Health care system assessment and policy analysis in the United Kingdom

Healthcare System of Norway

Health Policy of Norway

Analysis of Health Policy

Pressures on Health Care Delivery

High Cost

Ageing Population

Increased Diseases

Waiting-time Prioritization

The healthcare systems are developed to provide necessary healthcare facilities. It is also aimed to maintain health of their citizen in compliance with the state and international regulations. Norway is considered as one of the country, holding prominent place in global economy as well as growth rate and per capita income (Pontusson2011). It is also observed that the country is also similar to other states in Scandinavian region governed on the principles of a welfare state. In such context the importance of healthcare policies and systems is increased. The research is focused to investigate the policies, regulations, and healthcare system of Norway. The impacts of these polices are also reviewed in analysis and discussion sections. Finally the conclusion is formulated on the basis of secondary research.

There are two major healthcare system used in the world. These systems are based on social insurance system and Beveridge model. It is observed that both systems have their own benefits, limitations, and significance. The impacts of the system adopted in the country are also reflected on the public healthcare. It is also stated that the countries e.g. United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden etc. follow a Beveridge model to provide healthcare for their citizens. However all these countries have a varied structure for their healthcare system but the principles are derived from Beveridge model. The citizens are provided the basic healthcare according to the system adopted by the country (Schmid, Cacace, Gotze&Rothgang2010). The outcome is also directly proportionate to system dynamics. There is also a system adopted in relation to the Soviet state owned structure of healthcare facilities. In this structure the country's government owns the major healthcare facilities and it is also responsible for providing required healthcare to their citizens. Norway has also adopted this system since the year 2000.

Research Methodology:

The research is designed to review available secondary literature from scholarly journal articles, books, and professional studies. The usage of various peer reviewed journal articles provides the necessary insight regarding policies of healthcare in Norway. The research design is in line with the qualitative research parameters. It is observed that qualitative review of secondary literature is essential to provide significant benefits in developing understanding and facilitating a comparison of the Norway healthcare system with other countries including United Kingdom, Canada, USA, Spain, and Sweden. The regional data is also obtained through the secondary literature. The sources are appropriately cited in order to fulfill the obligatory ethical considerations of secondary literature review.

Literature Review:

According to Matcha (2003) Beveridge model is adopted to develop healthcare system of various European countries including Norway. The citizens are provided access to the healthcare system and a certain amount of healthcare expenses are observed. United Kingdom had incurred $1,450 per capita as healthcare expenses in year 1998. It is also observed that Sweden spent $1,820, Norway spent $2,090, and Spain $1,240 per capita in 1998. It reviles that even following the same model for providing healthcare facilities countries incurred different levels of per capita expenses. The healthcare spending as a percentage of the GDP is also low in this system. United Kingdom spent 6.9%, Sweden 8.6%, Norway and Spain spent 7.5% of their GDP in 1998. If it is compared with the United States spending it comes out to be 14% of their GDP was spent on providing healthcare for the same period. United States follows a social insurance model as a basis for healthcare system.

Norway is second country in the OECD countries in terms of health spending. It is recorded that the country has spent $3,268 in 2010 as compared with the highest healthcare spending country United States with a spending of $5,388 in the same period. The healthcare spending in Norway has a varied degree of spending in last ten years. The spending in 200 was 8.4%, with a ten percent increase in year 2003. However the country spent reduced it to 8.6% in 2008. The year 2010 saw increase in spending up to 9.4%. The notable indicator is that Norway's healthcare spending is funded with public contribution up to 85.5% which is above the average in OECD countries at 72.2% (Luigi, Michael & Valerie 2013).

Health Policy of Norway:

There had been changes in various countries regarding the healthcare policies. The policies are developed and adopted according to the suitability of impacts on public. However the economic conditions, GDP growth rate, and public health conditions of the country are also considered. Norway has experienced multiple changes in its healthcare policies, spending, and its structure (Heijink, Koolman&Westert2012). The state owned structure is adopted as a policy for Norway's public specialized healthcare system. The state owned structure is divided into four geographic regions namely north, mid, west, and south-east. The responsibility to provide healthcare to the patients is dedicated to RHA. The patients of all regions have a right for appeal in case they are referred for a specialist healthcare.

Luigi et al. (2013) observes that the regional grouping is also extended to the patient's categories including emergency care, elective treatment with or without individual waiting time, and finally other healthcare services. The hospitals are directed to provide all emergency patients with the healthcare treatment required in any given circumstances. These types of patients are treated on priority basis at all hospitals. The mandatory service is only excluded for the last category of patients. The assessment for all groups except emergency patients is carried out on the basis of severity, efficacy of healthcare treatment, and projected cost as an outcome of the expected treatment. The patient's attributes satisfying the first condition are immediately considered qualified for the healthcare services. Therefore it can be concluded that the current healthcare policy is based on the clinical urgency and cost related to the treatment (Askildsen, Holmas&Kaarboe2011). The guidelines are prepared to for coordination with national healthcare directorate and regional authorities for healthcare services.

Analysis of Health Policy:

The analysis of key elements of the healthcare policy adopted by Norway reveals that it poses least issues for burdening the system. The essential healthcare elements and nonessential healthcare requirements produce a burden on the healthcare insurance system of United States as compared with the healthcare system in Norway. The state governed healthcare policy is less likely to allow marketing and promotion of nonessential healthcare issues through large pharmaceutical companies. The U.S. system allows hospitals, healthcare clinics, and pharmaceutical manufactures to instigate the demand for essential as well as related healthcare provisions. Norway is a small and hydrogenous country and it can manage the healthcare provisions through state governed healthcare services providers (Almgren 2012).

