Healthcare Reform: Overview of Healthcare Systems in Non-U.S. Countries

Photo by Kelly on Pexels.com Ireland, is that you?

I’ve been thinking about the U.S. healthcare system for several years: How can we make it better? Provide more access? Make it less expensive? This has led me to consider systems in other countries. Up front, I’ll tell you I’m not a world traveler. I made a couple shallow excursions into Mexico years ago when you didn’t even need a passport. I only got my passport four months ago. Haven’t used it yet. My wife wants to go to Italy. I’m interested in Ireland (my sister say’s we’re 75% Irish) and have developed an unexpected interest in Russia.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to review healthcare in all 195 countries. I’ll focus on mostly high-income countries.

Feel free to correct me in the comments section.

First, lets’ consider the broad types of healthcare financing.

  • Private insurance
  • Public insurance: In some countries workers have social insurance, also called public insurance. Usually government withholds part of their wage (a payroll tax), which is divided between employee and employer. Additional funds may come from other taxes.
  • Single-payer healthcare: One entity (public or quasi-public) collects funds and pays for healthcare on behalf of an entire population.
  • Out-of-pocket

Many countries, like the U.S., are a blend of these financing mechanisms. For instance, the U.S. Veterans Health Administration is single-payer socialized medicine. Medicare is public insurance. Purely cosmetic surgical procedures and insurance deductibles are paid out-of-pocket. Employer-provided insurance is private insurance.

Note that I haven’t defined “socialized medicine” yet. Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is often defined as coverage for all members of a population for any kind of medical care that does not result in a significant financial burden to individuals. UHC could be single-payer or socialized medicine. While socialized medicine is strictly integrated with the government, the government may or may not play a role in single-payer systems. In a socialized system, the government owns the buildings where care is rendered and it employs those who provide care. In a single-payer system, one entity pays for health care while hospitals, primary care clinics and other health care services are run by separate organizations, and doctors, nurses, and other health care providers are often employees of those organizations. “Single-payer” doesn’t necessarily mean the government: the payer could be any insurance company that obtained the entirety of the health insurance market.

Other than the U.S., nearly all high-income countries provide Universal Health Coverage. So do Singapore, South Korea, and Malaysia, which I mention because they rank highly in several “best healthcare systems” lists. While the U.S. does not provide universal coverage, it covers 91% of the population.

Here’s an over-simplified overview of healthcare financing systems in a few high-income countries and Malaysia (upper-middle-income):

