Comparison of Healthcare System of Australia, Canada, and Sweden

Running Head: HEALTH FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 1
Health Financial Management
Name of Student
Name of Institution
Date of Submission

HEALTH FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 2
Health Financial Management
Comparison of the Healthcare System of Australia, Canada, and Sweden
This discussion presents a comparative analysis of the financial system of Australia
and two other OECD member states namely Sweden and Canada. OECD is an
intergovernmental economic organization which brings together 36 nations with the main
objective of stimulating development and world trade. Among the founding principles is the
need for improving the quality and affordability of healthcare among its member countries
(Mossialos, Wenzl, Osborn & Sarnak, 2016). However, the current scenario does not reflect
equality of healthcare systems as postulated in the organization.
Notable similarities among these three healthcare systems are discussed below; To
start with, the financial structure of the Australian healthcare system is funded as follows;
government allocation, non-government organizations’ contributions, health insurance
corporations, and direct payments during treatment (Mossialos et al, 2016). Here, government
expenditure represents the largest share in funding healthcare systems, with a program called
Medicare. Similarly, the healthcare system of Sweden is largely government-funded, with
little contributions from the private health insurers (Karanikolos et al, 2016). The country
also receives funds from NGOs and individuals who pay for medical services. Canada relies
on the government-sponsored healthcare system, also known as Medicare (Karanikolos et al,
2016). The country has established a programme called universal healthcare which funds
fundamental health needs. In addition, the country has private health insurance which pays
for services that are partially or not covered by Medicare.
On the other hand, some slight differences in the financial structure of these
companies are discussed as follows; there is no standardized proportion of government
allocations for healthcare expenses among the three countries. For instance, the Australian

HEALTH FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 3
government provides 67% funding through Medicare while the remaining 33% is catered for
by private insurance companies (OECD, 2019). On the other hand, the Swedish government
pays for 97% of medical costs in the country, leaving only 3% for the private sector. Lastly,
the Canadian government provides up to 75% funding while the private sector caters for 25%
(OECD, 2019). In this category, Australia has the least healthcare funding system provided
by the government. As such, it might be one of the reasons why quality of health in Australia
is below Canada and Sweden.
Financial Analysis of the Healthcare Systems of Australia, Canada and Sweden
According to the information obtained from OECD, there are apparent differences
which can be noted in terms of funds allocation. Sweden is the highest spender on healthcare
systems with a total of USD 5,003 annually (OECD, 2019). The results also indicated that
Canada spends USD 4,506 while Australia allocates USD 4,177 on an annual basis.
Fig 1.0 showing top healthcare spending by OECD countries (OECD, 2019)
Considering that the quality of healthcare is directly proportional to the value of
funds allocated, then it implies that Sweden has the best medical services, followed by