Comparing Healthcare Systems: China vs New Zealand

Running head: GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEMS
Global Health Systems
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEMS
Introduction
In the year 2015, the leaders of the world frame a new report stating the worldwide
goals. This report was named Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the aim of this
report is to reduce poverty prevailing in the world and planet while ensuring prosperity for all
(United Nations, 2015). Within these goals, the principal focus is healthcare. A proper
understanding of the healthcare systems of different countries and their mode of functioning
is imperative for improving the health equality globally (World Health Organisations [WHO],
2010). Thus, the purpose of this research report is to compare and the healthcare system of
two countries. The selected country of choice is China and New Zealand. According to the
World Bank Group (2019), China is an upper middle-income country while New Zealand is a
extremely poor low income country.
As per the recent statistics published by the World Health Organization (WHO)
(2016), the total population of China is 1,411,415,000. Gross national income per capita of
China as per the statistics published in 2013 is $11,850. Life expectancy as per the data of
2016 is 75/78. Probability of dying under the age of five (per 1000 births in the year 2017) is
9. Probability of dying between the age group of 15 and 60 years (per 1000 population in the
year 2016) is 93/67. Total expenditure over the health management as per the 2014 data is
$731 and this amounts to 5.5% of the GDP. In China, the central government has main
responsibility for maintaining the national health legislation policy and administration. It is
guided by the principle that every citizen of China is entitled to enjoy basic healthcare
services under the local government. The main healthcare authorities in China include the
National Health and Family Planning Commission and Local Health and Family Planning
Commission. Generally, the health insurance is funded publicly and is financed by the local
governments. During the year 2014, China has spent 5.6% (appox) of its GDP (gross
domestic product) in health care insurance management. Central and the local government
financed 30% and 38% of it is publicly funded health insurance. There are three main types
of publicly funded health insurance in China named urban employment-based basic medical
insurance, urban resident basic medical insurance and the new cooperative medical scheme
designed for the rural citizens of China (The Commonwealth Fund, 2019).
In contrast to China, the total population in New Zealand as highlighted by the WHO
(2016) report is 4,661,000. Gross national income per capita as per the data is 2012 is $2012.

GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEMS
Average life expectancy at the time of birth as per the 2016 statistics is 80/84 (male/female).
Probability of people dying under the age of five (per 1000 births) in the year 2017 is 5. The
probability of people in New Zealand dying between the age group of 15 to 60 years is 81/51
(male/female) in the year 2016. Total expenditure on the health per capita in the year 2014 is
$4018. Total expenditure on health in GDP in the year of 2014 is 11%. As per the report
published by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (2018), New Zealand’s private insurance
sector is comparatively small as per the international standards. The insurance funded by the
government of New Zealand is mainly government by the Insurance Council of New
Zealand. It was established in the year 1895 and is the representative body of the fire and
general insurance in New Zealand. Apart from government support, there is continued public
support in setting the policy agenda and service requirement for the determining the publicly
funded annual health budget.
The principal public health system of both the country is sub-divided in to arts like
paediatric care, maternity care, elderly care and palliative care, mental health care and general
care (Brintnell, 2015). Through comparing the WHO health system, building blocks of the
service delivery, the health parameter of the workforce, health information systems, essential
medicines, financing, governance and leadership between China and New Zealand will be
compared. After comparison, similarities will be highlighted along with discrepancies
prevailing between the healthcare systems along with the ongoing challenges present within
each building blocks.
Method
The research was conducted over duration of four week by the use of keywords based
search of the literary articles in the search engines like ProQuest, Google Scholar, Medline
Embase, Scopus and Griffith University library. The keywords used for the search of the
articles was mainly focused on the WHO Health Systems Building Blocks words like “health
workforce”, “health system” with the name of the country like “China” and “New Zealand”.
The research approach used was a descriptive type data analysis procedure for the studies. A
clear exclusion of the criteria was used. For example, studies that are published before 2002
were not included in this comparative study. The inclusion criteria include reliable
methodologies and peer reviewed articles.

GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEMS
Results
In describing and comparing the healthcare systems of China and New Zealand, six
WHO Health Systems Building Blocks were used for structuring the results.
Service Delivery
A strong healthcare system requires good service delivery approach (WHO, 2010).
Some dimensions that are used for the measurement of the service delivery include quality of
care, timeliness, accessibility (physical, social and financial), continuity of care, range of care
and proper availability of care (WHO, 2010). Under the Chinese healthcare perspective, it
can be said that China is reforming its path in healthcare finance as it is taking steps further
towards the Universal Health Coverage (UHC). Improvement in the finance equity is the
main policy goal of the healthcare system during progression towards the universal health
coverage. However, in spite of the initiatives taken by the government of China, the Chinese
healthcare financing system is not equitable in true grounds. Decreasing the proportion of the
indirect taxes might considerably help to improve the financing equity in the healthcare of
china. The flat-rate contribution might not be applicable for bringing equity in the public
health schemes of China and thus more attention must be given for the optimization benefit
packages during the China’s healthcare progression towards the UHC (Chen, Palmer & Si,
2017). As per the business review published by Dudek, Mitch, Chen, Tony and Zhang
(2004), the availbility and affordability of in Chinee healthcare system has declined mainly in
the rual areas as governemt has stopped providing free medical services since 1980s. From
the context of New Zealand, it can be said that medicines though available at a reasonable
rates but the overall accessibility of medicines to the people residing in the rural parts of New
Zealand is less. However, New Zealand goevrnment is at present taking active initiatives in
order to increase the accessibility of medicines to the poor people residing in New Zealand
like the aboriginals by providing medicines as subscidised rates(Babar, et al., 2012).
Moroever, accessibility of the hospitals in the rural or the remoate areas of the New Zealand
is less thus increasing health inquality and a gap in comprehensive service delivery in
healthcare. Though there are many public funded hospitals in New Zelands that offer
healthcare at a subsidisesed rate, the time travel towards the destination of hospital is long for
the people in the remote areas, the lack of proper transport further makes the overall
communication difficult for the population residing in the rural areas (Brabyn& Skelly,
2002). Thus in both the healthcare system there is a lack of comprehensive health care
access.