French Health Care System example essay topic

Through out the world today health care is a major issue in just about every country. Britain and France are no exception to this rule. Since a very long time ago there have been long standing battles between the people and governments as to how far the governments must go to provide adequate health care for its people. For the upper and middle classes health care usually comes with no problem but for the lower classes they are forced to depend on government assistance. In France health policy making takes place largely at the national level.

These actions revolve completely around two agencies called the social security and the finance. I found that international health care can be very different but at the same time very similar to the United States and in the following paragraphs you will see why. French citizens have had comprehensive health coverage for many years, and France can be looked upon as an example of an active system. The French healthcare system is based on free enterprise and the freedom for patients to choose their own doctors. Securit'e sociale, the compulsory health insurance plan in France, finances or reimburses the health care of almost all French citizens.

Taxes are deducted from workers' paychecks and, after medical visits or pharmaceutical purchases, the government reimburses recipients anywhere from 60 to 100 percent of their medical expenses. Complementary coverage is also available for an extra charge. Most doctors (about 99 percent) sign an agreement with securit'e sociale setting the rates of their services, but some doctors may charge higher fees. # Health care is accessible and affordable for French citizens, but is more costly for the government. As in the United States, the social security system faces a constantly increasing deficit, resulting in a quest for new ways to fund medical care. Currently, French health care policy is looking for a reform mechanism that will create a more affordable system without losing the ideals of free enterprise, freedom of patient choice and a quality system accessible to all French citizens.

Pharmacies in France are specialized facilities which work closely with clients, ensuring safe products and providing professional advice. Pharmaceutical activities in France are strictly regulated by the country's code of public health. Any new drug must undergo many tests to determine its quality and effectiveness before the French agency for medicine will consider authorizing it as marketable. Once on the market, the costs of prescription drugs are reimbursed and regulated by the government, resulting in fairly low fixed prices for consumers. One must be a certified pharmacist in order to own a pharmacy, but restrictions prevent one person from owning more than one establishment. Pharmacies are restricted to selling drugs, cosmetics and other health-related products, and they are the sole establishments which sell medicine, whether it be over the counter or prescription.

As a result, consumers can always receive professional advice when purchasing medicine, helping ensure safe and appropriate treatment for any ailment. Prime Minister Lionel Jospin introduced to the French public in February his new universal healthcare initiative (CMU) designed at covering the some 150,000 French citizens who find themselves without assured medical protection, as well as those 550,000 citizens who have personal healthcare plans but must deal with lower quality services. CMU seeks to provide immediate medical protection and quick access to services for all citizens. # A recent report indicates that about 25 percent of the French refuse medical aide because they have only partial coverage.

However, this proportion is 51 percent among people with lower incomes. The government therefore decided to create a special complementary insurance plan for this category of the population. Six million French citizens will benefit from the measure. The new initiative provides free coverage with 100-percent reimbursement of medical costs without delay. France uses approximately 9.8 percent of its gross domestic product for public health, compared with 10.4 percent in Germany and 14.2 percent in the United States.

The financing of the French public health system can be divided into three points of origin. Forty-eight percent originates from taxes imposed on employers and owners of firms, 30 percent from fees paid by covered citizens and 22 percent from the government's overall tax revenues. The French public spends an average of $121 billion annually on health needs. This translates into $2,084 per person, of which $1,016 are spent for hospitalization costs and $300 for medicine. Securit'e sociale covers an average of 73.5 percent of all medical costs.

The French health care system employs approximately 1.7 million people, representing 7.4 percent of the country's work force. In 1997, France had 174,500 medical doctors in practice, representing a ratio of 3 doctors per 1000 citizens, one that is relatively high in comparison with that of other European countries. France also has 68 dentists for every 100,000 citizens. The hospitalization capacity is currently 533,000 beds, translating into 9.2 beds per 1,000 citizens.

Sixty-four percent of hospitals are publicly financed, whereas 36 percent are designated as private institutions. The pharmaceutical industry is very concentrated, with a total number of 59,006 people currently working as pharmacists. The average life expectancy rate for French citizens is 77.9 years, with a large discrepancy between women and men. The average expectancy of Americans is 76.2 years, while that of the Japanese is 79.5 years.

The leading cause of death in France is circulatory problems. The second leading cause is cancer and the third is accidents. Now that we have discussed all of the facts of the French health care system we must look at the British. The public health care system in Britain is not doing well and new treatments may be needed to revive it, according to more than 600 residents interviewed in a recent poll. In Britain, 6.4 million people currently have private medical insurance ('PMI'), and more than 1 million people were treated privately in 1998. The total value of health services supplied by the private sector (including voluntary suppliers) for 1998 was estimated at 14.4 billion.

Almost half of this is long term care; about a quarter, drugs and medical equipment. Private medical treatment in private and NHS (National Health Service) hospitals accounts for 18% of this total, 2.6 billion. In 1998, there were just over 220 private acute hospitals, providing 10,050 beds. About two thirds are commercial, 'for profit', hospitals, and of these about a quarter are owned by overseas concerns.

The remaining third are hospitals registered as charities. Most private hospitals belong to: BUPA (British United Provident Association), or to Nuffield Hospitals, or to the General Healthcare Group (also known as BMI Healthcare). All but twenty private hospitals have fewer than 100 beds, and many less than fifty; they are usually much smaller than the National Health Services (NHS) hospitals. Private healthcare, including nursing homes, employs more than half a million people and in employment terms is the tenth largest industry in Britain.

Most patients' treatment in private hospitals is paid for by health insurers. Typically, a policy offers 10,000 to 15,000 cover a year. # Eighty-five percent of respondents interviewed, said Britain's health care system was 'in somewhat failing health' or doing 'very poorly indeed. ' Only 2% said it was in 'peak condition. ' About 1 in 8 respondents felt that the British system can carry on nicely as it currently exists, but 85% felt that the system is unlikely to survive without a large infusion of cash. There was less agreement about where that money should come from.

Surprisingly, a significant majority (67%) said they would be prepared to pay a hefty tax increase - $375 a year - if they could be assured the money was going solely to the NHS. # When asked if money from the national lottery should go to health care, respondents were more divided, although 62% said some or all of the money should go to the NHS. There was a noticeable split over the question of collaboration with the private sector. Although 58% of respondents thought there should be 'a fair amount' or 'a great deal' of collaboration between the public and private sectors, 36% did not look upon such a relationship favourably. When asked where the money should come from to fund the NHS, 83% of respondents said the funds should come 'almost entirely' from tax revenue. In Conclusion, the health care systems in both countries have their strong points as well as their weaknesses but I would still much rather have our own health care system.

I hope these facts about the different systems will help you better understand them.

Bibliography

Cowell, Alan (2001, September 1) Health Care Gap Has British Looking Abroad The New York Times Klein, Rudolf.
1995 The New Politics of the National Health Service, 3rd ed.
New York: Longman. Wilford, David. 1991 Doctors and the State: The Politics of Health Care in France and the United States.