  • Australia: Single-payer, government-funded Medicare. Half of residents also buy subsidized supplementary insurance to pay for private hospital care and dental services.
  • Canada: Single-payer, government-funded. Canadian Medicare covers 70% of healthcare costs; private insurance pays for 30%. Supplemental insurance is carried by 70% of residents. Two-thirds of Canadians have private insurance to pay for prescription drugs, dental care, etc.
  • France: Social insurance. Statutory health insurance is mandatory, funded by various taxes, including payroll taxes paid by employers and employees. Nearly all residents buy private voluntary supplemental insurance to help with co-pays, balance billing, dental and vision care, etc. Employers may help pay for it. Private insurance pays for ~13% of total healthcare expenditures.
  • Germany: Public-private social insurance. About 88% of residents are enrolled in compulsory not-for-profit insurance provided by “sickness funds.” Healthcare is funded for by payroll taxes shared equally by ensured employees and their employers. Germans above a certain income level can opt out of public insurance and buy private instead. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s Health Insurance Act of 1883 established the world’s first social health insurance system.
  • Japan: Public insurance is mandatory (usually government withholds part of wage, divided between employee and employer). Citizens pay premiums and 30% co-insurance for most services. 60% of insurance is employment-based; the rest is “residence-based” (for the unemployed and/or elderly). The national government regulates nearly all aspects of the system. Health expenditures are funded by taxes (42%), mandatory individual contributions (42%), and out-of-pocket expenses (14%). Seventy % of residents have supplementary private insurance but it seems to function more as life or short-term disability insurance.
  • Netherlands: Private insurance. Adults must purchase statutory insurance from nonprofit private insurers of their choosing. Otherwise they are fined. Children are automatically covered. Less than 1% of the population is uninsured.  Healthcare is financed through payroll taxes paid by employers, general taxation, insurance premiums paid by individuals, and copayments. A large majority of the population also purchases voluntary supplemental insurance to help with expenses not paid by statutory insurance.
  • Malaysia: Public-private mix, two-tiered. The public system, funded by taxes, provides universal access. Most residents use the public system for a nominal fee. There is also a large and thriving private system that caters to higher-income residents and medical travelers from other countries. In 2020, there were more private than government-owned hospitals. Most physicians speak English. Many doctors, especially specialists, gravitate to the private system, presumably for better working conditions, lower patient volumes, and/or higher pay. The private system is sustained by out-of-pocket payments and private insurance. High-tech care and specialists are concentrated in the large urban centers, as they are in many high-income countries. The private system tends to provide nicer amenities and shorter wait times than the public counterpart.
  • New Zealand: Single-payer, government funded. Government at national and regional levels is heavily involved. General taxes fund most healthcare. A third of the residents have private insurance to pay uncovered services and copayments. There are private hospitals but public hospitals predominate, providing all emergency and intensive care.
  • Norway: Single-payer, government-funded by general and payroll taxes. A tenth of the population pays for private insurance, mainly for quicker access and broader choice of providers. Most hospital care is provided at public, state-owned hospitals. There is a small private supplemental insurance market, mostly provided by employers.
  • Singapore: Mixed financing. MediShield Life is a statutory insurance system that covers large hospital bills and certain costly outpatient treatments. (In the U.S., we’d call this catastrophic care.) Premiums for MediShield Life are subsidized by the government based on income and funded by general taxation. Patients pay premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance. A second major program is called MediSave, a mandatory medical savings account that helps pay out-of-pocket expenses. MediSave accounts are tax-exempt and interest-bearing, funded by personal and employer contributions. Singapore utilizes regulation of supply and prices of health care services in the country to keep costs in check. There is a 50:50 mix of private and public hospital, the latter being government-owned. Sixty to 70% of citizens also have supplemental health insurance for coverage of private hospitals or private wards of public hospitals.
  • South Korea: Single-payer, government-funded. Compulsory social insurance, called National Health Insurance, is funded largely by payroll taxes split equally between employers and employees. The national government also contributes. Co-payments for hospital care are 20% and outpatient services have co-payments ranging from 30 to 60%. Out-of-pocket payments are ~35% of national health expenditures, perhaps the highest of OECD countries. Out-of-pocket payments are capped, based on income. A large majority of the population also pays for private health insurance to help with co-payments. Low-income folks are in the Medical Aid Program and exempt from premiums and co-payments. Most hospitals are privately owned, but not-for-profit by law. Drug prices are set by the government.
  • Sweden: Single-payer, government-funded. Nearly all hospitals are public. Only 15% of healthcare expenditures are private, mostly out-of-pocket for dental care and drugs. There’s a small market for supplemental insurance, mostly employer-provided, to gain quick access to specialists or to avoid wait lists for elective services.
  • Switzerland: Mandatory private insurance bought from nonprofit insurers. Adults pay yearly deductibles and 10% coinsurance (with a cap) for all services. Care is largely decentralized, with system governance mainly at the cantonal level. Enrollees are offered several models of care (e.g., HMOs, Family Practice Gatekeeper, call-center before seeing physician) and a choice of deductibles. Funding is from enrollee premiums, taxes, other social insurance schemes (military, old-age, disability), and out-of-pocket. The Federal government and cantons subsidize premiums for lower-income individuals and households.
  • United Kingdom: Single-payer socialized medicine. About 10% of residents have private supplementary insurance to gain more rapid access to elective care, choice of specialists, and better amenities.
  • United States: Mixed public and private. Single-payer if 65 or older (Medicare). Public insurance for no- or low-income under 65 (Medicaid). Private insurance. Out-of-pocket. Government sources pay for ~45% of total healthcare expenditures.

