Healthcare (detailed) in your nation

[Roelandia]

I would like to know more about the various healthcare systems you all employ and not just wether it is universal, government or private run but also the way of funding, coverage, etc... please be as detailed as you can.

My healthcare is what I like to call publicly subsidized quasi market healthcare.
You can check out an infographic I made about it here:

https://www.behance.net/gallery/4277151 ... nfographic

[Roelandia]

Really? no one?

Is there any intellectual equal on this website for f**k sake?!

(pardon my rage)

[Democratic East-Asia]

Really? no one?

Is there any intellectual equal on this webste for f**k sake?!

(pardon my rage)

I looked at that infographic for one moment as was like "wow, wtf." Really great job. Looks like something you find in a popular science magazine.

[Stalini]

As far as i know there are no healthcare systems in place

[Roelandia]

Really? no one?

Is there any intellectual equal on this webste for f**k sake?!

(pardon my rage)

I looked at that infographic for one moment as was like "wow, wtf." Really great job. Looks like something you find in a popular science magazine.

Thank you, I very much appreciate the fact that you like it

[Democratic East-Asia]

I still have a feeling it wouldn't work in America sadly... seems kinda European (lack a better word to describe)

[Roelandia]

I still have a feeling it wouldn't work in America sadly... seems kinda European (lack a better word to describe)

Well yes it is European like, I'm European myself so that's probably where you get that vibe from.

The intention is to unify the private intrest and innovative dynamic with the social protection minded intrest of the public. (in other, more simple terms trying to unify the private and public intrests)

There is a healthcare marketplace and a consumer which has choice of healthplan and extra benefits if he so desires, companies can make a profit while not robbing you of your all yor money in the process (or that's at least the intent of this system)

Many healthcare systems either give you choice of insurance and a booming profitable economy but leave much to be desired in terms of the consumer's financial risks or offer an extensive level of care that's mainly government run but drag down the economy. (speaking in relativly extreme terms...)
My system is an attempt at mixing the best of both worlds.

Wether or not it would work in the US I can't answer tht as I'm not American myself, although from my limited point of view I don't immediatly see why it wouldn't work there. You may enlighten me if you want.

[Old Tyrannia]

I would like to know more about the various healthcare systems you all employ and not just wether it is universal, government or private run but also the way of funding, coverage, etc... please be as detailed as you can.

My healthcare is what I like to call publicly subsidized quasi market healthcare.
You can check out an infographic I made about it here:

https://www.behance.net/gallery/4277151 ... nfographic

you may also discuss my healthcare system in this thread if you whish.

The latter would be better discussed in NationStates General. A thread asking about nations' healthcare systems is kosher, though. I suggest you delete the bolded line in your OP and start a new discussion in NSG, if you still want to talk about it.

[Roelandia]

I would like to know more about the various healthcare systems you all employ and not just wether it is universal, government or private run but also the way of funding, coverage, etc... please be as detailed as you can.

My healthcare is what I like to call publicly subsidized quasi market healthcare.
You can check out an infographic I made about it here:

https://www.behance.net/gallery/4277151 ... nfographic

you may also discuss my healthcare system in this thread if you whish.

The latter would be better discussed in NationStates General. A thread asking about nations' healthcare systems is kosher, though. I suggest you delete the bolded line in your OP and start a new discussion in NSG, if you still want to talk about it.

done

[The Arthurian Isles]

---

Affordable and effective healthcare in the Arthurian Federation is a constitutionally-mandated responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Health and Sports and of the sixteen cantonal ministries dedicated to the health and wellbeing of the Arthurian people. The receipt of these services is listed as a right of Arthurian citizens in the country's Basic Law. In order to implement a system that is both affordable and effective, the federal and cantonal governments have adopted an etatist system: healthcare is regulated by the state, funded by society and provided by private and public-private entities. Roughly two-thirds of Arthuria's healthcare costs are covered by private sources; the government intervenes to ensure global coverage and thus pays for one-third of total costs.

In this way, described in more detail below, the total cost to the state of healthcare is only 4% of GDP covering a country of just over 8,120,000 people.

