A few weeks ago we talked about the Canadian healthcare model, of late we’ve heard more and more about the model in Great Britain. Known as the National Health Service (NHS), it covers all citizens and is entirely publicly funded. The system consumes about 8.4% of the country’s GDP compared with America’s 16%. The added investment is a lousy one, Americans are no healthier than their British counterparts, despite nearly double the expense.

In a recent post to his blog, Washington Post’s Ezra Klein included a few mind blowing statisictics on the cost of healthcare in Britian compared the the United States, below is an excerpt:

“The British health-care system is worth studying for a simple reason: It is insanely, unbelievably, cheap. Not just cheaper than our health-care system. Cheaper than France. Than Canada. Than Germany. Than Japan. According to the latest OECD numbers, America’s 2007 health-care costs equaled out to $7,290 per person. Britain spent — I almost feel like you won’t believe me on this — $2,992. That’s a difference of $4,298. Every. Single. Year. And because our costs are growing faster than their costs, that check gets bigger and bigger.”

Many will argue with a cost difference so substantial there must be a difference in care. I’ve never received health care in England(or even been there), but luckily one of mypiccline.com’s reader’s has. Below are their comments on the NHS, which appeared on this site in response to another post.

“There is an enormous amount of goodwill towards the NHS here, we all have a stake-hold in it because it is paid for by our taxes, and I think most people are very proud of it, and of the the dedication and care of the people who work in it.

There is a great deal of bureaucracy and an over-complicated management system, with complaints about ‘target’s set by the Government that make more bureaucracy, and there are hospitals where the standard or hygiene or care is not as good as it should be…But there are also many hospitals with world-class standards of research, care and teaching, and the staff are in general, wonderful.

Historically, waiting times have been too long.There is certainly a trend towards more people paying for private healthcare to allow them to jump queues. There has been a move towards ‘public-private partnership’, which many have criticised. One criticism is letting private firms run the car parks outside hospitals, so anxious visitors or families returning regularly to see inpatients can run up big parking bills, which is very upsetting at a time of anxiety. But compared to the US system, with all its attendant stress of healthcare insurance and having to pay for treatment, we are very fortunate, I think.”

Via e-mail, the same  reader reacted to this commercial that has run here in the United States.

“The idea that in the NHS you get $22,000 care and then dumped is frankly, libelous. I have never heard anything so ridiculous. Everyone gets the same care for as long as they need, though they may have to wait for it as there is demand  – but the most serious cases are always treated at once, delays are more likely for minor operations. Good grief – just managed to view the ad, what a disgraceful lie it is. It’s just absolute rubbish. I can’t actually believe that they dare to put out such drivel. There are restrictions on things like IVF – you can have 3 rounds of it and it costs the NHS about £5000 a go – but IVF is a treatment for infertility, not a life saving drug.”

The NHS works for Britain, and if you were starting a system 60 years ago, their way is probably the best way. But the United States does not have the luxury of  pressing the restart button here, and even if it did, publicly funded, universal care will not pass in this country; our current political climate won’t allow it.  Much like the Canadian model, the British model serves a much smaller population compared to the United States, with different cultural tendencies and expectations. A level ground’ comparison is not plausible. The best thing America can do with regard to the NHS, is to take note of what it’s doing right—most notably keeping costs in check— and see how the American system can learn from it and apply it, if possible.

What are your thoughts?


Post to Twitter Tweet This Post