This paper compares the healthcare systems of the United States and Norway, examining their design, funding mechanisms, quality of care, and distribution of services. The U.S. system relies on a mix of private employment-based insurance and public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, making it the most expensive in the world yet leaving many citizens uninsured. Norway operates a universal, tax-funded National Insurance Scheme covering all residents, but faces challenges including long waiting lists and persistent health outcome inequalities. The analysis highlights that both systems, despite their fundamental differences, share common struggles with aging populations, rising costs, and unequal distribution of care.
Every healthcare system has advantages and disadvantages that become most revealing when compared to other systems around the world. An analysis of the U.S. healthcare system alongside the government-run system of Norway provides a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences between the two.
Almost every other developed nation in the world has some form of universal health coverage, which reduces disparities in care. However, many of these systems are reportedly burdened by their own issues, such as high costs and long waiting times. By comparing the U.S. system with a universal system like that of Norway, this paper investigates the effectiveness of each in terms of the quality of care provided and the equality of its distribution.
The healthcare system in the U.S. is made up of a combination of private insurance coverage based primarily on employment, along with public insurance coverage for the elderly (Medicare), the military, veterans, and for the poor and disabled (Medicaid, which varies greatly in its implementation across states) (University of Maine, 2001). The U.S. is the only country in the developed world, apart from South Africa, that does not provide healthcare for all of its citizens (University of Maine, 2001).
The federal government continues to play a predominant role in the financing of healthcare, since Medicare pays for 56% of the elderly's healthcare bills, and the nation's elderly population is growing as a share of the total population (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005).
The U.S. has the most expensive healthcare system in the world based on two measures: health expenditure per capita ($4,178 per person) and total health expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) (13.6% of GDP) (University of Maine, 2001). National healthcare spending in the U.S. has risen steadily over the past 40 years (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005). In 1960, it accounted for slightly more than 5% of the total, but by 2002, healthcare spending had reached approximately 15% of GDP (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005). Much of this increase reflects the delivery of more technologically advanced care in hospitals (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005). In 2002, 53 cents of every healthcare dollar was spent on hospital and physician services, and people aged 65 and over spent about four times more than those under 65 (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005).
The high cost of the U.S. healthcare system can be attributed to many factors, including large administrative costs, the rising costs of medical technology and prescription drugs, and the increasing number of for-profit healthcare providers (University of Maine, 2001). One of the most discussed factors is the large number of uninsured Americans who often forgo treatment until their health issues become severe (University of Maine, 2001). The aging U.S. population also contributes to increased healthcare costs (University of Maine, 2001).
In general, the costs of healthcare rise approximately exponentially with age (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005). This fact alone suggests that demographics — especially the baby boom generation — have had, and will continue to have, profound effects on healthcare spending (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005).
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has defined quality of care as a multidimensional concept that encompasses the underuse and overuse of services (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005). Underuse occurs when people do not receive the care they need; overuse occurs when people receive care they do not need (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005). Taken together, these two elements measure whether care is effective (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005). Care should be provided safely, in a timely manner, and should be patient-centered, equitable, and efficient (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005). When it is not, patients experience a system unresponsive to their needs and preferences and wasteful of resources (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005). RAND's national study of the U.S. healthcare system found deficits in the quality of care across all types of care — chronic, preventive, and acute (Goldman & McGlynn, 2005).
Norway has a universal, tax-funded, single-payer National Insurance Scheme (NIS) (Johnsen, 2006). All Norwegian citizens, as well as anyone living or working in Norway, are covered under the NIS (Johnsen, 2006). The Norwegian government owns and operates a majority of hospitals in the country, though a small private sector exists, mainly concentrated in dental care and substance abuse treatment (Johnsen, 2006).
The NIS is funded by general tax revenues, with no earmarked tax specifically for healthcare. This means healthcare is one of many contributors to a tax burden that consumes 45% of GDP (Tanner, 2008). The government sets a global budget limiting overall health expenditures and capital investment, which requires the rationing of health services (Tanner, 2008). Norwegians can opt out of the government system and pay out-of-pocket for treatment in other countries, which many choose to do because waiting lists for care are long (Tanner, 2008).
