1

Econ 149; US Healthcare System vs. UK Healthcare System

Name of Student

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Professor

Date
 2

Healthcare is an important aspect of human existence since it ensures our safety and well-

being. Most authorities have invested in these sectors to ensure the sovereignty of the people in

protecting their rights. Access to medication is one of the core needs of human existence

(Bhattacharya et al. 2014). Although healthcare has the same obligation of offering ultimate

healthcare services, different states have different healthcare systems (Marjoua, & Bozic, 2012).

The two main healthcare system is the NHS system and the private health care system. The tax

people fund the NHS system are paying to the government. In contrast, the private system is

funded by the individual people through healthcare covers, and it is more projected in profit-

making inclination (Grosios et al. 2010). This essay will explore the comparison existing

between the UK NHS healthcare system and the US private healthcare system and analyze the

moral hazards existing in both systems.

The big difference existing between the two healthcare systems is in terms of private and

public sectors. In the United States, most healthcare systems are provided by the private sector.

Profit-making companies or charitable organizations either own the hospitals. Almost 84% of the

American population access health care from private providers, with most of them owning

private health insurance, Medicaid programs, and Medicare (Bhattacharya et al. 2014). The

remaining 16% depending on the public health care system due to their economic status and

failure to secure medical insurance from private healthcare providers. On the contrary United

Kingdom healthcare system is provided by public healthcare providers. The largest population is

dependent on the public sector as opposed to private sectors. The government has heavily

invested in public sectors by raising their expenditures to 8.4% of the GDP (Grosios et al. 2010).

I expect the UK healthcare system to achieve greater social equity since it offers public

healthcare system and is controlled by the government. The advantage is that the UK healthcare
 3

system caters to all people irrespective of occupation, gender, race, religion, and other

demographic factors. The fact that 8.4% expenditure of the GDP has been projected to healthcare

services makes it appealing to society (Grosios et al. 2010). At least the tax that the people are

paying offers healthcare cover. The US is segregated, and the only people benefiting from

healthcare are the people above the poverty threshold and employed (Marjoua & Bozic, 2012).

For instance, the US employer-sponsored health insurance system gives secure coverage to the

employed people while the rest of the population struggle to meet healthcare service in private

healthcare providers.

The moral hazard in the UK healthcare system is high compared to that of the US

healthcare system. The fact that the healthcare system is being funded by the government and

8.4% of the expenditures of GDP is channeled to healthcare does not meet the quality healthcare

for all populations (Grosios et al. 2010). Although the UK ensures that all the people access

medical cover, the extensive approach leads to a low-quality healthcare system. The NHS fund

generated from the tax is worrying about sustaining the provisions of healthcare (Einav, &

Finkelstein, 2018). On the contrary, the US has many moral hazards, especially with the

employer-sponsored health insurance system that ensures that the quality of care meets consumer

demands. Private base healthcare providers are profit makers, and the way they are benefiting

from the working class does worry their insurance covers (Marjoua, & Bozic, 2012). However,

this is a disadvantage to the unemployed people since for proper care; the private sectors provide

cover that will ensure profit.

Both the US and UK have formulated different strategies to safeguard against moral

hazards. The NHS deals with the moral hazard by rationing the healthcare, thus saving on the

risk that might be involved in overstretching the available healthcare services (Grosios et al.
 4

2010). For instance, the NHS may rationalize by limiting the individual choices in accessing

medical care. In addition, introducing a waiting list to limit the services provided to the people.

Gatekeeping can also be a strategy to control individual access to healthcare services. In private

healthcare, such as that in the UK, the moral hazard can be controlled by limiting the insurance

policy to the individual (Marjoua, & Bozic, 2012). For instance, if the employer-sponsored

health insurance system covers some healthcare services, it can be limited to some of the

services.

A young entrepreneur will prefer the US healthcare system since he/she will be

privileged to enjoy most medical insurance covers. According to the survey report by WHO, the

US ranks among the top in healthcare responsiveness to ye needs and the wants of the people.

Therefore in cases of emergencies, the entrepreneur can access quality healthcare within a short

period. In addition, the US healthcare system offers customers a variety of healthcare coverage

plans to choose from, thus allowing them to select the plan that aligns with their economic status.

In this regard, I think young entrepreneurs will prefer the US healthcare system to the UK

healthcare system.

In conclusion, the provision of healthcare is vital to the people since it protects their

rights. Although the healthcare system should ensure quality healthcare provision to the people,

the differences in healthcare systems shape the quality of healthcare in a particular state. The

NHS system caters to all the people, while the private system caters to insured people. In

addition, the moral hazards affect both systems at different extents due to the economic

inclination. US depicts a good example of the private healthcare system while UK depicts a good

example of the NHS system, as discussed in the essay. The two have a great difference, as

discussed.
 5

References

Bhattacharya, J., Hyde, T., & Tu, P. (2014). Health economics / Jay Bhattacharya, Timothy

Hyde, Peter Tu. Palgrave Macmillan

Einav, L., & Finkelstein, A. (2018). Moral hazard in health insurance: What we know and how

we know it. Journal of the European Economic Association, 16(4), 957-982.

Grosios, K., Gahan, P. B., & Burbidge, J. (2010). Overview of healthcare in the UK. EPMA

Journal, 1(4), 529-534.

Marjoua, Y., & Bozic, K. J. (2012). Brief history of quality movement in US healthcare. Current

reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 5(4), 265-273.