Health care coverage in Great Britain is organized by the National Health Service (NHS). The NHS offers universal care to all residents, is publicly run and funded, and operates based off one guiding principle; health care coverage is a basic human right and should be provided by the government to all individuals. Along with the public health care coverage offered by the government, Great Britain – like Canada – also offers privately-run insurance which can be purchased to supplement the basic coverage. About 12% of the population choses to purchase private insurance plans as well.
There are obvious pros and cons to the organization of health care in Great Britain. Let’s start with the positives.The two models below compare our health care system with that of Great Britain.
Because the NHS is so reliant on a central governmental authority, the health care system has a high level of organizational structure and therefore is effective at minimizing administrative costs incurred. This keeps the national spending on health care relatively low. On average, 16% of health care expenditures in Great Britain go towards administrative costs, while here in America, we shell out over 25% of funds for this purpose.
Another positive of Great Britain’s National Health Service is the moral guidelines which drives it’s functioning. The Brits believe that health coverage is a fundamental human right, therefore, it would be unjust to deny anyone medical treatment. Great Britain believes in social justice (the government should provide for everyone for the betterment of society), while us American’s gravitate towards market justice (where the individual is required to fend for themselves).
However, because of this belief, Great Britain has instilled weaknesses within it’s health care system as well. By providing universal overage, Great Britain has created long wait times just as we saw in Canada. In an effort to minimize health care spending, Great Britain has reduced funding to technological advancements. This wasn’t a problem initially, but now medical equipment is becoming outdated and is creating panic as to when this will begin to decrease overall quality of care. Finally, Great Britain experiences a unique problem titled “health tourism”. Many foreigners are entering into the country because they are able to receive medical treatment at a much lower cost than they would be able to in their country of residency. This is driving up health care costs as more and more people demand treatment while the number being taxed for health care services remains constant.
So, what works? What doesn’t? Do you think the benefits of universal coverage offered by the NHS outweigh the costs?
According to a survey released by British Social Attitudes, the Brits feel pretty good about their health care system. 61% of those surveyed reported feeling ‘satisfied’ with the cost, quality, and access of the National Health Service. Even though it is the majority, 61% may not sound very impressive to you. However, when you consider that here in America only about 29% of us feel that our health care system ‘works pretty well’ (data from a comparative study provided by Health Affairs Journal), it’s clear that Great Britain ranks above us yet again. The graph below details the trends in Britain’s overall satisfaction with their healthcare system.
It’s hard to determine what exactly caused the surge in satisfaction, however, researchers point out that the timing correlates with Great Britain’s increased health expenditure spending which lead to lower wait times. This is a promising finding, as wait times are continuing to decrease, indicating that the National Health System is getting healthier itself.
Because Great Britain’s health care system is organized off the same value of universal coverage that Canada operates on, I find myself being very fond of this organizational structure. What I find to be most successful in the NHS is it’s organizational strategy. Because it is run by the central government, it is far less complex than our fragmented system. Not only does this minimize administrative costs as discussed previously, but it also drastically speeds up the process of policy development. When legislation is added or revised in the United States it must pass through numerous obstacles and be subject to approval from multiple authorities who all hold opposing viewpoints. This makes it nearly impossible for change to be made in a timely manner. Often, by the time a policy is finally implemented, the kairotic timeliness has diminished.
In Great Britain, however, the concise organizational structure means there are less hoops to jump through. Policy can be developed faster while still being reviewed by many boards, improving population health drastically.
The topic of universal coverage is one which will continue to be controversial in nature for as long as it remains a topic of debate. However, what is harder to argue against is the benefits Great Britain derives from managing their health care system with one central agency. Perhaps that is the greatest piece of advice America can take away from the NHS.
- Shafrin, Jason. “Health Care Around the World: Great Britain « Healthcare Economist.” Healthcare Economist. Healthcare Economist, 23 Apr. 2008. Web. 20 Jan. 2016.
- Taylor, Adam. “The British Are Surprisingly Satisfied With Their Controversial Socialized Health Care System.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 10 Sept. 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2016.
- Shi, Leiyu, and Douglas Singh. Essentials of the U.S. Health Care System. 3rd ed. Burlington: Jones & Barlett Learning, 01803. Print.
Kerri Schopf says
Katie,
I am glad you are giving us a look into each of the health care systems of different countries. It is good to be able to see what works and what does not for each of these countries as we try to reform our own system. It is fascinating that 12% of the population purchased private insurance plans. Is this in addition to what is offered publicly? If so, I wonder if maybe they feel that the public health care is not good enough or if they just want to skip long lines and have enough money to pay their way to better service. In that case wouldn’t there still be a divide in socioeconomic status based on the type of health care they receive? This is just a thought I had but I could be wrong. I will have to read into that all a little further to figure out how the system really works.
It seems very convenient that the health care system is so organized. When I looked at the two charts you provided I couldn’t even understand the second chart because there were arrows everywhere! I feel like it would be a nightmare to try and keep all of that straight! I am not surprised that it costs so much more in America for administration.
I never would have thought of the issue of having outdated medical equipment due to the health care system. If America spends so much more towards administration, I wonder where all the extra money is being spent in Great Britain. I think that having up-to-date medical equipment should be a priority because sometimes newer technology is able to catch diseases more effectively and therefore give a patient a better chance of survival. I think Great Britain should definitely look into reassigning some spending. But of course it is easier to say this from the outside looking in.
This is one of my favorite blog posts so far on this blog. I find Britain’s system fascinating and it seems that it is only getting stronger. It definitely has me thinking about our own system. Great post again!
efe5064 says
Katie,
I genuinely enjoyed this post because I can actually see your passion 😀 This affects your writing and also facilitates my reading, and teaches me a lot about the health policies in different countries.
At first I was shocked to learn only 12% of the population purchased a private insurance plan. Thinking about the problems you cited regarding the waiting lines and outdated equipment, 12% seems to be a small ratio. However as you mentioned later, waiting times have decreased and keep doing so, therefore I agree with the 61% of the Brits: it looks like the benefits of the universal coverage outweigh the costs.
I am glad I read your passion blog first, because now I understand your reference to the American health policy legislation process and its numerous obstacles. I thought it was a good idea but never considered the speed aspect. I guess Britain’s organization is much better in that way.
On a side note, the health tourism problem was surprising to learn about, I am going to do more research about it – let’s talk about it in class!
Great post Katie!!