A Written Critique of the Beveridge Model in Health and Social Care

This report critically examines the Beveridge model of healthcare, a system where the government funds and manages healthcare services, providing universal coverage. It explores the model's origins in the UK, its implementation in various countries, and its core principles, including equal access and government ownership of healthcare facilities. The report delves into the model's strengths, such as universal access and potential cost control, as well as its weaknesses, including potential long waiting times, government restrictions on services, and reliance on government funding. It also compares it to other models like the Bismarck model. The critique considers the Beveridge model's impact on healthcare costs, quality of care, and patient experiences. It also discusses the challenges of implementing and maintaining the model, considering factors such as funding, political influences, and the need for ongoing revisions to address the evolving needs of citizens. The report concludes by evaluating the overall effectiveness of the Beveridge model, considering its benefits and drawbacks in the context of international healthcare systems.

International Perspectives on Health and
Social Care

A written critique of a model of health and social care provision
In many health systems, integrated care is seen as a potential response to the growing interest in
a better patient experience and well-being outcomes of multi morbid and long-term patients.
There are several issues related to health that vary across different countries and this is because
these issues are addressed in different ways across the globe. Therefore, it is important to have an
overview as well as knowledge about the different health perspectives of health across the world,
internationally (Attaran, 2014). A variety of models are used in health care and each of them
serves different purposes. Besides this, the models can be implemented across different scenarios
in order to gain an understanding about a particular issue.
One of such models is the Beveridge Model, which can be described as a health care
system wherein the government provides health care services for all the citizens of the nation.
Integrated care or integrated health can be referred to as one of the worldwide trends in health
care that mainly focuses on different forms of care provision that are integrated as well as more
coordinated (Chiu, and et. al., 2008). The ideas or thoughts that make up the idea of integrated
care are mainly shaped by different participants or citizens in a nation.
In the European Union, three different welfare frameworks could be characterized by
administrative behaviors, funding and financial methods: Beveridge, Bismarck and a mixed
framework. Despite the lack of well-being analysis structures, various companies are developing
strategies to monitor performance. Ongoing work has evaluated the presentation of the three
frameworks using the European Community health indicators according to the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (Adler and Stewart, 2010).
EU or the European Union comprises of different welfare frameworks that are regulated in
different ways. There are three frames that have been identified, namely public welfare
administrations and so on. Social protection structures are recognized on the behalf of the states
being the lender and the office being the owner. In case of public administrations, which are also
referred to as “Beveridge cadres” are recognized bt social protection structure.
Multiple revisions of mixed cadres between the two is pretty straightforward all over the world.
The Beveridge model, first established in the UK in 1942, is implemented with open offices and
the facilities are legitimately funded by the state. This model is also referred to as the National

Health System (NHS) and includes general well-being. In Europe this model has been adopted
by Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the
United Kingdom.
On the other hand, in the Bismarck model (Germany, 1880), budget funding of the health care
framework is provided through mandatory government-backed pension commitments from
businesses and producers. Medical assistance is provided to people who are not in favor of labor
protection assistance. This particular model is referred to as SHIS or Social Healsth Insurance
System. It has been adopted by different countries like Germany, France, Netherlands, Romania,
Czech Republic, Hungary and Belgium (Bruce, and et. al., 2002). Health systems form an
integral part for a country and should be revised from time to time in order to make sure that they
are in line with the latest trends in the industry as well as address the needs of the citizens. The
model which is being discussed here is one of the most interesting models, that has been created
by the World Health Organization or WHO and OECD or Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Bloomberg LP as well as ECHI.
The WHO program is based on the following recommendations: fair future incapacity,
responsiveness and reasonable budget commitment. The OECD or Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development is responsible for studying the different links between resources,
results as well as different decisions (McCracken and Phillips, 2012). The model which is being
discussed is important because the government of a country acts as the only payer to keep the
costs low as well as standardize the advantages, which eliminates any kind of competition in the
market.
Critique for Beveridge model
The Beveridge model, also known as nationalized health care, was first implemented and
upgraded in Britain. Patients come near any kind of support they need and never see hospital
costs because of visits to medical specialists or clinics. Residents of countries that use the
Beveridge model of medical administration pay for their clinical consideration through a higher
level of rThe OECD or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is responsible
for studying the different links between resources, results as well as different decisions
(McCracken and Phillips, 2012). The model which is being discussed is important because the
government of a country acts as the only payer to keep the costs low as well as standardize the

advantages, which eliminates any kind of competition in the market.Medical assistance is
provided to people who are not in favor of labor protection assistance. This particular model is
referred to as SHIS or Social Healsth Insurance System. It has been adopted by different
countries like Germany, France, Netherlands, Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary and Belgium
(Bruce, and et. al., 2002). Health systems form an integral part for a country and should be
revised from time to time in order to make sure that they are in line with the latest trends in the
industry as well as address the needs of the citizens. The model which is being discussed here is
one of the most interesting models, that has been created by the World Health Organization or
WHO and OECD or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Bloomberg LP
as well as ECHI.EU or the European Union comprises of different welfare frameworks that are
regulated in different ways. There are three frames that have been identified, namely public
welfare administrations and so on. Social protection structures are recognized on the behalf of
the states being the lender and the office being the owner. In case of public administrations,
which are also referred to as “Beveridge cadres” are recognized bt social protection structure.
There are several issues related to health that vary across different countries and this is because
these issues are addressed in different ways across the globe. Therefore, it is important to have an
overview as well as knowledge about the different health perspectives of health across the world,
internationally (Attaran, 2014). A variety of models are used in health care and each of them
serves different purposes. Besides this, the models can be implemented across different scenarios
in order to gain an understanding about a particular issue.
One of such models is the Beveridge Model, which can be described as a health care
system wherein the government provides health care services for all the citizens of the nation.
Integrated care or integrated health can be referred to as one of the worldwide trends in health
care that mainly focuses on different forms of care provision that are integrated as well as more
coordinated (Chiu, and et. al., 2008). The ideas or thoughts that make up the idea of integrated
care are mainly shaped by different participants or citizens in a nation.esponsibility than different
countries. They see specialists who are usually open-minded workers in emergency clinics
owned by the legislator. This type of framework does not rule out medical support, as the
framework aims to provide maximum clinical consideration, rather than seeking benefits, as
different models are known to do.

