Healthcare System of Norway
Health Policy of Norway
Analysis of Health Policy
Pressures on Health Care Delivery
The healthcare systems are developed to provide necessary healthcare facilities. It is also aimed to maintain health of their citizen in compliance with the state and international regulations. Norway is considered as one of the country, holding prominent place in global economy as well as growth rate and per capita income (Pontusson2011). It is also observed that the country is also similar to other states in Scandinavian region governed on the principles of a welfare state. In such context the importance of healthcare policies and systems is increased. The research is focused to investigate the policies, regulations, and healthcare system of Norway. The impacts of these polices are also reviewed in analysis and discussion sections. Finally the conclusion is formulated on the basis of secondary research.
There are two major healthcare system used in the world. These systems are based on social insurance system and Beveridge model. It is observed that both systems have their own benefits, limitations, and significance. The impacts of the system adopted in the country are also reflected on the public healthcare. It is also stated that the countries e.g. United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden etc. follow a Beveridge model to provide healthcare for their citizens. However all these countries have a varied structure for their healthcare system but the principles are derived from Beveridge model. The citizens are provided the basic healthcare according to the system adopted by the country (Schmid, Cacace, Gotze&Rothgang2010). The outcome is also directly proportionate to system dynamics. There is also a system adopted in relation to the Soviet state owned structure of healthcare facilities. In this structure the country's government owns the major healthcare facilities and it is also responsible for providing required healthcare to their citizens. Norway has also adopted this system since the year 2000.
The research is designed to review available secondary literature from scholarly journal articles, books, and professional studies. The usage of various peer reviewed journal articles provides the necessary insight regarding policies of healthcare in Norway. The research design is in line with the qualitative research parameters. It is observed that qualitative review of secondary literature is essential to provide significant benefits in developing understanding and facilitating a comparison of the Norway healthcare system with other countries including United Kingdom, Canada, USA, Spain, and Sweden. The regional data is also obtained through the secondary literature. The sources are appropriately cited in order to fulfill the obligatory ethical considerations of secondary literature review.
According to Matcha (2003) Beveridge model is adopted to develop healthcare system of various European countries including Norway. The citizens are provided access to the healthcare system and a certain amount of healthcare expenses are observed. United Kingdom had incurred $1,450 per capita as healthcare expenses in year 1998. It is also observed that Sweden spent $1,820, Norway spent $2,090, and Spain $1,240 per capita in 1998. It reviles that even following the same model for providing healthcare facilities countries incurred different levels of per capita expenses. The healthcare spending as a percentage of the GDP is also low in this system. United Kingdom spent 6.9%, Sweden 8.6%, Norway and Spain spent 7.5% of their GDP in 1998. If it is compared with the United States spending it comes out to be 14% of their GDP was spent on providing healthcare for the same period. United States follows a social insurance model as a basis for healthcare system.
Norway is second country in the OECD countries in terms of health spending. It is recorded that the country has spent $3,268 in 2010 as compared with the highest healthcare spending country United States with a spending of $5,388 in the same period. The healthcare spending in Norway has a varied degree of spending in last ten years. The spending in 200 was 8.4%, with a ten percent increase in year 2003. However the country spent reduced it to 8.6% in 2008. The year 2010 saw increase in spending up to 9.4%. The notable indicator is that Norway's healthcare spending is funded with public contribution up to 85.5% which is above the average...
The policies are developed and adopted according to the suitability of impacts on public. However the economic conditions, GDP growth rate, and public health conditions of the country are also considered. Norway has experienced multiple changes in its healthcare policies, spending, and its structure (Heijink, Koolman&Westert2012). The state owned structure is adopted as a policy for Norway's public specialized healthcare system. The state owned structure is divided into four geographic regions namely north, mid, west, and south-east. The responsibility to provide healthcare to the patients is dedicated to RHA. The patients of all regions have a right for appeal in case they are referred for a specialist healthcare.
Luigi et al. (2013) observes that the regional grouping is also extended to the patient's categories including emergency care, elective treatment with or without individual waiting time, and finally other healthcare services. The hospitals are directed to provide all emergency patients with the healthcare treatment required in any given circumstances. These types of patients are treated on priority basis at all hospitals. The mandatory service is only excluded for the last category of patients. The assessment for all groups except emergency patients is carried out on the basis of severity, efficacy of healthcare treatment, and projected cost as an outcome of the expected treatment. The patient's attributes satisfying the first condition are immediately considered qualified for the healthcare services. Therefore it can be concluded that the current healthcare policy is based on the clinical urgency and cost related to the treatment (Askildsen, Holmas&Kaarboe2011). The guidelines are prepared to for coordination with national healthcare directorate and regional authorities for healthcare services.