The Arthurian healthcare system is underpinned by four historical determinants. They are only mentioned briefly here as their effects on the current system should be apparent in the below discussion. Firstly, the system is heavily decentralised in order to alleviate pressure on larger general hospitals; outpatient care is provided by a multitude of private clinics in order to improve quality of care and affordability. Secondly, the Federal Government funds the overseas specialist training of Arthurian doctors in order to maintain a capable professional medical class and incentivise careers within it. Thirdly, the Federal Government has worked with its cantonal governments to craft a comprehensive nation-wide healthcare plan in order to guarantee total coverage of the population in an equal manner of treatment. Finally, public hospitals are organised as single enterprises free from operational government control in order that they may continue to provide an option for care alongside private competitors. Elements of these four principles will be evident in the expanded description of Arthuria's healthcare system found below.

To understand the healthcare funding system used in Arthuria, one must understand the Federal Social Insurance Plan - FSIP. The plan establishes three savings accounts into which it is mandatory for citizens to pay 15% of their wages; their employer matches that contribution, and thus Arthurians save up to 30% of their monthly wages in their FSIP accounts. There are three accounts in the FSIP system between which the 30% can be distributed: the Social Investment Account is used to fund life insurance, home buying, education or investment; the Retirement Investment Account is used to save for old-age and related requirements; and the Healthcare Investment Account pays for an individual's hospitalisation, outpatient services and other medical costs (including private insurance policies). The healthcare account is of most relevance to this discussion. On average, Arthurians contribute between 7% and 9% of their wages to this account through the FSIP system. The savings in this account earn interest set by the cantonal government and have an upper savings limit (also set by the canton) that averages US$40,000 across the country. Once the healthcare account is filled, any further savings required by the FSIP system are instead diverted to either the retirement or social account.

If an individual's healthcare account will not cover the totality of their medical costs then the cantonal government's health ministry (or its equivalent body) funds the difference, free of any obligation or future charge. The same body will keep track of healthcare costs and, if they increase dramatically, will distribute funds to healthcare accounts dependant on income and home ownership in order to ensure total coverage. The government also intervenes to provide healthcare to couples with children. Family healthcare accounts include higher interest rates and government contributions depending on the number and health of the family's children; up to US$6000 is provided for families of children with chronic medical conditions.

FSIP extends beyond the three mandatory savings accounts. The Urgent Medical Investment Account is not mandatory, but is purchased by roughly 90% of the population because it is provided at subsidised rates of, on average, US$30 per year for a twenty year-old and US$300 per year for a seventy year-old. The UMIA can be paid for from any additional savings of one's 30% total contribution which they do not want to or cannot place in their healthcare account. Alternatively, one can contribute savings separately from that 30% requirement. The limits are set at US$50,000 per year and a total of US$200,000 over one's lifetime. The UMIA is generally capable of funding 90% of a person's hospital fees in a case of catastrophic illness, the remainder being covered by their mandatory healthcare account.

The majority of insurance classes are provided for by private entities or directly by employers as a form of benefit. They are regulated heavily by the government in order to ensure total coverage of the population and, importantly, when one's insurance is depleted the government provides the required funding. The etatist structure of the healthcare system ensures that the public sector performs a dominant role in healthcare provision but is still challenged by private providers. It follows the government's belief that freedom of choice is the determinant for quality; strong oversight, however, maintains the affordability of Arthuria's healthcare to both the patients and the government.

An important note: the only way that healthcare saving is incentivised beyond the mandatory contributions set by law is the provision of separate classes of healthcare. A healthcare account can be used by an individual to pay for one of four types of ward which differ not by the quality of care provided but by the degree of additional services offered. An Enhanced Service supplies a patient with a private room, their choice of doctor and all the concomitant benefits. A Prevailing Service offers an eight-person ward and no choice over one's individual doctor. Importantly, however, no one patient is prioritised for treatment over another simply because of the amount from their healthcare account which they are willing to pay. The government intervenes to ensure equality of treatment. To regulate this, the government must authorise the purchase of more expensive modern equipment in individual hospitals and sets guidelines dictating the balance between Enhanced Service and Prevailing Service wards (and of the two types in between). In return, private providers benefit from the bulk purchasing power of the state and significant support from government funding programmes.

