Regulatory Environment in Healthcare: A Comparative Study Essay

This essay presents a comparative analysis of the healthcare regulatory environments in the United Kingdom and Canada. In 1991, the UK reformed its healthcare system using quasi-market reforms, with the National Health Service (NHS) providing comprehensive, state-funded care. Canada, in 2002, showed strong support for its existing healthcare system, emphasizing hospital care and physician services without user fees. The Canadian system, while facing challenges, maintains high satisfaction and quality, though it limits patient choice and access. The essay also explores potential improvements to the US healthcare system, such as expanding Medicaid to cover the poor and supporting workers through employer-provided insurance. Additionally, it discusses a voucher system within a privatized framework, where individuals pay a portion of the cost based on income, benefiting lower-income groups. Desklib offers this essay as part of its collection of study resources for students.

Running head: REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN HEALTHCARE
Regulatory Environment in Healthcare
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author Note

1REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN HEALTHCARE
1.
In 1991, the United Kingdom reformed its health care system. This sector involved
two different models related to quasi market reform. On model made District Health
Authorities, which purchased health services related to hospital and community. The other
form of this reform was remained the most important part of the National Health Service
(NHS) reforms. NHS is the state-funded system that provides care to all. This implies that the
government provides everything, such as emergency room, ambulance rides, radiation,
chemotherapy and complex surgery in free (Osborn et al., 2016). Moreover, any necessary
medication that a patient needs during the hospital visit can be obtained as free. Moreover,
people receive maximum prescribed drugs at very cheaper cost. Therefore, considering lower
income group people of the UK, the legislative lobbying position can be discussed. Under
this British health care reform, all people get right to access this basic facility of health care.
Moreover, treatment with minimum cost can help lower income group people to enjoy their
basic right.
2.
In 2002, Canada was comparatively less anxious regarding their health care reform
within country. Since this year, the country experiences strong support for managing the
status quo regarding health care within traditional domains through providing hospital care
and physician. This financing in health care system implies no user fees as well as two-tier
care. This health care system is experiencing crisis however satisfaction, quality, and access
of this service are comparatively high (Mulvale, McRae & Milicic, 2017). Moreover, the
government has controlled this system nicely. Healthcare related model in this country has
formed to distribute required medical care. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that
health care system in this country has come under significant reforms. The health system in
Canada limits choice of patients and consequently has remained unsuccessful to provide

2REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN HEALTHCARE
access within time. Thus, this health care system goes against the low income group people.
Thus Legislative lobbyists in this context need to look into the matter so that those lower
income group people can access this service according to their choice.
3.
To develop comparatively better health care system, the government can take some
initiatives. It is filling the cracks within fragmented system of the US through expanding
Medicaid. This can cover all poor. Moreover, this insurance can successfully support workers
through receiving coverage from employers (Madras, 2017). In addition to this, this system
insists self-employed individuals to purchase their own private insurance. It is not possible
for any people to purchase this insurance with their own money. However, in this policy
system, the concerned government is covering all poor income people. Hence, this reform has
positive impact on society.
4
In this system, an individual receives a voucher within a completely privatized
system. The government has funded this system. Based on income, an individual can pay 60
to 100 percent of the total cost. However, this is applicable for some particular insurance
policies, which have comparatively lower price (Maust et al., 2017). Hence, this system is
good for lower income group people. Moreover, the positive side of this insurance is that it is
not compulsory to buy.

3REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT IN HEALTHCARE
References:
Madras, B. K. (2017). The surge of opioid use, addiction, and overdoses: responsibility and
response of the US health care system. Jama Psychiatry, 74(5), 441-442.
Maust, D. T., Gerlach, L. B., Gibson, A., Kales, H. C., Blow, F. C., & Olfson, M. (2017).
Trends in Central Nervous System–Active Polypharmacy Among Older Adults Seen
in Outpatient Care in the United States. JAMA internal medicine, 177(4), 583-585.
Mulvale, G., McRae, S. A., & Milicic, S. (2017). Teasing apart “the tangled web” of
influence of policy dialogues: lessons from a case study of dialogues about healthcare
reform options for Canada. Implementation Science, 12(1), 96.
Osborn, R., Squires, D., Doty, M. M., Sarnak, D. O., & Schneider, E. C. (2016). In new
survey of eleven countries, US adults still struggle with access to and affordability of
health care. Health Affairs, 35(12), 2327-2336.