Benefits under the Norwegian health system are extensive and include inpatient and outpatient care, diagnostic services, specialist care, maternity services, preventive medicine, palliative care, and prescription drugs (Tanner, 2008). At public hospitals, there are no charges for stays or treatment, including drugs, and the program also provides sick pay and disability benefits (Tanner, 2008). Hospital and non-hospital physicians are generally paid on a salaried basis, though some specialists may receive an annual grant and fee-for-service payments (Tanner, 2008). Reimbursement rates are set by the government, and physicians cannot charge more than the centrally established rate (Tanner, 2008). Most other healthcare personnel are salaried government employees (Tanner, 2008).
The expansive healthcare system in Norway has experienced serious problems with long and growing waiting lists (Tanner, 2008). Out of a population of just 4.6 million, approximately 280,000 Norwegians are estimated to be waiting for care on any given day (Tanner, 2008). "Approximately 23% of all patients referred for hospital admission have to wait longer than three months for admission" (Tanner, 2008). In addition, care can be denied if it is not deemed to be cost-effective (Tanner, 2008). Norway, like most European countries, also faces challenges associated with an increasing number of elderly people (Johnsen, 2006).
Another significant issue in Norway is the effective distribution of care (Johnsen, 2006). While citizens are universally provided with the same insurance, the quality of treatment differs between urban and rural populations (Johnsen, 2006). The average health outcomes of the Norwegian system are very good, but despite the coverage provided by the NIS, sources indicate that inequality in health outcomes persists (Johnsen, 2006).
Primary, secondary, and long-term healthcare in Norway have been subject to continuous change and some radical reforms, but the goals of solidarity and equality as the basis for welfare have remained essentially unchanged (Johnsen, 2006). The national goals have been to improve the overall health of the population and to distribute healthcare according to need (Johnsen, 2006).
"Structural contrasts and shared inequalities explored"
An important distinction lies in how each system is financed and what that means for citizens. Norway taxes its residents heavily for all public services and allocates a portion of those revenues to healthcare. In the U.S., the healthcare system is funded through a combination of government programs and private insurance, but overall taxes paid by U.S. citizens are much lower than those paid by Norwegians. Despite these differences in funding, both the U.S. and Norway face similar pressures from increasing life expectancies and a growing elderly population requiring more — and more costly — care.
Although Norwegians pay higher taxes, both healthcare systems depend to a large extent on the incomes of current workers to fund programs for retirees and the vulnerable. This raises serious questions about whether either system, without meaningful reform, will be able to continue providing quality care as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries shrinks and the demands on the system grow. The sustainability of both models remains an open and pressing challenge for policymakers in each country.
A comparison of the U.S. and Norwegian healthcare systems reveals that fundamentally different approaches to healthcare delivery each carry their own trade-offs. The U.S. system, driven by market forces, produces high-quality care for those with access but leaves a significant portion of the population uninsured and vulnerable. Norway's universal system ensures broad coverage but struggles with rationing, waiting lists, and persistent inequalities between urban and rural populations.
Despite their structural differences, both systems face a common and growing challenge: aging populations that demand more resources from systems already under fiscal strain. Whether either country can sustain its current model — let alone improve upon it — without significant reform remains an important and unresolved question. Understanding both systems in depth offers valuable perspective for global health policy discussions about the most effective and equitable ways to organize and fund healthcare.
Goldman, Dana P., and Elizabeth A. McGlynn. (2005). U.S. Healthcare: Facts About Cost, Access and Quality. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/corporate_pubs/2005/RAND_CP484.1.pdf
Johnsen, Jan Roth. (2006). Health Systems in Transition: Norway. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Retrieved from http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/95144/E88821.pdf
Tanner, Michael D. (2008, March 18). The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World (Policy Analysis No. 613). Cato Institute.
University of Maine. (2001). The U.S. Health Care System: Best in the World, or Just the Most Expensive? Bureau of Labor Education. Retrieved from
You’re 89% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.