While the Arthurian healthcare system appears to be a form of free-market enterprise, the degree of coverage and the quality of care can only be provided on an equal level because of strong government control.

[PaNTuXIa]

I would like to know more about the various healthcare systems you all employ and not just wether it is universal, government or private run but also the way of funding, coverage, etc... please be as detailed as you can.

My healthcare is what I like to call publicly subsidized quasi market healthcare.
You can check out an infographic I made about it here:

https://www.behance.net/gallery/4277151 ... nfographic

Wow. That graph is fantastic.

[Roelandia]

(Image)

---

On The Topic Of Healthcare Provision

---

Affordable and effective healthcare in the Arthurian Federation is a constitutionally-mandated responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Health and Sports and of the sixteen cantonal ministries dedicated to the health and wellbeing of the Arthurian people. The receipt of these services is listed as a right of Arthurian citizens in the country's Basic Law. In order to implement a system that is both affordable and effective, the federal and cantonal governments have adopted an etatist system: healthcare is regulated by the state, funded by society and provided by private and public-private entities. Roughly two-thirds of Arthuria's healthcare costs are covered by private sources; the government intervenes to ensure global coverage and thus pays for one-third of total costs.

In this way, described in more detail below, the total cost to the state of healthcare is only 4% of GDP covering a country of just over 8,120,000 people.

The Arthurian healthcare system is underpinned by four historical determinants. They are only mentioned briefly here as their effects on the current system should be apparent in the below discussion. Firstly, the system is heavily decentralised in order to alleviate pressure on larger general hospitals; outpatient care is provided by a multitude of private clinics in order to improve quality of care and affordability. Secondly, the Federal Government funds the overseas specialist training of Arthurian doctors in order to maintain a capable professional medical class and incentivise careers within it. Thirdly, the Federal Government has worked with its cantonal governments to craft a comprehensive nation-wide healthcare plan in order to guarantee total coverage of the population in an equal manner of treatment. Finally, public hospitals are organised as single enterprises free from operational government control in order that they may continue to provide an option for care alongside private competitors. Elements of these four principles will be evident in the expanded description of Arthuria's healthcare system found below.

To understand the healthcare funding system used in Arthuria, one must understand the Federal Social Insurance Plan - FSIP. The plan establishes three savings accounts into which it is mandatory for citizens to pay 15% of their wages; their employer matches that contribution, and thus Arthurians save up to 30% of their monthly wages in their FSIP accounts. There are three accounts in the FSIP system between which the 30% can be distributed: the Social Investment Account is used to fund life insurance, home buying, education or investment; the Retirement Investment Account is used to save for old-age and related requirements; and the Healthcare Investment Account pays for an individual's hospitalisation, outpatient services and other medical costs (including private insurance policies). The healthcare account is of most relevance to this discussion. On average, Arthurians contribute between 7% and 9% of their wages to this account through the FSIP system. The savings in this account earn interest set by the cantonal government and have an upper savings limit (also set by the canton) that averages US$40,000 across the country. Once the healthcare account is filled, any further savings required by the FSIP system are instead diverted to either the retirement or social account.

If an individual's healthcare account will not cover the totality of their medical costs then the cantonal government's health ministry (or its equivalent body) funds the difference, free of any obligation or future charge. The same body will keep track of healthcare costs and, if they increase dramatically, will distribute funds to healthcare accounts dependant on income and home ownership in order to ensure total coverage. The government also intervenes to provide healthcare to couples with children. Family healthcare accounts include higher interest rates and government contributions depending on the number and health of the family's children; up to US$6000 is provided for families of children with chronic medical conditions.

