The Commonwealth Fund has released a report titled International Profiles of Health Care Systems, which included comparisons of 13 nations. Here’s what it says about Germany and Switzerland, two systems often cited as potential models for the U.S.
Germany: Most German residents receive statutory coverage through one of 180 competing nongovernmental social insurers (or “sickness funds”). The statutory system is financed through employer and employee contributions, which, since 2009, are pooled into a central fund and redistributed among the sickness funds according to a sophisticated risk adjustment formula. Sickness funds offer a uniform benefit package covering most medical care, including physician and hospital services, prescription drugs, and dental care. The components of this benefit package are determined by the Federal Joint Committee along with representatives from payer and provider organizations. Self-employed, high income, and civil-service residents may opt for private insurance as an alternative to the statutory insurance system, and roughly 10 percent of the population does so. Complementary private insurance is also purchased to cover amenities and cost-sharing charges under the statutory system, particularly for dental care. Ambulatory doctors mostly operate in solo practices and are paid fee-for-service with varying degrees of bundling. Gatekeeping is optional but is incentivized through cost-sharing arrangements, and often by sickness funds. Roughly half of hospitals are publicly owned and half privately owned. Hospital doctors are generally salaried and are not allowed to treat outpatients except in certain circumstances. For several chronic conditions, a set of disease management programs guided by national evidence-based recommendations has been introduced; these are implemented by sickness funds through contracts with providers….
Switzerland: Switzerland operates a regulated private insurance market, with individuals mandated to purchase a minimum insurance package from among competing nonprofit insurers. Premiums are collected by insurers and then redistributed based upon a risk-adjustment formula. The basic benefit package includes hospital and physician care and prescription drugs. The 26 cantons (similar to U.S. states) have responsibility for planning the health services within their borders and subsidizing hospitals, nursing homes, and home care organizations. Residents generally have free choice of a GP and access without a referral to specialists (unless enrolled with a gatekeeping managed care plan). Some managed care plans operate capitation models, where physicians or physician groups are paid on a capitation basis; otherwise, ambulatory physicians are paid on a fee-for-service schedule negotiated between insurers and providers or their organizations at the canton level. Hospital-based physicians are paid a mix of salary (by mandatory insurance policies) and fee-for-service (by supplemental insurance policies). Hospitals are for the most part publicly owned or publicly subsidized. Recent reforms have established a single set of regulations for both public and private hospitals.
Subscribe in RSS Reader
Can you tell readers why you would take a perfectly legitimate and correctly-spelled title “International Profiles of Health Care Systems”, and come up with a headline that says Comparing International Healthcare Systems? Why mess up the words “health care” as they appear in every authoritative source including the reform legislation itself? Does anyone proofread your copy before it is released? Inside view on the business of health care is also mispelled. The paper compares 13 different health care (2 words)systems!
This is what you’re worried about? Seems rather petty, but I’ll bite.
Technically, you’re wrong. “Health Care” as used in the headline “International Profiles of Health Care Systems” is an adjective. At the very least it should be hyphenated — in the same way that in your comment you hypenated the words “correctly-spelled.” (Of course, I’d argue that an adverb doesn’t require a hypen, but that’s another discussion).
More broadly, here’s how the English language tends to evolve. Web site. Web-site. Website. Health care. Health-care. Healthcare….I can’t help it if we’re ahead of the curve.
I found the article interesting and would be interested in the healthcare systems in Canada, U.K., Finland, Australia, and Taiwan. I found the response to be petty as well, but loved your reply. I too have evolved to one word, “healthcare”.