Comparative Analysis: Australian and Canadian Healthcare Systems

This report provides a comprehensive comparison of the Australian and Canadian healthcare systems. It begins with an introduction defining healthcare systems and their importance. The report then compares and contrasts the rationale and aims of each system, highlighting the key differences in funding, structure, and the role of government and private sectors. It reviews the political, social, and economic forces influencing healthcare choices in both countries, examining issues like indigenous healthcare and technological advancements. The analysis extends to the orientation and structure of the Australian healthcare system, identifying areas needing restructuring and reform, particularly in funding and policy implementation. The report concludes by summarizing the key findings and suggesting that Australia could learn from the more patient-centric Canadian model, while also acknowledging the unique aspects of each system. The report includes references to relevant literature and visual aids for a better understanding of the healthcare systems.

COMPARISON OF AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
Compare, contrast and evaluate the rationale and aims of different types of health care systems
.....................................................................................................................................................3
Critically review the political, social and economic forces that contribute to health care
choices.........................................................................................................................................4
Analysis of the Australian ways in which the orientation and structure of the health care
system relate to health care practice............................................................................................6
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................8
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION
Healthcare system is defined as the combination of several components like people,
organization, resources and institutions. It is refereed as important where the population receives
a proper structured channels for receiving the healthcare related services. There are several types
of systems that follow a separate model of healthcare and has unique characteristics for the
overall benefits to the entire society at both local and national levels. This report is going to be
based on comparing the health care system of Australia with Canadian health care system. In
addition to this, it will focus on differences and similarities of approaches to health care between
the two countries to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each system. This also will
reflect on the overall goals, structure and function of each health system.
Compare, contrast and evaluate the rationale and aims of different types of health care systems
Australian health system:
It is one of the strongest health care systems in the world whose aim is to establish a
universal health care for the patient safety. The objective is to Here the entire system is mostly
funded from the government but there is also involvement of private sector alongside the not for
profit organizations (NGOs). The Medicare is the program that is for the permanent residents of
different descendent and citizens of Australia. It is government funded, both federal and state and
is mostly done through taxation system (Hon and et.al., 2015). Thus, there is transparency and an
indirect support to the healthcare sector in regard to professionals, giving funding to state
services, providing subsidies to the primary care providers by adopting the Medicare Benefits
Scheme etc.
Canadian health system:
This health system is one of the most well defined and dynamic based reforms system
which aim at incorporating the single payer system. It focuses on making the individuals
independent of paying out of the pockets and exclude the regular doctor visits and hospitalization
rounds. However, this is paid by the taxes that is directly taken by the government in the form of
Federal Medical Expense Tax Credit and covers a substantial amount of health care costs. Here
the provinces and territories are cooperation with the palliative care by executing the
decentralisation powers (Muscedere and et.al., 2016). It gives the primary authority to the
provinces in systematic funding and adopting good governance concept to give the quality and
delivery of services. The nongovernmental organizations also play essential contribution in

ensuring regulatory guidelines with developing of standards and policies under legal
frameworks.
Australia Canada
Similarities Their healthcare system is mostly
related to the shared responsibility
of federal, state and territory
governments, includes both private
and public hospitals.
Their healthcare system is mainly based
on provinces and territories and includes
public and not for profit hospitals.
Barriers is the costing due to
interferences from the private
hospitals (Duckettand Willcox,
2015)
This is same as that of the Australian
healthcare system.
Differences The funding and the financing parts
is from both the government and the
private insurance providers.
The funding and the financing parts is
done at both the provinces and territories
which both comes under the federal
government.
The reimbursement mechanism
involves deductibles, exclusions, co-
payments etc. which has been
applicable for public hospitals
The reimbursement mechanism is related
to the private health insurance and the
budgeting fixed by the territory and
provincial governments (Nguyen,
Chaboyer and Whitty, 2015).
Critically review the political, social and economic forces that contribute to health care choices
There are many forces that has an impact on the healthcare choices at the national level
and mainly deals with the socio-political and economic aspects. It has been seen that there is a
clear differentiation between the indigenous and non indigenous people which made the policies
one sided and highly partial. For instance, the indigenous women always faced an inequity which
is more dramatic and has led to the lack of robust political stability at all the levels including

local, territory, state and national (Rosella and et.al., 2016). Moreover, the economic aspects has
always been in more stabilised modes in Australia but it also affected the decision making in the
policy formulation for adopting better medical services.
On the other hand, with technological advancements, the healthcare system has been
redefined the action plan to shape the Australian healthcare system. Their challenges were made
to be reduced by incorporating the cultural aspect of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
with the other communities residing in this country (Booth and et.al., 2016). The governmental
interventions are made to make the entire care plan in more segregated manner to remove any
gaps or obstacles. It has also made easier for the staff, professionals and other regulatory bodies
to work in unified ways to establish transparency and reliability.
Therefore, the Australian government must intertwined the special principles from other
systems to be incorporated to remove the social and political instability. The highlighting point
must be on the welfare of the society by follow the legislative in a single and unified system.