FSIP extends beyond the three mandatory savings accounts. The Urgent Medical Investment Account is not mandatory, but is purchased by roughly 90% of the population because it is provided at subsidised rates of, on average, US$30 per year for a twenty year-old and US$300 per year for a seventy year-old. The UMIA can be paid for from any additional savings of one's 30% total contribution which they do not want to or cannot place in their healthcare account. Alternatively, one can contribute savings separately from that 30% requirement. The limits are set at US$50,000 per year and a total of US$200,000 over one's lifetime. The UMIA is generally capable of funding 90% of a person's hospital fees in a case of catastrophic illness, the remainder being covered by their mandatory healthcare account.

The majority of insurance classes are provided for by private entities or directly by employers as a form of benefit. They are regulated heavily by the government in order to ensure total coverage of the population and, importantly, when one's insurance is depleted the government provides the required funding. The etatist structure of the healthcare system ensures that the public sector performs a dominant role in healthcare provision but is still challenged by private providers. It follows the government's belief that freedom of choice is the determinant for quality; strong oversight, however, maintains the affordability of Arthuria's healthcare to both the patients and the government.

An important note: the only way that healthcare saving is incentivised beyond the mandatory contributions set by law is the provision of separate classes of healthcare. A healthcare account can be used by an individual to pay for one of four types of ward which differ not by the quality of care provided but by the degree of additional services offered. An Enhanced Service supplies a patient with a private room, their choice of doctor and all the concomitant benefits. A Prevailing Service offers an eight-person ward and no choice over one's individual doctor. Importantly, however, no one patient is prioritised for treatment over another simply because of the amount from their healthcare account which they are willing to pay. The government intervenes to ensure equality of treatment. To regulate this, the government must authorise the purchase of more expensive modern equipment in individual hospitals and sets guidelines dictating the balance between Enhanced Service and Prevailing Service wards (and of the two types in between). In return, private providers benefit from the bulk purchasing power of the state and significant support from government funding programmes.

While the Arthurian healthcare system appears to be a form of free-market enterprise, the degree of coverage and the quality of care can only be provided on an equal level because of strong government control.

Nice! this is what I was looking for! It bears a lot of resemblence to Singapore's healthcare, mainly the medisave program. Did Singapore inspire you?
I love that it also has the same goal as my healthcare system, to have freedom of choice to ensure quality and service but still manages to provide affordable care for everyone.
We both just have different methods.

I can see you are a "wizard" with words, whereas I am more of a "wizard" with imagery.

[Roelandia]

I would like to know more about the various healthcare systems you all employ and not just wether it is universal, government or private run but also the way of funding, coverage, etc... please be as detailed as you can.

My healthcare is what I like to call publicly subsidized quasi market healthcare.
You can check out an infographic I made about it here:

https://www.behance.net/gallery/4277151 ... nfographic

Wow. That graph is fantastic.

Thanks

[The Arthurian Isles]

- Snip -

Thank you; I try to paint as vivid a picture as I can with words because I cannot match your artistic skill.

In answer to your question, yes. The Arthurian healthcare system is fundamentally constructed from Singapore's own insurance-based system. The primary difference is that government funds are provided directly to individuals or families whose healthcare insurance cannot cover their full costs instead of instituting a third insurance policy, as I believe is the case in Singapore. The figures are also slightly altered: the 30% figure is a reduction of 6% from Singapore's contribution requirement.

I think it is important to note that such a system is made possible by an invariable number of factors that affect Arthuria, including a high-wage economy and low income tax rates. Without either of these things the saving requirements on individuals would be too great a sacrifice of individual autonomy. The fact that the cantonal governments can also be more directly involved with individual payments is because of pre-existing welfare systems centred around a universal basic income which facilitate government distribution of money to citizens.

You are right; our two countries do use different methods. But that is, in this scenario, fine. Dependant on culture, politics and demographics it is unlikely that two systems which produce the same outcome will be operationally identical. In other words, your country has developed a healthcare system suited to its particular needs, mine has created one unique to its demands. Both appear to work well.

[Roelandia]

- Snip -

Thank you; I try to paint as vivid a picture as I can with words because I cannot match your artistic skill.