The health policy of the country as a whole requires fulfilling its expenses through tax funding. The major issue arises as a result is concerning the high tax rate slabs on earnings. The welfare state is responsible for providing healthcare facilities to all patients across various regions. The taxes are also charged at higher rates as compared with other countries. A comprehensive analysis is also presented in the research Almgren (2012) providing essential information regarding various aspects of the social justice and latest acts passed in the country regarding healthcare polices and provisions. The system is able to cater the requirements of the local public however there are certain shortcomings still present in the policies. The countries willing to adopt Norway's healthcare policies should also consider the taxation structure implemented in the country to provide basic healthcare facilities. The dynamics of the country's economic, social, and natural resources are also different from numerous countries in the world.

Pressures on Health Care Delivery:

There are multiple areas requiring attention in the healthcare system of a country. It is essential to consider these issues as relevant and requiring attention of policy makers and governments. There is a direct relationship of polices, government spending, GDP, and economic conditions of a country to cater the needs of healthcare for citizens. Norway is no exception. The country also faces pressures on healthcare system from multiple fronts including the high costs, ageing population, and raising diseases (Cockerham 2010).

High Cost:

The cost of healthcare system is directly proportionate to the economic condition in global world. The countries including Norway are also facing similar issues. The costs of providing medical care are a concern for the government. The influences on cost increase are observed as the fees of professionals, energy cost, cost of medicine, and related components are increased over the period of time. (Morland, Ringard&Rottingen2010) The health care professionals as well as the policy makers across the country are encountering the situation becoming difficult to provide healthcare as per the required quality.

Ageing Population:

According to Goldstone (2010) the increased life expectancy rate is also a relevant indicator for creating a pressure on the system. The life expectancy is highest in the Scandinavian countries as compared with other countries in the world. It is an advantage at one front however the implications are also present as healthcare, old age benefits, and handling costs required to maintain the welfare state system. The average life expectancy in Norway is high (Burger et al. 2012). This is a significant factor in increasing pressure on the healthcare system of Norway. The old age citizens require healthcare facilities more frequently than the young aged public. The intensity and severity of the old age healthcare requirements play an important role in exerting pressure on the system. The policies of healthcare provision are also observed as facilitating at the first place in case a patient is qualified for benefits. The policy enables the patient to gain healthcare treatment on the basis of severity of the diseases (Haveman et al. 2011).

Increased Diseases:

There are multiple causes for increased healthcare diseases. The increase is due to declining nutrition in food, environmental, and socio-economic factors (Cockerham 2010). Global warming and environmental factors are widely influencing agriculture. It has serious implication on the health of citizens. The extensive usage of pesticides and fertilizer is also decaling human health. The immunity in human body is damaged through pesticides usage in agriculture. The degrading environment is also a notable cause in declining health of individuals. It is observed that diseases spread on earth are increasing due to unnatural practices adopted in life styles. Human behaviors towards eating healthy and maintaining healthy life have largely affected on bodies and as a result the human immunity is damaged (Whitney2010).

Discussion:

The healthcare policies and practices in healthcare sector have various implications on public. It is appropriate to define healthcare polices in relation to their impacts on human health of the citizens. The governments introduce healthcare policies with a motive to increase health conditions of their public within the available resources (Yip et al. 2012). However the resource scarcity can be eliminated through effective polices and systems to provide essential healthcare. The individuals with health issues are at the forefront as recipients of benefits and implications of certain healthcare policies adopted by countries including Norway. Following major healthcare impacts are observed in relation to the policies adopted in recent years.

Impacts on public health:

The citizens are guided through adoption of the system requiring a sophisticated approach towards geographic healthcare service providers in Norway. The central authority has issued guidelines for coordination and prioritization of the patients. These guidelines can only fulfill their purpose as in case of appropriate systems. The system should be able to provide necessary guidance within the time required to assess the severity of the patients. The system cannot work appropriately in case of any shortcomings at regional levels. The health care system categorizes the patients in four major sections. Three out of four sections are relevant for the waiting time prioritization except emergency. In next section waiting time prioritization is discussed t elaborate the significance of the issue arising from adopting the healthcare policy Norway.

Waiting-time Prioritization:

According to Jones (2011) there are several countries which adopted the healthcare polices similar to Norway. The core of these polices is introduction of waiting time prioritization. The waiting time prioritization is also introduced in several countries e.g. Canada and New Zealand etc. However there is significant evidence that the issue could not have been resolved even after the implantation of these polices. On the other hand it has increased the waiting time for deserving patients requiring necessary healthcare. It is also observed that the patients with high benefits had to wait for longer times as compared with the low benefits seekers (Jones 2011). It has not only increased the pressure on the system but at the same time resulted into unsatisfied patients. The governments are blamed for the failures and public considers itself venerable.

The analysis conducted in the research Jones (2011) elaborates that the private sector has different implications of these waiting time introduction in policies. The patients are required to hefty fees out of their own pocket to finance their healthcare. It is not advisable to consider these private healthcare facilities in the analysis of waiting time. However the general opinion about the implications of waiting time as a policy has severe implications on public health.

Conclusion:

The healthcare policies and regulations vary from country to country. Each state develops their own policies and regulations for providing healthcare facilities to their citizens. It is essential to understand the country dynamics for elaborative understating of the policies and systems adopted by the country. The countries willing to adopt a public healthcare policy are required to adopt policies that are in favor of general public. Norway is considered a high taxation country and as a result the policy adopted by the nation is in line with the state governed healthcare facilities. The infrastructure of state is divided into four major geographic authorities, governed through central guidelines for healthcare. The patients are also segregated in four major groups. These groups have their own priorities and waiting time. Emergency patients are exempted from these time constraints.