Health Care Comparison between Australia and the United Kingdom

Question: Discuss about the Health Care Performance Comparison between Australia and the United Kingdom. Answer: Funding System Health Insurance Systems Both Australia and the UK are developed countries and particularly boast of different sources of health care funding. Among the different sources of health care funding include government budgetary allocation, private health insurance schemes, private funding (out-of-pocket) among others. Being members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Australia and the UK have a health care system funding done mainly by the government. According to Bevan Mays (2014) in the financial year 2011-2012, it is indicated that Australias health spending was mainly funded by public sources totaling up to 68% as compared to the UKs 82.8% in the same period. The remaining portion of health funding included; out-of pocket private funding (20.4%), private health insurance (8.3) among others (3.4%). Nearly a half of the Australian population is subscribed to private health insurance policies despite the availability of government and social insurance support they receive in rega rd to health care funding. The 2011-12 statistics on health expenditure indicated that about 47% of the Australian population was subscribed to private hospital insurance funding (Britnell, 2015). This means that while the Australian government funded health care at a percentage funding lesser that the OECD average which was 72%, its fellow member the UK spend way more than the average OECD average. The high governmental funding on healthcare however seems to have heavily contributed to lower private out-of-pocket spending (9.9%) in the UK. Apparently this could be an indicator that the higher the governmental expending on healthcare funding, the lower the private out-of-pocket spending for a countrys citizen. The out of pocket payment on health care per capita for each household in Australia ($731) was more than that in the UK ($297) while the OECD average was ($590) (Samjoo Grima, 2014). In regard to health insurance, Australias private insurance funding was 8.3%, while the UK ha d only 3.0% of health care funding sourced from private health insurance firms. Other sources of health care funding in the UK contributed to only 4.2% (Bevan Mays (2014), and this was a higher amount when compared to Australia (3.4%). In general, it is clear that private insurance firms thrive in healthcare systems where governmental expenditure on health is lower. Lower governmental funding on health care forces citizens to utilize private health insurance services and also use more funds from out-of-pocket. Governance System Health services in Australia are governed under the public health system by the Commonwealth, state and territorial health ministers. Collectively, these ministers form the Standing Council on Health which carries out the supplementary coordination of the healthcare system in Australia. The Standing council therefore ensures that there is; seamless healthcare services to the indigenous and non-indigenous Australians; higher performance standards in health care particularly in regard to transparency and engagement of local HCPs and further; a secured and sustainable health care system funding base for the whole sector including hospitals (Britnell, 2015). The two main aims of the Standing council in governing health care in Australia are; attaining better health services that are sustainable and; to fix the gap between health care provision for indigenous and nonindigenous citizens. The Standing council is strategically supported by the Advisory council to the Health Ministers which i s comprised of health authorities heads from the main government, the states and territorial governments. For the case of the United Kingdom, the governance of heath care system is done by the four main governments; Government of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Government if the United Kingdom-England (Bevan Mays, 2014). This means that governance of health care in the UK is a devolved function. Therefore health care is governed and funded by the different parliaments and/or governments among other private voluntary contributors. As a result of differences in policies, each country in the Kingdom performs differently from the other in regard to quality of care and disease outcomes among other measures of health quality (Britnell, 2015). In England, healthcare is governed by the heads of the National Health Service while the Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland is the body in charge of health governance in Northern Ireland. Scotland has the NHS Scotland as the main health system while NHS Wales manages health services in Wales. NHS Wales is governed and under the responsi bility of the Welsh Assembly government and a main concern of the