Scheppers, E., Van Dongen, E., Dekker, J., Geertzen, J., & Dekker, J. (2006). Potential barriers to the use of health services among ethnic minorities: a review. Family practice, 23(3), 325-348.
Wilson, R. M., Runciman, W. B., Gibberd, R. W., Harrison, B. T., Newby, L., & Hamilton, J. D. (1995). The quality in Australian health care study. Medical Journal of Australia, 163(9), 458-471.
Yeni, P. G., Hammer, S. M., Hirsch, M. S., Saag, M. S., Schechter, M., Carpenter, C. C., & Katzenstein, D. A. (2004). Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2004 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA Panel. Jama, 292(2), 251-265.
.
