International Perspectives: Critique of the Beveridge Healthcare Model

This report provides a written critique of the Beveridge model of health and social care provision, a healthcare system where the government funds healthcare through taxes, and most hospitals and clinics are owned by the government. The report begins with an overview of integrated care and various healthcare models, including Beveridge, Bismarck, and mixed frameworks, primarily focusing on the Beveridge model. It explores the model's implementation, particularly in countries like the UK, and analyzes its strengths, such as universal access to healthcare and lower per-person costs. The critique also highlights the model's weaknesses, including potential long waiting times, the impact of government control on service quality, and the challenges of funding during economic crises. The report references several studies and perspectives, offering a balanced view of the Beveridge model's advantages and disadvantages, making it a valuable resource for students studying international health and social care.

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 multimorbid and long-term patients. Over
the past decade, various models and approaches to coordinated thinking have been used and
invested in a number of scenarios, which have led to a number of definitions and number
systems (Attaran, 2014).
Integrated care is often limited to shared and verbal consideration, and is used as a synonym for
terms such as compound consideration and regular consideration, among others. However,
interpretation does not combine or rationalize a common sense of unified thinking, which is
undoubtedly a retrospective of the "polymorphic idea of coordinated thinking itself". In essence,
the ideas that develop the idea are likely to be shaped by the views and aspirations of the
different participants in the welfare picture (Chiu, and et.al., 2008).
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).
The welfare frameworks in the European Union are regulated in a different way according to
transport, finance and monetary transport models. Three distinct frames can be identified. Public
welfare administrations (also known as "Beveridge" cadres) are recognized by social protection
structures (also known as "Bismarck" cadres) on the part of the state as lender and office owner.
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. Estate administration is not enforced by charities. The state is offering
medical assistance to people who are not interested in labor protection assistance. This model is
also referred to as the Social Health Insurance System (SHIS) and is adopted in Belgium,
Estonia, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Poland, Czech
Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovakia and Hungary (Bruce, and et al, 2002).
Health Systems are amazing and complex, after all they hardly look at it. Several countries and
global societies read strategies for evaluating the achievement of a welfare picture. The most
interesting valuation models are created by the World Health Organization (WHO), Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), European Community Health Indicators
(ECHI) and Bloomberg LP, a financial planning organization, of the information and the media
which is kept secret. The WHO program is based on the following recommendations: fair future
incapacity, responsiveness and reasonable budget commitment. The OECD conducts a study of
links between results, resources and various decisions; it has not yet compiled a list of
mathematical assessments but the individual benchmarks of its Member States have been
examined (McCracken and Phillips, 2012).
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 responsibility 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
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