Secretary of State (Bevan Mays, 2014). In England NHS is governed under the Department of Health headed by theSecretary of State for Healthassisted by the Minister of Stateamong other four Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State. Therefore, the main distinction between health governance between Australia and the UK is that the UK according to Boslaugh (2013) has a devolved health governance system while Australia has all its territorial and state health systems under the Minister of health of the Government of Australia assisted by the Standing Council of Health. Selected Population Health Indicators Maternal Mortality Rate Maternal mortality rate refers to the number of deaths of women for every 100000 live births annually as a result of causes of related to pregnancy and its management except accidental causes. Maternal mortality in Australia has been tracked since the 1960s and between 1964 and 1966; the countrys maternal mortality rate was at 41.2. The latest statistics (2008-2012) particularly indicate that Australia has 7.1 maternal mortality rate which is way lower than the previous years (Stewart et al, 2016). Among the direct and indirect causes of maternal mortality in Australia include cardiovascular diseases (1.5MMR), Sepsis (1.3 MMR), and further; obstetric hemorrhage (1.1 MMR) (Samjoo Grima, 2014). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are said to be two times more vulnerable to maternal mortality as compared to other Australians. The United Kingdom on the other hand has over time also registered a falling maternal mortality rate due to the ever improving health standards put in place by the individual governments; Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom-England. From the 2006-08 to the 2009-12 analysis, there was a fall in maternal mortality rate from 11 deaths per 100,000 live births to 10 deaths/100,000 live births(Britnell, 2015). These were mainly caused by pre-eclampsia, thrombosis-a cardiovascular condition, sepsis and obstetric hemorrhage. While these conditions are also common for the case of Australia as main contributors to maternal mortality, it is indicated that UK had flu as an additional cause of maternal mortality within 42 days after giving birth. In particular, OECD data reports show that one out of 11 deaths of among mothers resulted from flu (Stewart et al, 2016). According to researchers, above half of these deaths were preventable through a flu jab. It is likely that the maternal mortality rate for the UK could be way lower than, if not equal to that of Australia if only flu was eradicated as a contributing f actor. Infant Mortality Rate Infant mortality rate refers to total deaths of children under the age of one year for every 1 000 live births. Countries post varying infant mortality rates as a result of variations in individual national registering approaches for premature infants. The threshold for registering a birth as a live birth also varies and in Europe, it is put at 22 weeks gestational age where a baby measures 500g in weight (Boslaugh, 2013). According to the 2014 statistics from the OECD countries, Australia reported 3.4 infant deaths per 1000 live births. Comparing this with the UK which is European region, it is clear that the later posted a higher infant mortality rate (3.9 infant deaths per 1000 live births). This indicates that Australia has put in more measures than the UK in preventing infant mortality than its counterpart, the UK. Life Expectancy at Birth Life expectancy at birth refers to the average age a newborn is likely to live particularly if the current death rates in a given state do not change at all. In 2014 the OECD reported that life expectancy at birth in Australia was at 80.3 years for men while that of women was projected at 84.1. This gives a national total life expectancy at birth of about 82. 2 years. The UK has a lower life expectancy at birth as compared to Australia (Bevan Mays, 2014). In particular, the mean life expectancy at birth for men in the UK is 79.5 year for men, 83.2 for women and this gives a national average of 81.4 years. It is this clear that an individual is sure of living longer be it a woman or man if they are born in Australia than when born in the United Kingdom. A gain in life expectancy at birth indicates increased living standards, better education, better lifestyles and greater health care services access (Sue, 2013). Considering the higher life expectancy at birth of Australia as compared to the UK according to the OECD data in 2014, it is logical to conclude that healthcare access in Australia is more accessible than it is in the UK. Further, while education, improved living standards and lifestyles can be comparable, it is likely that Australians enjoy these privileges slightly better than UK citizens within their devolved health care system. Health Status Low birth weight Babies