Hello I need to repsond to 4 difffernt students post with reference please. Sava

Hello I need to repsond to 4 difffernt students post with reference please.
Savalla’s Post
There are many differences in NHI and NHS. The main difference is financial. NHS guaranteed services while NHI requires payment. Another difference is that “NHI systems generally rely mostly on payroll taxes to fund their health services (Knickman & Elbel, 2018). NHS systems, however, rely on general revenue taxation such as income taxes and a broad range of other taxes to fund the delivery system. Using income taxes and general revenues allows for greater redistribution of resources from the wealthy to the poor. Payroll types are generally not highly redistributive.”(Knickman & Elbel, 2018)
NHI and NHS systems compare with the health care system in the United States is interesting. According to Knickman, “the most striking difference between the United States and NHS or NHI systems is that the United State, even after passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Knickman & Elbel, 2018). In contrast, in NHS and NHI systems, most health care financing is based on ability to pay (Knickman & Elbel, 2018) Ability-to-pay criteria lead to wealthier, younger, and healthier individuals paying disproportionately to finance the care of poorer, older, and sicker individuals (Knickman & Elbel, 2018). The United States has neither an NHS nor an NHI system. Instead, the U.S. health care system relies on a patchwork of public and private insurance with large gaps in coverage (Knickman & Elbel, 2018).Most countries with the same capita income differ and resemble the United States’ health care in many ways. Regardless of the problems faced by the system, critics must face the reality (Ridic et al., 2012)that the medical care system provides its residents with access to all “medically necessary hospital and physician services” at a fraction of the per capita cost of the U.S system (Ridic et al., 2012). “Another way in which the U.S. health care system differs from that of wealthy OECD nations concerns the vast range of health insurance products we offer to our population, including the option (following the ACA) of not purchasing health insurance, albeit with a financial penalty (Ridic et al., 2012). Despite the emphasis on choice of insurer, many people find themselves confined to obtaining health care within restricted provider networks outside which payment for services often becomes unaffordable.”
Nicole’s Post
General revenue taxes are the principal source of financing for universal care delivery states. As a result, NHS systems depend on the delivery management by the government to manage service delivery directly and to recruit providers and private contract employees. Health care in this country is funded through general taxes like income taxes and a variety of additional levies, such as excise taxes (Knickman et al.,2019). Those who want private hospitals, doctors, and insurance may now have them. This health care system facilitates a more significant income transfer from the wealthiest to the less fortunate. For the most part, government agencies are in charge of organizing social welfare initiatives. Health care providers are reimbursed by it, not the government, as is the case with traditional national health insurance. This system uses payroll taxes to pay for health care services. Thus, they are less resource-diverse than the NHS. Public and private organizations work together to provide healthcare under this system (Knickman et al.,2019).Because the United States relies heavily on private insurance rates set in accordance with anticipated risk, there is a significant disparity between the countries. Employees and individuals alike are responsible for the costs of private health insurance premiums (Knickman et al.,2019). The NHS and NHI health care systems rely on general revenue funding, using the social security system to fund both individual income taxes and the required payroll tax, to provide health care services. As a result, the well-off, young, and healthy are forced to foot the bill for the sicker, older, and poorer members of society. There is no NHS or NHI system in the United States. Public and private insurance with significant coverage gaps are primarily addressed in the responses. Employees in both the commercial and governmental sectors are covered by a combination of public and private insurance, as well as social assistance programs for those with lower earnings (Nghiem et al.,2018). Healthcare in the United States is the most expensive per person because of the high wages paid to medical experts, as well as the high costs of goods and services.NAS systems depend on more salaried and capitated physician and hospital payments. Most G.P.s and dentists are independent contractors paid 75 percent capitation and 20 percent performance in the U.S. system. In Canada, PCPs are paid according to their performance. The health ministry negotiates a yearly physician fee schedule using a valuation scale for each refundable operation or code. (Knickman et al.,2019). In France, ambulatory doctors and private hospitals are compensated based on a fee schedule agreed by medical organizations, the NHI central administration, and the government. Private office-based doctors in France may extra-bill over stipulated costs. It’s 50-100%.All nations have a hospital- and community-service coordination issue. France has the most physicians and hospital beds. Full-time, paid public hospital doctors and solitary private practitioners lack communication. No formal institutional links assure continuity of treatment, illness prevention, health promotion, and follow-up care. Poor hospitalization discharge planning and medical provider coordination define it. In Canada, experts are paid fee-for-service and work in community practice and hospitals. Private hospitals with governing boards are typically publicly funded. Most community doctors refer diagnostic patients to local hospitals (Knickman et al.,2019). This delays elective operations. In rural China, communes provide housing, education, social services, and basic medical care. In cities, primary healthcare facilities and community clinics provide health care.90% of U.S. doctors are specialists, and 10% are generalists. 57% of Chinese cities have a community-based primary care organization, whereas 40% do not. In the U.S., there are worries about having enough doctors to care for an aging population (Knickman et al.,2019). Like France and China. The United States has a “health care worker oversupply.”WHO measures health using DALE? The U.S. does badly owing to inadequate investment in basic, and other social concerns that promote good health (Knickman et al.,2019). England, France, and Germany have lower primary care access rates than the U.S.
