Why is Australia only #32 in health care rankings?

Question

Since Australia has universal health care, I would have thought that it would at least been in the top 10 of the World Health Organization's ranking of health care systems.

I am surprised that the sucky US system (where only the rich can afford health care) even made the top 100, so I was even more surprised to see that we were ranked #37, just behind Australia (#32).

I've only heard great things about all facets of Australian life, so why would its health care system be ranked so low?? I'm puzzled. Please explain if you can.

BTW, I am an American - born and raised - and I worked in the medical field for many years, so I have had PLENTY of experience with just how much the US health care system sucks. In fact, this is one of the main reasons why I am leaving this country for good in just a couple of months.

For a country as rich and powerful as the US to have such an inept system is a total embarrassment.

By the way, I didn't categorize this quesion in 'military.' I don't know how it happened or how to change it.

Answer 1

You need to check how they define good health care according to the WHO. This is the list attached to summarize we get downgraded because we have uninsured and they dont think how people in this country pay for health care is fair. Theres nothing on this that indicates if you have cancer do you get the best treatment available or if you have a heart attack do you get a heart catheterization immediately.
Its a load of baloney if you ask me.



Responsiveness: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden. The reason these are all advanced industrial nations is that a number of the elements of responsiveness depend strongly on the availability of resources. In addition, many of these countries were the first to begin addressing the responsiveness of their health systems to people’s needs.

Fairness of financial contribution: When WHO measured the fairness of financial contribution to health systems, countries lined up differently. The measurement is based on the fraction of a household’s capacity to spend (income minus food expenditure) that goes on health care (including tax payments, social insurance, private insurance and out of pocket payments). Colombia was the top-rated country in this category, followed by Luxembourg, Belgium, Djibouti, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Japan and Finland.

Colombia achieved top rank because someone with a low income might pay the equivalent of one dollar per year for health care, while a high- income individual pays 7.6 dollars.

Countries judged to have the least fair financing of health systems include Sierra Leone, Myanmar, Brazil, China, Viet Nam, Nepal, Russian Federation, Peru and Cambodia.

Brazil, a middle-income nation, ranks low in this table because its people make high out-of-pocket payments for health care. This means a substantial number of households pay a large fraction of their income (after paying for food) on health care. The same explanation applies to the fairness of financing Peru’s health system. The reason why the Russian Federation ranks low is most likely related to the impact of the economic crisis in the 1990s. This has severely reduced government spending on health and led to increased out-of-pocket payment.

In North America, Canada rates as the country with the fairest mechanism for health system finance – ranked at 17-19, while the United States is at 54-55. Cuba is the highest among Latin American and Caribbean nations at 23-25.

The report indicates – clearly – the attributes of a good health system in relation to the elements of the performance measure, given below.

Overall Level of Health: A good health system, above all, contributes to good health. To assess overall population health and thus to judge how well the objective of good health is being achieved, WHO has chosen to use the measure of disability- adjusted life expectancy (DALE). This has the advantage of being directly comparable to life expectancy and is readily compared across populations. The report provides estimates for all countries of disability- adjusted life expectancy. DALE is estimated to equal or exceed 70 years in 24 countries, and 60 years in over half the Member States of WHO. At the other extreme are 32 countries where disability- adjusted life expectancy is estimated to be less than 40 years. Many of these are countries characterised by major epidemics of HIV/AIDS, among other causes.

Distribution of Health in the Populations: It is not sufficient to protect or improve the average health of the population, if - at the same time - inequality worsens or remains high because the gain accrues disproportionately to those already enjoying better health. The health system also has the responsibility to try to reduce inequalities by prioritizing actions to improve the health of the worse-off, wherever these inequalities are caused by conditions amenable to intervention. The objective of good health is really twofold: the best attainable average level – goodness – and the smallest feasible differences among individuals and groups – fairness. A gain in either one of these, with no change in the other, constitutes an improvement.

Responsiveness: Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider).

Distribution of Financing: There are good and bad ways to raise the resources for a health system, but they are more or less good primarily as they affect how fairly the financial burden is shared. Fair financing, as the name suggests, is only concerned with distribution. It is not related to the total resource bill, nor to how the funds are used. The objectives of the health system do not include any particular level of total spending, either absolutely or relative to income. This is because, at all levels of spending there are other possible uses for the resources devoted to health. The level of funding to allocate to the health system is a social choice – with no correct answer. Nonetheless, the report suggests that countries spending less than around 60 dollars per person per year on health find that their populations are unable to access health services from an adequately performing health system.

In order to reflect these attributes, health systems have to carry out certain functions. They build human resources through investment and training, they deliver services, they finance all these activities. They act as the overall stewards of the resources and powers entrusted to them. In focusing on these few universal functions of health systems, the report provides evidence to assist policy-makers as they make choices to improve health system performance.

Answer 2

I'm sad to see that so see that you try to explain the poor Australian rating by skewed statistics or the evaluation procedure.

I've been living in Australia for almost three years (originally from Sweden) and the fact is that the Australian health care system sucks. If you don't have a good private health insurance you'll have to wait for a very long time before you get taken care of. It's not as bad as in the US, but it's getting there.

I recently had a knee reconstruction. Luckily I had a private health insurance and was willing to pay an additional AUD 3000 for the service. Without this I would have had to wait for almost a year instead of six weeks.

Imho the Australian system have two basic flaws. One is that doctors are scamming medicare. During my knee reconstruction adventures I was surprised to get two quotes from my doctors; one if I paid privately and one (much higher) if I was part of medicare. For example, MRI scan ~225/500, orthopedic specialist ~3000/~5000, and so on.

Secondly, more and more people in Australia realise that you have to have a private health insurance to get a good service. However, a private insurance does not only buy you a better service it also guarantees that the service for everyone that doesn't have a private health insurance will deteriorate.

Answer 3

Maybe other countries fudge their numbers. Comon, did you see the crime rate in Mexico that their government reported? You'd think it was Vermont down there!
America and Austrailia (incidentally the coolest countries on the planet!) Rank the way they do because of a few reasons, here are some I have found..
1.) We tell the truth about our statistics
2.) We don't want all the Mexicans to think we have a better health care system (where does mexico rank?)
3.) We don't want Canadians to jump the border too! So we let them have a better spot on that list too.
4.)Ever see how many Chinese there are?!!?! HOLY SMOKES they raft over to Canada because of THEIR healthcare system!!!! (not even joking on that one)
5.)Americans and Aussies have very close rugged natures. We don't rush off to the Dr.'s everytime we get a scrape or bump. Band-aids can be just as good as stitches if you know how to use 'em right.

I'm sure there's more, but obviously, the United States of America/ a major world economic and military superpower (as opposed to regular POWER) has secrets in our healthcare that we do not share with the world because we keep it HERE for US. (we only share with Aussies, cause they are our brothers. Canada is more like a retarded step-cousin)

Answer 4

Hmm.....last time I heard Australia was in the top ten or something very close to that.

Answer 5

What has this question got to do woth MILITARY???