Becoming Australian? Two different approaches to health care reform in the United States

Author:

Roydhouse Jessica K

Abstract

THE ?SUBSTANTIAL PRIVATE SECTOR?1 ROLE in Australian health care has sometimes given rise to fears of ?Americanisation? of the Australian health care system, particularly in the media. For example, in 2000 Kenneth Davidson wrote, ?The USstyle health financing route being taken by the Howard Government is mad and bad.?2 The US system is the ?leading example? of ?inferior system performance?3 and is often viewed as a system to be feared and avoided. Despite spending far more per capita than any other country on health care, the United States nonetheless fails to provide equitable health care for everyone. The system is ?a paradox of excess and deprivation?,4 spending far more than other systems without providing adequate care and treatment for all. Although the US system is seen as frightening in Australia, broad historical and political similarities such as the ?strong?5 role and ?long history?5 of private insurance and powerful, vocal physicians? groups1,5 make the Australian experience a useful comparative one for US policymakers. As Altman and Jackson note, the US system will probably not develop into a fully public system, but a system combining private and public aspects along the lines of the Australian model is possible.5 Furthermore, while politicians in the US at the state and local levels have attempted to address the issue of universal or near-universal coverage for some time, previous efforts sought to expand coverage using existing programs instead of establishing a new system.6 More recently, the state of Massachusetts and the county (municipality) of San Francisco have introduced near-universal health care programs. Although introduced nearly simultaneously, their development processes and structures differ. In addition, the Massachusetts plan in particular was viewed as a potential model for future sub-national and possibly national health reforms. Thus, this short paper examines the two plans as two different approaches to health care reform in the US and compares them to the Australian system, asking the question whether or not current reform efforts in the US make the system more like that in Australia, or are likely to do so in the future.

Publisher

CSIRO Publishing

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3