Analysis of Health Policy:
The analysis of key elements of the healthcare policy adopted by Norway reveals that it poses least issues for burdening the system. The essential healthcare elements and nonessential healthcare requirements produce a burden on the healthcare insurance system of United States as compared with the healthcare system in Norway. The state governed healthcare policy is less likely to allow marketing and promotion of nonessential healthcare issues through large pharmaceutical companies. The U.S. system allows hospitals, healthcare clinics, and pharmaceutical manufactures to instigate the demand for essential as well as related healthcare provisions. Norway is a small and hydrogenous country and it can manage the healthcare provisions through state governed healthcare services providers (Almgren 2012).
The health policy of the country as a whole requires fulfilling its expenses through tax funding. The major issue arises as a result is concerning the high tax rate slabs on earnings. The welfare state is responsible for providing healthcare facilities to all patients across various regions. The taxes are also charged at higher rates as compared with other countries. A comprehensive analysis is also presented in the research Almgren (2012) providing essential information regarding various aspects of the social justice and latest acts passed in the country regarding healthcare polices and provisions. The system is able to cater the requirements of the local public however there are certain shortcomings still present in the policies. The countries willing to adopt Norway's healthcare policies should also consider the taxation structure implemented in the country to provide basic healthcare facilities. The dynamics of the country's economic, social, and natural resources are also different from numerous countries in the world.
Pressures on Health Care Delivery:
There are multiple areas requiring attention in the healthcare system of a country. It is essential to consider these issues as relevant and requiring attention of policy makers and governments. There is a direct relationship of polices, government spending, GDP, and economic conditions of a country to cater the needs of healthcare for citizens. Norway is no exception. The country also faces pressures on healthcare system from multiple fronts including the high costs, ageing population, and raising diseases (Cockerham 2010).
The cost of healthcare system is directly proportionate to the economic condition in global world. The countries including Norway are also facing similar issues. The costs of providing medical care are a concern for the government. The influences on cost increase are observed as the fees of professionals, energy cost, cost of medicine, and related components are increased over the period of time. (Morland, Ringard&Rottingen2010) The health care professionals as well as the policy makers across the country are encountering the situation becoming difficult to provide healthcare as per the required quality.
According to Goldstone (2010) the increased life expectancy rate is also a relevant indicator for creating a pressure on the system. The life expectancy is highest in the Scandinavian countries as compared with other countries in the world. It is an advantage at one…
The documents we provide are to be used as a sample, template, outline, guideline in helping you write your own paper, not to be used for academic credit. All users must abide by our "Student Honor Code" or you will be restricted access to our website.
These stakeholders are also vital in the promotion of the application of standards-based technology. This is critical as it enhances the safety and security of the citizens as they pursue low-cost health care services and products within the context of the United States. The federal and state governments have also been influential in the development and implementation of policies towards addressing security and privacy issues in relation to the utilization
Comparative Analysis of Global Healthcare Various governments across the globe are tasked with the responsibility of providing healthcare to the citizens. Their economic status and models influence the quality of care provided. This has resulted in the disparities in quality from country to another with some countries acting as case studies to be emulated. The following study is a comparative analysis of three healthcare systems around the world with a focus
U.S. & Norway Healthcare Systems healthcare system has many advantages and disadvantages which are most revealing when compared to the other health care systems of the world. An analysis between the U.S. healthcare system and a government run healthcare system of Norway provides a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences in the two systems. Almost every other developed nation in the world has some form of universal coverage which reduces
Healthcare in Sweden The healthcare system in Sweden is used as one of the model systems in the world. When Johan Hjertoqvist from the Timbro Policy Group spoke before the Montreal Economic Institute in 2002, he said, "...you refuse to accept the consumer as an equal partner, you still look upon the client, the patient, as an inferior partner in the relation" and "you deny the need for good working condition
However, since its independence in 1905, Norway has worked towards building a strong economic base for its economy, although farmers and farming, too, continue to be strong identities in the nationalistic perception of Norwegians, its fishing industry, oil production and other natural resources. Norway's fishing industry is strong, although the country has some concerns about pollution and environmental issues, they're not strong or serious enough to adversely impact Norway's fishing
America Should Have Universal Healthcare Because it Would Stop Medical Bankruptcies, Improve Public Health, And Reduce Overall Health Care Spending In Europe, the debates over universal healthcare were finished decades before: all that is left is a polite argument over the finest way to fund them. However in the U.S., the thought that government ought to have any place in the association between doctor and patient is still contentious to many,