Introduction
Since the mid-twentieth century, the development of healthcare in the world has taken place under the sign of intensive reorganization. Despite significant differences in the resource endowment of national health systems, their organization and efficiency, the reasons that led to the need for change, were primarily due to the lack of funding. Low living standards, poor health indicators, increased mortality, and threats of the spread of infectious diseases were the main reasons for changes in the healthcare of developing countries.
Main Text
Therefore, the value of analyzing the political successes and failures of other states lies in an opportunity to assess the relationship of the reforms with the development indicators of this industry and its quality. This evaluation may help draw conclusions regarding the level of domestic medicine and provide important data concerning potential positive changes.
At the national level, most European countries have been implementing the principle of equal access to medical help regardless of people’s capacity and ability to pay for services for the past thirty years. Thus, the share of the population whose healthcare costs are paid for with public funding is increasing. Systems of preferential financing from the budget are in place in Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (“Countries with free or universal healthcare,” n.d.). This experience is successful, and following such a path of development contributes to a freer access of the population to medical services. Bahrain and Sudan have developed a structure of community-based PHC as the entry point of the healthcare system (Van Weel et al., 2017). This sector in India is overtly privatized, with more than 78% of care provided by the private sector and public investment (Van Weel et al., 2016, p. e000057). These indicators, conversely, demonstrate the inability of the local government to create a sustainable system of sponsoring healthcare, which affects access to medical services negatively.
Conclusion
When developing a domestic healthcare system, the experience of the aforementioned countries may be a useful background. For instance, improving the public financing system will expand the access of the population to the services of medical employees, while the privatization of this industry can limit this criterion. Therefore, the analysis of the successes and failures of other states plays an important role as a stimulus that helps avoid mistakes and improve current achievements.
References
Countries with free or universal healthcare. (n.d.). Web.
Van Weel, C., Alnasir, F., Farahat, T., Usta, J., Osman, M., Abdulmalik, M., … Kassai, R. (2017). Primary healthcare policy implementation in the Eastern Mediterranean region: Experiences of six countries. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 39-44. Web.
Van Weel, C., Kassai, R., Qidwai, W., Kumar, R., Bala, K., Prasad Gupta, P., … Howe, A. (2016). Primary healthcare policy implementation in South Asia. BMJ Global Health, 1(2), e000057. Web.