considered to have a low birth weight include babies who are born while having less than 2.5 kg in weight (Al-Amin et al, 2016). While there is no updated data on low birth weight cases in Australia, the 2010 statistics indicate that 6.2% of live births were low birth weight cases according to the World Bank. For the case of UK which only has low birth weight data for England and Wales, about 7.0% low birth weight cases occurred in 2015 this figure has been unchanged since 2011(Bevan Mays, 2014). This means that as by 2010 and probably to date, Australia has only slightly lower low-birth weight cases than the UK. However, in both nations low birth weight cases are more common among babies born to parents from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. Obesity According to the recent Australian Health Survey report for the 2011-12 period which involved age standardization in its statistical analysis, 28.3% of adults in Australia were obese. However, the sum of obese and overweight adults was 63.4% of the total number of Australian adults. The latest analysis which was published in the year 2016 indicated that in spite of the fact that both conditions form the second highest contributing factors of disease burden in Australia there has been low regular screening and/or recording of these particular measures especially in primary health care setting in Australian regional Australian catchments. The UK on the other hand puts obesity as one of the emerging health concern as it is among the leading factors in regard to causing preventable deaths (Britnell, 2015). In fact in 2016, childhood obesity in the UK was described by Health Secretary as being a national emergency. Compared to Australias 28.3% adults being obese, the WHO in 2014 indicated that the UK registered 28.1% of its population as being obese. The total number of overweight individuals in the UK among the adult population adds up to 62% of them. This means that Australia has slightly higher obese and overweight cases than the UK (Stewart et al, 2016). Both countries thus require sufficient input in regard to healthcare policies to control obesity, being a common danger and cause of cardiovascular disease conditions among others. Diabetes Both Australia and the UK register high prevalence of diabetes and in particular high Type 2 diabetes. In the period 2014-15, about 5.1% of Australians totaling to 1.2 million people were diabetic cases and this was an increase from the 4.5% registered in the in 2011-12 period.Type 2 diabetes contributed to the highest cases of diabetes (4.4%) while the other 0.7% resulted from type 1 diabetes in the 2014-15 period (OECD, 2017). It is indicated that there were more males (5.7%) than females (4.6% suffering from diabetes this same period and that diabetes rate increased with increase in age of individuals. Currently, the total number of diagnosed cases of diabetes in the UK stands at 3.5 million in estimate and this about three times the number of diabetes cases reported in Australia when the two are compared. Even so, about 549000 people are suspected to be undiagnosed and therefore, over 4 million people in the UK are living with diabetes today. This adds up to 6% of the population of the United Kingdom while as shown before, only 5.1 of the Australians have diabetes (Britnell, 2015). Type 2 diabetes is the most prevalent in both countries and is related to the ever increasing obesity cases in the United Kingdom and in Australia. In comparison, Type 2 diabetes contributes to 90% of the cases while Type 1 Diabetes only accounts for 10%. It is however clear that there are more cases of Diabetes type 1 and gestational diabetes in the UK than Australia. Australia therefore performs better than the UK in regard to diabetes prevention, especially for the case of Type 2 according to this analysis. Asthma Statistics indicate that about 2.5 million Australians are asthma cases. In particular 1 among 9 Australians has asthma. Just like the case of maternal mortality, indigenous Australians are two times more likely to suffer from Asthma as compared to nonindigenous citizens. It is common among people living in areas with poor socio economic conditions. In Australia, the disease is common among females than in males. Within the period of 2014-15, about 39500 hospitalized individuals were reported as asthma cases. OECD data on disease and mortality indicated that Australia registered about 419 deaths as a result of Asthma. Comparing Asthma cases in Australia and the UK, it is clear that the UK has twice the number as compared to that of its counterpart. In particular 5.4 million people in the United Kingdom have been diagnosed with asthma. The UK registered a three times the number of Asthma deaths as Australia (1216 vs. 419) in 2014(OECD 2017). Generally, Australia has better performance in terms of controlling and treating asthma as compared to