National Health Systems throughout the World: Lessons for Health System Reform in the United States

Author(s):  
Milton Roemer
2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 363-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Skala

The collapse of the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Doha Round of talks without achieving new health services liberalization presents an important opportunity to evaluate the wisdom of granting further concessions to international investors in the health sector. The continuing deterioration of the U.S. health system and the primacy of reform as an issue in the 2008 presidential campaign make clear the need for a full range of policy options for addressing the national health crisis. Yet few commentators or policymakers realize that existing WTO health care commitments may already significantly constrain domestic policy options. This article illustrates these constraints through an evaluation of the potential effects of current WTO law and jurisprudence on the implementation of a single-payer national health insurance system in the United States, proposed incremental national and state health system reforms, the privatization of Medicare, and other prominent health system issues. The author concludes with some recommendations to the U.S. Trade Representative to suspend existing liberalization commitments in the health sector and to interpret current and future international trade treaties in a manner consistent with civilized notions of health care as a universal human right.


Author(s):  
Ahmad Khan,

Scientists have written numerous papers studying different aspects of health systems in the world. Comparing health systems in the world is essential for policymakers to learn from each other to make healthcare services effective with better outcomes and decrease the cost of healthcare services. In the world, countries have different health systems. The difference in the health systems is a combination of components that are specific to each country based on the financial status of healthcare, workforce, and infrastructures. This paper will evaluate the contrast of Canadian and American health systems payment systems, timely access, and healthcare quality outcomes. Both countries are well-developed countries that have a health system with excellent infrastructure and effective healthcare services. However, the system operates differently in both countries. America does not have a universal healthcare plan and spends more money per capita compared to Canada. The United States has a lower rank than its peer, underperforms in maternal mortality, infant mortality, preventable deaths, and life expectancy. On the other hand, Canada has a universal healthcare plan for all Canadian residents and performs better in life expectancy, infant mortality, and maternal mortality. However, waiting for specialized care is longer than in the United States.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiban Khuntia ◽  
Xue Ning ◽  
Wayne Cascio ◽  
Rulon Stacey

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic, with all its virus variants, remains a serious situation. Health systems across the United States are trying their best to respond. The healthcare workforce remains relatively homogenous, even though they are caring for a highly diverse array of patients (6-12). It is a perennial problem in the US healthcare workforce that has only been accentuated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical workers should reflect the variety of patients they care for and strive to understand their mindsets within the larger contexts of culture, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and socioeconomic realities. Along with talent and skills, diversity and inclusion (D&I) are essential for maintaining a workforce that can treat the myriad needs and populations that health systems serve. Developing hiring strategies in a post-COVID-19 “new normal” that will help achieve greater workforce diversity remains a challenge for health system leaders. OBJECTIVE Our primary objectives are (1) to explore the characteristics and perceived benefits of US health systems that value D&I; (2) to examine the influence of a workforce strategy designed to balance talent and D&I; and (3) to explore three pathways to better equip workforces and their relative influences on business- and service-oriented benefits: (a) improving D&I among existing employees (IMPROVE), (b) using multiple channels to find and recruit a workforce (RECRUIT), and (c) collaborating with universities to find new talent and establish plans to train students (COLLABORATE). METHODS During February–March 2021, we surveyed 625 health system chief executive officers, in the United States, 135 (22%) of whom responded. We assessed workforce talent and diversity-relevant factors. We collected secondary data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) Compendium of the US. Health Systems, leading to a matched data set of 124 health systems for analysis. We first explored differences in talent and diversity benefits across the health systems. Then, we examined the relationship between IMPROVE, RECRUIT, and COLLABORATE pathways to equip the workforce. RESULTS Health system characteristics, such as size, location, ownership, teaching, and revenue, have varying influences on D&I and business and service outcomes. RECRUIT has the most substantial mediating effect on diversity-enabled business- and service-oriented outcomes of the three pathways. This is also true of talent-based workforce acquisitions. CONCLUSIONS Diversity and talent plans can be aligned to realize multiple desired benefits for health systems. However, a one-size-fits-all approach is not a viable strategy for improving D&I. Health systems need to follow a multipronged approach based on their characteristics. To get D&I right, proactive plans and genuine efforts are essential.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document