Analysis of the Australian ways in which the orientation and structure of the health care system
relate to health care practice
The Australian healthcare system needs proper restructuring and reformation due to the
complicated aspects in terms of funding, policy making, governance and overall treatment,
recovery and recuperation procedure towards patient centred care. There is a lack of a single and
uniform entity in this system that holds the organisational structural responsibility while
fulfilling the duties and roles. For instance, the healthcare system of Australia is unsustainable
due to the implementation of past policies and is not related to the changing healthcare needs of
the present time. The life expectancy rate of non indigenous populations is way better than the
indigenous populace whose average rate of life expectancy is ten years shorter (Australian health
care: where do we stand internationally, 2014). This clearly indicated towards the gaps in the
real system between the actual practice and the structural orientations. People with accessibility
and financing has better chances to survive the challenges that has been seen in the health when
compared to the more remote and rural setup in Australia.
Illustration 1. Organization of the Health System of Australia
(Source: Glover,2017)

Furthermore, this issue of structural disorientation might get improved through adopting
seamlessness in providing care and support while treating patients from any chronic disease or
any other illness. The policy making would assist in driving desired results without dividing the
gaps between the higher income earning families with the low income households. Moreover, it
has been seen that high income families spent less than 1 % and the families with median or low
income household spend more than 3 % of the total income through their own pockets. This has
been shown in the below illustration to gain insights about the disparities of the policy making
and funding (Willis, Reynolds and Keleher, 2016). The households that spend money on several
healthcare practices like dentistry, specialists, General Practitioner including the maintenance of
equipment. Thus, the orientation must be made in such a way that the funding must be done on
annual basis to avoid the funding fragmentation.
In regard to the above, the Australia's government is trying to shift the dependency on the
Medicare by encouraging the well to do families to use the private health insurance. This would
further help the poorer families to take advantage of the Medicare. It would be useful in the
Illustration 2: Graph showing comparison between healthcare pay of richer households and
poorer households
(Source: Higher health co-payments will hit the most vulnerable, 2014)

longer run as the studies have found out that one out of 20 people do not visit any professional
due to high costs. The provider purchasing with robust CDM (chronic disease management)
would pave the path to the practitioners in performing the tasks and give a proper treatment and
recovery plan (Bezin and et.al., 2017). This country has a parallel private hospital system along
with the public hospital system which shed light on the policy implementation error. This error is
mostly takes place when there is difference between the targets and resultant aspects of the
policy. Henceforth, the structural orientation must be changed to make the practices more
transparent ad reliable. Moreover, it gives the people a fair chance to use ether a public led or
private based hospital.
CONCLUSION
It has been summarized that the Australian and Canada Healthcare system has been
developed gradually with time. However, the Canadian system is more advanced and patient
centric and thus the Australian Healthcare system must try to adopt few of the features from the
other systems in the world. In addition to this, there are clear differentiations between these two
systems alongside discussed few of its similarities as well. There is an inter relationship on the
political, social and economic forces that has influenced the practices and the ongoing
professional workings while dealing with medical science. It has also shed light on an analysis
about the adoption of the Australian ways in which the orientation and structure of the health
care system related to the health care practice.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Bezin, J., and et.al., 2017. The national healthcare system claims databases in France, SNIIRAM
and EGB: powerful tools for pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug
safety. 26(8). pp.954-962.
Booth, M., and et.al., 2016. The new Australian Primary Health Networks: how will they
integrate public health and primary care. Public Health Res Pract. 26(1). p.e2611603.
Duckett, S. and Willcox, S., 2015. The Australian health care system (No. Ed. 5). Oxford
University Press.
Hon, C.Y., and et.al., 2015. Antineoplastic drug contamination in the urine of Canadian
healthcare workers. International archives of occupational and environmental health. 88(7).
pp.933-941.
Muscedere, J., and et.al., 2016. Screening for frailty in Canada’s health care system: a time for
action. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement. 35(3). pp.281-297.
Nguyen, K.H., Chaboyer, W. and Whitty, J.A., 2015. Pressure injury in Australian public
hospitals: a cost-of-illness study. Australian Health Review. 39(3). pp.329-336.
Rosella, L.C., and et.al., 2016. Impact of diabetes on healthcare costs in a population‐based
cohort: a cost analysis. Diabetic Medicine. 33(3). pp.395-403.
Willis, E., Reynolds, L. and Keleher, H. eds., 2016. Understanding the Australian health care
system. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Online
Australian health care: where do we stand internationally, 2014. [Online]. Available
through:<https://theconversation.com/australian-health-care-where-do-we-stand-internationally-
30886>.
Glover,L., 2017. The Australian Health Care System. [Online]. Available
through:<https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/australia/>.
Higher health co-payments will hit the most vulnerable, 2014. [Online]. Available
through:<https://theconversation.com/higher-health-co-payments-will-hit-the-most-vulnerable-
29590>.