the UK despite their individual efforts to reduce resultant deaths. Hypertension (High Blood Pressure) Hypertension is one of the commonest health condition related to the circulatory system across the world. It contributes to cardiovascular disease burden in both the UK and Australia, just like in the other parts of the world. According to a 2011/12, report for instance, Australia registered 4.6 million adult cases of high blood pressure and this forms (32%) of the population of people aging 18 years and above (Harding Pritchard, 2016). Among the adult cases, 68% (3.1 million) had uncontrolled and/or unmanaged hypertension i.e., were not on medication. For the case of the UK whose data has been updated, 16 million people are hypertension case. Despite the difference in the years of analysis for both countries, it is clear that hypertension is particularly three times more prevalent in the UK than Australia (Boslaugh, 2013). This means that UK citizens are more likely to acquire CVDs as compared to Australians. Even so, both nations have put in measures to screen individuals with hyp ertension and put them on medication. Cancer According to the latest statics on cancer, Australia has 134,174 new cases each year and this includes about 72,169 males and 62,005 female cases. In regard to the number of deaths from cancer, Australia registered 47753 deaths including 27078 males and 20, 677 females (Campbell et al, 2017). The countrys cancer surviving rate was projected to be at least 5 years according to the 2009-2013 statistics (OECD, 2017). Comparing with the UK, the kingdom reported about 356, 860 new cases of cancer. These included 181000 males and 176, 000 females. Australia therefore has lower new cases; particularly half of the cases reported in the UK. There are particular types of cancer that contribute to more than a half of the cases of the total in the UK and even in Australia (Britnell, 2015). These include prostate, lung and breast, and bowel cancer and contribute to about 53% of all cancers in the UK. The rate of cancer cases in the UK peak, as people attain 85 years and above and this is the same case in Australia (Allemani et al, 2015). In addition about half of cancer cases reported in the UK occur among individuals within the age of 70 year and beyond. The common aspect realized between the two nations is that cancer is more prone among men than among women. Health System Performance GDP Expenditure on Health (%) The official national statistics indicate that Australia had a total $154.6 billion expenditure on health during the 201314, period. This means that Australia spent about 9.8 percent of its GDP on health care, 67.8 % of which was sourced from the Government while 32.3% from non-governmental sectors (Harding Pritchard, 2016). Compared to the UK almost the same period, it is seen that it registered a lower GDP portion (8.8% of its GDP) allocated for health than Australia in 2013. Therefore despite the fact that payment for health care is met mainly by the UK government more than Australia, Australia allocate more funding to health care than its counterpart. Health care Measures Health care measures that can be further used to compare public health systems include determine if a system is acceptable, effective, efficient safe or appropriate. To start with, an idea or system is acceptable if it can be agreed upon, allowed and even tolerated. Both Australian and the UK health system functions have been over the years been acceptable (Quality of Death Index 2015). Devolving health in UK to be managed by each individual country i.e. Wales, Northern Ireland, Wales and England makes health care more acceptable. Similarly, Australias consideration of the health needs of all its indigenous people has made its health system acceptable. Secondly, appropriateness as a measure refers to the suitability of something in a given circumstance (Al-Abri Al-Balushi, 2016). In this case, a suitable health care system is one that is proper in handling different health care concerns in the country depending on the health issues affecting its citizens. (Quality of Death Index 201 5). A 2014 report ranked the UKs health system as the best in the world and in terms of care quality. Thirdly, effectiveness as a measure refers to the ability of a health system to achieve its main objectives of ever improving health care in a nation (Al-Abri Al-Balushi, 2016). Simply, an effective health care system achieves its intended objectives. In comparison, the UKs NHS was declared the most effective healthcare system in the world in 2014 and therefore better than Australias system. Comparisons can also be done based on efficiency and health care system is efficient is if it yields maximum productivity and minimal wasted cost and efforts. Statistics indicate that the UK health care system is more patient oriented and offers high quality as compared to