The health care delivery systems are important factors as far as health care is concerned. There are several factors, which shape the prevailing cultural approach to these health care delivery systems. They include cultural values and beliefs as well as situational and economic factors. This paper seeks to examine the four basic health care system models and compare the Beveridge, the Bismarck, Out-of-pocket, and the national health insurance models.
First, the Bismarck model employs the insurance system and is actively practiced in Germany, France, Japan, Belgium, Switzerland, and Latin American countries. The key features of this model are the fact that the payers and providers are private. It utilizes a private insurance plan where the financing is jointly done by the employees and employers using payroll deduction. The plan includes everyone and is not profit-oriented (Kelin, 2009). In a bid to control cost, there are tight regulations with regards to medical fees and services.
Second, the Beveridge model was essentially named after William Beveridge. The model covers Great Britain, Cuba, the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, Italy, and Cuba. The main characteristics of this model are the fact that the provision and financing of healthcare are primarily done by the government through the utilization of tax payments. It is important to note that there are no medical bills involved in this model. While the medical treatment is under public service, the providers of health care could be the employees of the government (Winkler, Basch, & Cutler, 2012). Additionally, the costs are controlled by the government which is the sole payer.
Another important model is the national health is insurance model that is popular in Canada, Taiwan, and South Korea. The main characteristics of the model are that the health care providers are private. The payer is primarily managed by the government which runs an insurance program where all the citizens under this program contribute giving the government an immense market power to negotiate for lower prices. The national insurance is responsible for collecting monthly premiums and paying the impending medical bills (Physicians for a National Health Program, 2010). In comparison to other American-style insurance, this model is much simpler and cheaper to administrate. The cost is regulated through making the patients wait for their treatment as well as limiting the prevailing medical services that the patients sho pay for.
The out-of-pocket model is another basic health care delivery system that is utilized in Africa's rural regions, South America, India, and China. The out-of-pocket model is a mainstream in the so-called no-system countries. The main characteristics of this model is the fact that only the citizens with abundant finances get the access to the medical care where the poor are let die since they have either limited or no access to health care services (Winkler, Basch, & Cutler, 2012). The patient undergoes all the burden of paying the impending medical care services out of their pockets. Essentially, in this concept there is neither government nor insurance plan involved.
The main difference between these basic health care delivery systems fall under four important characteristics, namely coverage, quality, cost, and choice. Varying models cover different countries. With regards to geography, every country has adopted a model that best suits its needs and economic capacity of the states. The countries enjoying good economic conditions have an all-inclusive model where all the citizens are taxed where the funds collected are channeled towards the payment of the medical services available to the citizens. These systems are not practiced in countries where the economic conditions are poor. If such conditions were practiced in the developing countries, it would seem unfair since the unemployment rate is high; thus, there would be an uneven collection of tax.
Furthermore, the models vary in regards to quality of service. In the Beveridge model, the government has the sole responsibility for offering the health services to its citizens. Therefore, the government must offer quality services for all people without an exception. On the other hand, the out-of-pocket model does not offer quality services for all its citizens. With the other models offer uniform services to its citizens, while the out-of-pocket model proposes services only to small number of patients who have the capacity of paying for the services leaving the larger population of citizens to suffer from sickness. It indicates that other developed countries produce high-quality services in comparison to the services in the U.S.
Another striking difference between the core models is the fact that all the other health systems are cheaper in comparison to that one of the United States. In regards to the foreign employees, they shoulder less expense for their respective health delivery system in comparison to the existing U.S. companies (Kelin, 2009). One more distinction between the other models in comparison to that one utilized in America is that most countries provide excellent choice of programs. On the contrary, the model utilized in America is excessively expensive and has mediocre results. The concept seems to produce inequitable and inadequate access for its citizens being a profit-seeking; thereby, the model is not only harmful but also wasteful. The U.S. health delivery system is a bottomless expectation for both the physicians and the patients for in this model, the patients lack the necessary worth of their money.
To conclude, for the model utilized in the United States to be efficient and adequate to all citizens, there is a need for the government to adapt the model from other countries which are not only cheaper and affordable to the citizens but also effective.