The Beveridge model is a nationalized healthcare framework. Similar to the way open libraries
and police powers are funded by the administration, medical care is managed through residents
’money. Residents of countries that use this health care plan will not legally pay their clinical or
other bills (Glasby and Dickinson, 2009). The aim of this agreement is to provide quality
medical care while paying little attention to the ability of individuals to pay for their
compensation. In this framework, a much larger proportion of the welfare workforce is made up
of government representatives. The focal point of this model of goodness is fundamental
freedom. Therefore, widespread inclusion is ensured by the administration and any resident has
similar access.
The majority of hospitals and their staff are viewed as government and agent property
respectively. Both private doctors and facilities receive their expenses from the administration
rather than the residents. As Physicians for National Health Program (PNHP), the costs per
person in this medical care framework are low as the public government determines what
specialists can do and what they can afford for medical care their administrations (Scriven and
Garman, 2005).
It is argued that the Beveridge model relies heavily on the capabilities and vision of the
administration and that legislation should not be linked to this type of private matter. As all have
secured medical care, the lack of experienced faculty and overuse of the framework leads to long
delays for patients. According to Joseph Kutzin, health finance policy coordinator at the World
Health Organization, another concern with the framework is how lawmakers will address the
health crisis. Due to a public crisis, funding for medical care could decline as open payments
decrease. Such a situation would lead to a series of cases of severe distress in patients, and
emergency response is subsidized before any emergency.
With the legislator as the sole payer in this medical care framework, costs can be kept low and
the benefits normalized across the country. However, a typical analysis of this picture is the
desire to keep records for a long time. As everyone is guaranteed access to welfare
administrations, overuse of the framework may require extension costs. There are fears that the
election of a single public welfare government in the United States would provide a popular
extension for all devices, even those that are useless in treatment, since residents would not pay
for these administrations directly. . However, a number of analysts have objected to this issue,

saying that American customs tend to invest a relatively large amount of money covering the
uninsured (Ghodse, 2011).
Some of the Pros and Cons of this model have been discussed below:
Pros:
 Every citizen has access to health care because of the universal coverage.
 The government is responsible for quality of care, and this may be beneficial if the
government keeps the cost of health care low.
 Citizens do not receive and are not responsible for medical bills or co-pay.
Cons:
 Every citizen must pay the higher taxes regardless of their use of health care.
 The government is responsible for quality of care, and this may be harmful if the
government restricts the services patients are allowed access to.
 There are long waiting lists and lines to receive care, especially for those with non-
emergency situations.
Barriers to private protection as a fundamental means of subsidizing medical services include the
costs incurred in disclosing and defending claims, and the imbalances that arise. crops when
defense costs depend on pre-existing illnesses. These particular market frustrations have
prompted almost all high-wage countries to rely on open funding raised through social protection
or tax collection as their main source of subsidy. Risk sharing and care cost sharing are seen as
important features in these countries, especially because the costs of real problems can include
catastrophic costs that can cause individual meltdown, such as is consistently in the situation in
the United States (Levison and Laing, 2003).
Each funding change has its strengths and disadvantages and no medical services framework
outperforms the delivery of financial support. In countries that have decided value as value, the
main decision between tax valuation and social protection is a fundamental way of raising funds.
The high cost and inconsistency of moving from one to another makes it clear why this course
has never been followed in Western Europe.

The traditional Beveridge model, the way it is implemented in Finland's decentralized medical
care funding framework, does not work as suggested. Individual regions are too small an element
to create high-risk sharing pools to protect them from financial vulnerabilities. Plans like the
state sponsorship framework and the wage framework for treating incredibly expensive patients
offer security tools that can reduce the risk of cost diversification. In any case, these components
are too small in scale (state allowances) or opt for wage measures (expensive patients) to provide
adequate protection for areas.

REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Adler NE, Stewart J. Health disparities across the lifespan: meaning, methods, and
mechanisms. Annals New York Academy of Sciences. 2010;1186:5–23. doi:
10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05337.x.
Attaran, A., 2014. How Do Patents and Economic Policies Affect Access to Essential Medicines
in Developing Countries, Health Affairs 23:3, pp 155–166
Bruce, N. et al, The health Effects of indoor air pollution exposure in developing countries,
WHO, Geneva, 2002
Chiu YW, Hsu CE, Wang MQ, Nkhoma ET. Examining geographic and temporal variations of
AIDS mortality: evidence of racial disparities. Journal of the National Medical
Association. 2008;100(7):788–796.
Ghodse, H. (2011) International Perspectives on Mental Health. London: RCPsych Publications
Glasby, J., and Dickinson, H. (2009) International Perspectives on Health and Social Care:
Promoting Partnership for Health. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Levison, L. and Laing, R., 2003. The hidden costs of essential medicines, WHO, Essential Drugs
Monitor, Issue 233
McCracken, K., and Phillips, D. (2012) Global Health: An Introduction to Current and Future
Trends. Oxon: Routledge
Scriven, A., and Garman, S. (2005) Promoting Health: Global Perspectives. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan
World Health Organisation (2016) Innov8 Approach for Reviewing National Health Programmes
to Leave No One Behind: Technical Handbook. Geneva: World Health Organisation