Monica’s Post
Comparative Health Systems
Differences Between national health service (NHS) and national health insurance (NHI) systems
The differences between these two systems stem from their varying roles in the healthcare sector. The primary purpose of the NHS is to guarantee residents’ access to quality healthcare services (Bar-Haim, 2018). In turn, the core objective of the NHI is to ensure reimbursement for clinical services provided to eligible patients (Bar-Haim, 2018). Thus, while the NHS focuses on patients, the NHI is geared toward meeting the financial needs of healthcare providers. This clear distinction reveals the overall differences between these systems. The purpose of each of these programs also reveals their distinctiveness. The NHS is developed to mitigate disparities by promoting equity in healthcare access. This goal is achieved by identifying and addressing social determinants of health, such as socioeconomic status. Alternatively, the NHI ensures integrity in reimbursements for services provided by medical institutions. The core intention is to ensure continuity of operations owing to the government’s reliability in reimbursing service providers. Therefore, the primary differences between these systems stem from the local healthcare sector’s variation in functions and target audience. While the NHS addresses patients’ needs for access to quality care, the NHI aims to ensure reliability and integrity of reimbursements.
Comparison between NHI and NHS and the United States Healthcare System
The NHS and NHI effectively reduce variations in health outcomes and patients’ experiences compared to the United States’ system. The U.K. healthcare approach uses the NHI, a publicly funded program, to guarantee residents’ access to medical care. The U.S. system is much more complicated because of the involvement of private entities. For instance, residents are expected to seek health insurance from private entities, escalating the costs of receiving care. Additionally, this approach empowers these agencies to have prerogative over residents who qualify for medical insurance cover. Lakhan et al. (2020) confirm that such power contributes to disparities in health outcomes, as a significant percentage of the population cannot afford health insurance. The NHS and NHI are designed to mitigate the incidence of such adverse outcomes through the focus on collective funding. Arguably, the decentralization of the American system is a weakness that contributes to its inefficiency as the private sector influences outcomes by controlling access to insurance.
Comparison between the American Healthcare System and Similar levels per Capita Countries
Despite France and the United States having similar per Capita income, the differences in the healthcare system are quite significant. Variation between provider payments and the performance of the respective health systems are the primary distinguishing factors. The French and American systems are well invested in the coordination of care, continuous improvement in workers’ competence levels, and investment in information technologies. This similarity contributes to the overall competitiveness of both systems. However, this comparison fails to extend to provider payments and health system performance.
The French pay less out of pocket than Americans because of the regulation implemented by the government. This outcome requires all residents to contribute to national insurance (Robinson & Jarrion, 2021). In turn, the out-of-pocket payments are limited to between 20 and 30% of the healthcare costs, improving medical institutions’ affordability. The American system has not adopted such limits on spending as the focus is on out-of-pocket maximum, which is beyond the financial capabilities of most individuals and families.
The difference in the performance of the French and American health systems is also noteworthy. Unlike the United States, France has a universal healthcare system, reducing disparities in health outcomes. This variation stems from the funding approach adopted in the two countries. Additionally, insurers play a limited role in the French system, while those in the United States are critical determinants of health and financial outcomes. Such variation in outcomes reveals the differences in the performance of the respective health systems. Arguably, France has a much more affordable healthcare system than the United States, resulting from variation in funding sources.
Uliana Post
The critical difference between NHS and NHI is how medical care is provided to the population and how it is financed. For instance, with National Health Service would provide medical services to the people. With that, the government funds the system, and medical providers work for the system. One good example of such a system is the British National Health Service. The services are free for the population at the time of use. On the other hand, national health insurance provides the population with health insurance coverage. Health care providers do not work directly for the system but act as independent contractors. They bill the government for medical services. An example of this type of health care system is Canada. This country adopted a single-payer system, financed by Canada’s government but delivered by privately owned providers. When it comes to the US, Medicare, and Medicaid programs are similar to NHI. The population eligible for the coverage seeks medical care from independent providers, but the government pays for the services. National Health System is not available in the US. Also, it is unlikely it will ever be available in this country due to the population’s mentality. The idea of a government-owned healthcare system will not be appealing to Americans.
The main difference between The US and other countries with similar per capita income levels is that the US seems to spend more on healthcare. The study conducted to compare such countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) presented few findings. The US spent 17.8% of GDP on healthcare in 2016, which is considerably higher than other countries. For instance, Australia and Switzerland spent 9.6% and 12.4%, respectively. Despite that, the US had the lowest percentage of people with healthcare coverage (90%). Within 11 developed courtiers, the US scored the lowest in life expectancy and the highest in infant mortality rates. The workforce was similar to other courtiers (2.6 physicians per 1000 population). Likewise, the utilization was almost identical. On the other hand, the US spends 8% on administrative needs, which is way higher than other countries. On average, administrative costs account for 1-3% of GDP in other countries (Papanicolas, 2018). Pharmaceutical costs in the US per capita are $1443. Compared to a range of $466 to $939 in other countries (Papanicolas, 2018). Physician salaries are twice or even three times higher in the US. The apparent reason for such a healthcare spending gap is the high healthcare service prices. The highly fragmented healthcare system in the US is one of the significant disadvantages because it compromises the quality of care. As a result, care coordination is not as good as in other developed countries.