other developed countries (Quality of Death Index 2015) Efficiency was also higher for the case of the UK than Australia according to the 2014 data. The 2016 Best Countries ranking puts Australias public health system rank 7 and UK at rank 4 worldwide in terms of quality of service, efficiency and effectiveness. Further, safet y being a measure means that something is free of harm, injury and risk (Al-Abri Al-Balushi, 2016). The UK system is safer than that of Australia according to the 2014 statistics on national health care systems. Even so, the UK ranked poorly (14th out of 35) in regard to accessibility to health care. In conclusion, this discussion presents a comparison of the Australian and UK health care systems. It has highlighted the variations in the different measures of quality including health status, governance, and percentage GDP expenditure on health among other measures. It is apparent that generally the UK system is slightly better than that of Australia despite the fact that the UK spends less than the average amount for the OECD countries on health. Other measures included acceptability, safety, efficiency, effectiveness and appropriateness and in majority of these measures, the developed UK system emerged varyingly better than the Australian system. References Quality of Death Index 2015: Ranking palliative care across the world. (6 October 2015).The Economist Intelligence. Retrieved 17 May, 2017. UK end-of-life care 'best in world.(2015).BBC. Retrieved on 17May, 2017 Al-Abri, R., Al-Balushi, A. (2016).Patient Satisfaction Survey as a Tool Towards Quality Improvement.Oman Medical Journal.29(1): 37. Al-Amin, M., Makarem, S., Rosko, M. (2016). Efficiency and hospital effectiveness in improving Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems ratings.Health Care Management Review,41(4), 296-305. Allemani, C. (2015)."Global surveillance of cancer survival 19952009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2))".The Lancet.385: 9771010.Retrieved online on 17May, 2017 Bevan, G., Mays, N. (2014).The four health systems of the UK: How do they compare? Nuffield Trust. Retrieved on 17 May, 2017. Boslaugh S. (2013). Health care systems around the world: a comparative guide. California: SAGE publications; 606 p Britnell, M. (2015).In Search of the Perfect Health System. London: Palgrave. p.53.ISBN978-1-137-49661-4. Campbell, D., Marsh, S., Helm, T. (2017).NHS in crisis as cancer operations cancelled due to lack of beds. via The Guardian. Retrieved 17May, 2017 Cantiello, J., Kitsantas, P., Moncada, S., Abdul, S. (2016).The evolution of quality improvement in healthcare: patient-centered care and health information technology applications.Journal of Hospital Administration.5(2). Retrieved 17May, 2017 Cylus, J., Nolte, E., Figueras, J., McKee, M., (2016).What, if anything, does the EuroHealth Consumer Index actually tell us?.BMJ.Retrieved 17May, 2017 Harding, A., Pritchard, C. (2016). UK and Twenty Comparable Countries GDP-Expenditure-on-Health 1980-2013: The Historic and Continued Low Priority of UK Health-Related Expenditure.International Journal of Health Policy and Management,5(9), 519-523. https://dx.doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.93 Hurst, K. (2014). Measuring and reporting service efficiency and effectiveness.International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,27(6). https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijhcqa-02-2014-0015 Jones-Roberts, A., Phillips, J., Tinsley, K. (2014). Creating a sustainable health promotion workforce in Australia: a health promoting approach to professionalisation.Health Promotion Journal of Australia,25(2), 150. Nick (2017).NHS Health Check: Short GP consultations crazy, say GPs. Retrieved on 17May, 2017 from www.bbc.co.uk. OECD (2017), Deaths from cancer (indicator). doi: 10.1787/8ea65c4b-en (Accessed on 17 May 2017) Pritchard, C., Wallace, M. (2014). Comparing UK and Other Western Countries' Health Expenditure, Relative Poverty and Child Mortality: Are British Children Doubly Disadvantaged?.Children Society,29(5), 462-472. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/chso.12079 Reece, N. (2013).Hanging on to Medibank is a national health hazard.Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved on 17May, 2017 Samjoo, I., Grima, D. (2014). Comparison of Oncology Therapy Reimbursement Recommendations Made by Health Technology Assessment Agencies in Australia, Canada, Sweden, And United Kingdom.Value in Health,17(3), A101. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.589 Stewart, H., Taylor, D. (2016).NHS plans closures and radical cuts to combat growing deficit in health budget. The Guardian. Sue, D.(2013).Australia now third in the world for life expectancy and healthy life.news.com.au. News Limited. Topping, A. (2017).GP consultations too short for complex cases, says doctors' leader. The Guardian.