Difference In Healthcare Philosophies (Essay Sample)

Britain’s And The United State’s Health History And Current Structure Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Instructor’s Name Due Date Britain’s And The United State’s Health History And Current Structure The need for public health organization and management dates back to ancient civilizations. Shi and Johnson (2020) argue that the primary goal of organization and management is inspired by the quest to improve the health status of diverse populations. The assertion is justified by existing preventive strategies that target people rather than individuals. Over time, most public health efforts have prioritized the control of infectious diseases, improving sanitation standards, reducing potential hazards, and ensuring access to clean drinking water. However, the focus on implementing management and preventive interventions for chronic and infectious diseases attained recognition in the context of public health in the 20th century. Such concerns prompted a new definition of public health coined by Charles Edward Amory Winslow to include all the facets of improving people’s health through preventive, control, and educative measures (Shi & Johnson, 2020). Through this and intensifying debates on public health, a comparative assessment of the UK’s and the US’s health is necessary from a historical, philosophical, organization, financing, and health service delivery. History of the UK and US Health Systems Every country prides the historical development of its health system. The UK’s public health was inspired by the new phases of urbanization and industrialization in the 19th century (Shi & Johnson. 2020). During this period, numerous health threats were calling for implementing mitigation strategies and policies to safeguard the welfare of citizens. Such response measures impacted the US’s public health since its citizens were also vulnerable to communicable and chronic illnesses. In London, disease outbreaks were influenced by overcrowding, poor dietary patterns, and filthy living environments due to an increase in residents between 1800 and 1840. At the same time, there was an increase in immigrants in New York, causing a rise in typhus, a series of bacterial diseases causing an increased mortality rate. (Shi & Johnson, 2020). Overcrowding and poor housing promoted the outbreak of typhus. With an increase in infectious diseases, Edwin Chadwick authored a comprehensive report on sanitary conditions for laborers in the UK, establishing a foundation for sanitary reforms that championed public health activities in the US and the UK. Besides inspiring the sanitary reforms, Chadwick was the mastermind of the 1848 Public Health Act. The act facilitated the creation of a health board and a chief officer to oversee the smooth implementation of public health interventions (Shi & Johnson, 2020). Five years after the implementation, the sitting parliament refused to renew the act, leading to the health board’s dissolution. Regardless, the health board was impactful in identifying health threats and other hazards, including poverty and hunger commissioned the appropriation of resources for mitigation. The act compares with the Massachusetts Quarantine Act, which aimed to prevent infectious diseases by ensuring those bringing the infections were responsible for costs and damages. Future health system changes have improved public health conditions in the UK and the US. Some of the improvements include decreasing the mortality rate from preventable diseases. Health acts, including the UK’s Health Act of 2009 (Grosios et al., 2010) and the US’s Affordable Care Act of 2010 (French et al., 2016), continue to shape care delivery and subsequent improvements. Organization and Delivery of Health Services The organization and management of healthcare systems enable smooth service delivery. The organization of the US health system contrasts with that of the UK and other European countries. As noted in the previous section, the US healthcare system is more privatized, with a small percentage of insurance funded by public programs. The two standard publicly funded insurance programs are Medicaid and Medicare. The federal government is in charge of the Medicare program, while the Medicaid program is a combined effort from the federal and state government. The provision of care in the US is privatized and decentralized, where most providers are categorized under private ownership with minimal federal presence. Private organizations are responsible for the certification of practitioners, allowing them to join a practice, practice in an existing facility, or establish their own. Thus, most facilities are private, although state governments fund to finance public practices. In contrast, the UK prides a government-sponsored healthcare system denoted as the National Health Service (NHS) (Grosios et al., 2010). The NHS plan facilitates universal access to citizens in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (Kulesher & Forrestal, 2014). Although individuals are entitled to the NHS government plan, they can purchase health insurance schemes from private companies. The NHS guarantees quality services to citizens regardless of their demographic characteristics. Philosophical Approaches to the Provision of Care Universalism is the philosophical approach guiding most healthcare systems in the world. The philosophical standing’s motivations are evident in the 1948 WHO constitution, which encourages health for all in response to the ubiquitous health inequalities (Allen, 2022). Accordingly, health for all aligns with WHO’s manifestation of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) that inspires the philosophy of universalism. All WHO members commit to achieving the UNIC for their citizens’ welfare; the UK and the US are not exempted. Regardless of the proposition to adopt UHC, countries are adopting different versions of universal healthcare for their citizens. On the one hand, the UK has adopted a conventional universal healthcare system with minimal emphasis on privatized care (Zieff et al., 2020). Hiam et al. (2019) note that the UK’s healthcare system is premised on treating individuals based on their condition's urgency regardless of their financial ability. Although challenged by government regulations, the principle of universalism could justify the country’s little emphasis on privatized healthcare services. Doctors of the World UK is one of the agencies providing free healthcare services to vulnerable individuals in the UK. The US, too, has a healthcare system inclined to the philosophical foundations of universalism. Zieff et al. (2020) argue that the universal healthcare system in the US includes privatized care, which contrasts with the status in the UK. The US’s universal health system provides several benefits compared to other systems that provide inequitable care access, such as the UK. The benefits include managing chronic infections, combating financial threats associated with chronic diseases, reducing access disparities among vulnerable populations, and increasing access to preventive interventions (Zieff et al., 2020). Through universal health coverage, the US has efficiently controlled non-communicable diseases, including hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, that pose significant economic threats. The implementation of the ACA, through the impactful Obama administration, has spearheaded the acceptance of the universalism philosophy in the US. Since all individuals have access to affordable care, it is necessary to acquire earlier preventive interventions to control non-communicable diseases, facilitate the achievement of healthy people, and decrease the financial strains resulting from the disorders. Financing of Healthcare Services The UK and the US have different financial models for financing healthcare. The UK has a general taxation method for financing the NHS that provides care to individuals across England, Wales, Scotland, and North Ireland (Kulesher & Forrestal, 2014). Physicians’ reimbursement is through government capitation and fee for care services rendered. Healthcare facilities in the UK receive funds from district authorities while physicians are salaried for service delivery. Through this, the NHS and other private institutions are expected to provide universal ...