Comparative Analysis of Healthcare Systems: UK, US, and Japan

This report provides a comparative analysis of healthcare systems in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan. It examines key aspects such as universal coverage, cost-sharing, and government spending. The UK's National Health Service is contrasted with the US's predominantly private sector, highlighting differences in funding, physician availability, and mortality rates. The Japanese healthcare system, with its regulated coverage and affordable medical fees, is also analyzed. The report suggests improvements for the US system, including the implementation of health insurance, reducing overuse of technology, and providing universal coverage to enhance life expectancy. The analysis draws on data regarding expenditures, patient access, and outcomes, including mortality rates and surgical outcomes. The report concludes by emphasizing the importance of these comparative insights for understanding healthcare delivery and its impact on population health.

Running head: COMPARISON OF HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
Comparison of healthcare systems
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMPARISON OF HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
Healthcare system in UK has universal coverage and National Healthcare Service
provide care for emergency and mental illness cases (International.commonwealthfund.org,
2020). Services have no cost-sharing under the public healthcare system except for dentistry
and outpatient drugs, the latter exclude the individuals under 18 years, older people, poor,
pregnant women or women who had a child in the last year or patients with chronic disease.
Out of pocket costs are low in Japan and UK. Patients can prefer hospitals and specialist
which is similar in Japan. Healthcare services in US is mostly operated by private sector and
does not have universal coverage (Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO, 2020).
UK spend 9.4% of GDP on healthcare US spend 17.3% and Japan spends 8.2%. Number of
physicians per 1000 person is 2.8 in UK compared to 2.5 in US. UK spends more funding on
healthcare and the mortality rate is below average compared to US.
Japan’s healthcare system gives a regulated medical coverage to all. Patients in Japan
can see the primary healthcare without appointment (International.commonwealthfund.org,
2020). Children under 15 are provided care at free of cost, the patient gives only 30%
payment for diagnosis and prevention. Medical fees are kept affordable and identical across
the country, generic drugs are used to reduce medical cost whereas diagnosis and drugs are
expensive in US. The number of acute care beds per 1000 populations is higher than US and
surgical outcomes are better in Japan.
Healthcare services can be improved in US by reducing expenses by applying health
insurance, reducing overuse of technology for diagnosis and therapy to increase life
expectancy, and by providing universal coverage with free of cost care.

2COMPARISON OF HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
References
Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO. (2020). The U.S. Health Care System: An
International Perspective — Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO.
Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO. Retrieved 6 March 2020, from
https://www.dpeaflcio.org/factsheets/the-us-health-care-system-an-international-
perspective.
International.commonwealthfund.org. (2020). England : International Health Care System
Profiles. International.commonwealthfund.org. Retrieved 6 March 2020, from
https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/england/.
International.commonwealthfund.org. (2020). Japan : International Health Care System
Profiles. International.commonwealthfund.org. Retrieved 6 March 2020, from
https://international.commonwealthfund.org/countries/japan/.