In answer to your question, yes. The Arthurian healthcare system is fundamentally constructed from Singapore's own insurance-based system. The primary difference is that government funds are provided directly to individuals or families whose healthcare insurance cannot cover their full costs instead of instituting a third insurance policy, as I believe is the case in Singapore. The figures are also slightly altered: the 30% figure is a reduction of 6% from Singapore's contribution requirement.

I think it is important to note that such a system is made possible by an invariable number of factors that affect Arthuria, including a high-wage economy and low income tax rates. Without either of these things the saving requirements on individuals would be too great a sacrifice of individual autonomy. The fact that the cantonal governments can also be more directly involved with individual payments is because of pre-existing welfare systems centred around a universal basic income which facilitate government distribution of money to citizens.

You are right; our two countries do use different methods. But that is, in this scenario, fine. Dependant on culture, politics and demographics it is unlikely that two systems which produce the same outcome will be operationally identical. In other words, your country has developed a healthcare system suited to its particular needs, mine has created one unique to its demands. Both appear to work well.

True, word for word

[Arkiasis]

Arkiasis has a publicly funded healthcare system administered on a federal level by the Arkiasis Health Service (AHS) which guarantees comprehensive health insurance to all citizens and permanent residents. The AHS was enacted in 1948 by the Parliament of Arkiasis and signed into law by President Andrew Bradley making it the 2nd oldest (after the Atlantican Health Service) and largest single-payer healthcare system in the world. Private Healthcare is legally limited to primarily cosmetic surgeries with the AHS being the sole Health Insurance provider in Arkiasis. Health care in Arkiasis in funded through general taxation and is available free at the point of use (above a certain level) with patients freely being able to select the physicians or facilities of their choice.

Arkiasis ranks highly in general health and has one of the lowest rates of obesity of any developed nation in the world. Arkiasis has a life expectancy of 82 years and an infant mortality rate of 3.63/1000 births. There are 3.16 physicians per 1000 people and 5.9 hospital beds per 1000 people. Health care constitutes 10.2% of the national GDP or $4,204.37 per capita. Healthcare costs have begun to steadily increase as the population of Arkiasis continues to age. According to a survey in 2009 despite liberal drug laws very few Arkiasians are drug users with only 7% of Arkiasians consuming tobacco products. The suicide rate in Arkiasis was 11.6/100,000 in 2011, an increase from a rate of 10.3 in 1990.

[Roelandia]

Arkiasis has a publicly funded healthcare system administered on a federal level by the Arkiasis Health Service (AHS) which guarantees comprehensive health insurance to all citizens and permanent residents. The AHS was enacted in 1948 by the Parliament of Arkiasis and signed into law by President Andrew Bradley making it the 2nd oldest (after the Atlantican Health Service) and largest single-payer healthcare system in the world. Private Healthcare is legally limited to primarily cosmetic surgeries with the AHS being the sole Health Insurance provider in Arkiasis. Health care in Arkiasis in funded through general taxation and is available free at the point of use (above a certain level) with patients freely being able to select the physicians or facilities of their choice.

Arkiasis ranks highly in general health and has one of the lowest rates of obesity of any developed nation in the world. Arkiasis has a life expectancy of 82 years and an infant mortality rate of 3.63/1000 births. There are 3.16 physicians per 1000 people and 5.9 hospital beds per 1000 people. Health care constitutes 10.2% of the national GDP or $4,204.37 per capita. Healthcare costs have begun to steadily increase as the population of Arkiasis continues to age. According to a survey in 2009 despite liberal drug laws very few Arkiasians are drug users with only 7% of Arkiasians consuming tobacco products. The suicide rate in Arkiasis was 11.6/100,000 in 2011, an increase from a rate of 10.3 in 1990.

Appears to be a mix of the Canadian and British healthcare system.
Canadian in that it is a single payer system and British mainly because of the term AHS or Arkiasis health insurance.
Not too bad, personally I would go for a multi payer system since that requires less taxes and provides more "consumer" choice (if you're into that sort of thing in the healthcare "market" that is, personally I a but that's just me)

All in all not too shabby