For additional details of 20 high-income country healthcare systems, check out The Commonwealth Fund’s Country Profiles: International Health Care System Profiles. I note that many of these systems, perhaps a majority, provide free or very-low-cost medical education for physicians. They also limit the number of physicians trained, and limit the number of specialists. New graduates of U.S. medical schools average $200,000 USD in educational debt. That’s about 155,900 Pound sterling or 182,900 Euro. I also noticed that physicians in the U.S. tend to be paid significantly more than in many other top-tier countries.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Faster Walking Speed May Prevent Type 2 Diabetes

You probably want to shoot for a speed of 3 miles per hour or higher.

She is walking the rare amarillo labradorius gigantus

The British Journal of Sports Medicine published an article by researchers based in Iran. They analyzed 10 cohort studies that looked at average habitual walking speed and the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Study subjects were not in Iran, but in the U.S., U.K., and Japan.

An easy, casual walking speed is 2 miles per hour (mph) or less. Brisk walking speed is 3-4 mph. The researchers found that a habitual walking speed of even 2.5 mph was linked to a slightly lower risk of type 2 diabetes compared to the casual walkers. A more definitive reduction of diabetes incidence (25%) was seen in those who walk at 3 to 4 mph.

For those of you who think in terms of km/hr: An easy, casual walking speed is 3.2 km/hr or less. Brisk walking speed is 4.8-6.4 km/hr. The researchers found that a habitual walking speed of even 4 km/hr was linked to a slightly lower risk of type 2 diabetes compared to the casual walkers. A more definitive reduction of diabetes incidence (25%) was seen in those who walk at 4.8-6.4 km/hr.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll cut your risk of developing type 2 diabetes if you increase your habitual walking speed from an easy stroll to 3 mph or higher. But it is suggestive and there is physiological science to support that suggestion. The problem is that this study was observational. Which means it’s possible that faster walkers are simply overall healthier than slower ones. They walk faster because they’re healthier and are just constitutionally (genetically?) less prone to illness. To prove that faster walking speeds prevent some cases of type 2 diabetes, you’d have to take 2,000 slow walkers and somehow motivate 1,000 of them to walk faster habitually, while making sure the slow-pokes stay slow for 5-10 years. Keep everything else the same for all 2,000. After 5-10 years, you compare the incidence of diabetes. That study will not, probably cannot, be done.

  Steve Parker, M.D.

h/t to Diabetes Daily for a well-written article on this.

Are Ketogenic Diets OK for Children?

Photo by Elina Fairytale on Pexels.com

Diabetes Daily has in interesting article that addresses that question. A snippet:

In October 2023, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published a report examining low-carbohydrate diets like keto in children and adolescents. You probably won’t be surprised that the authors are concerned. Despite the increasing popularity of carbohydrate restriction, evidence to support the benefits of low-carb diets in young people under 18 with obesity or diabetes is very limited. And though diabetes authorities have acknowledged that carb restriction has “the most evidence” for improving blood sugar levels, the American Diabetes Association has only endorsed low-carb eating as one of multiple possible eating patterns.

And yet, there are many people in the diabetes community who believe in the effectiveness of low, even very-low, carbohydrate diets for their children. There’s at least one study that supports their advocacy


I’m not a pediatrician and never treat children in my hospital practice, not even 17-year-olds. Nor have I reviewed the pertinent pediatric scientific literature. So I’ve never been comfortable writing about keto diets for children. The linked DD article was reviewed by Anna Goldman, M.D.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Red Meat Might Cause Type 2 Diabetes

Photo by Malidate Van on Pexels.com

Red meat consumption — whether processed or not — was linked to onset of type 2 diabetes in the U.S. according to a 2023 article in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The research was a long-term observational study by mostly Harvard-based scientists. Among the authors that might be familiar to you are Walter Willett, Frank Hu, and Frank Sacks. Click the link for the deets.

This doesn’t prove that red meat consumption causes diabetes. But if you enjoy a fair or high amount of red meat, you might benefit by cutting back, especially if diabetes runs in your family. I’d also suggest regular exercise and avoiding overweight and obesity to reduce your risks of type 2 diabetes. The author suggest red meat alternatives: nuts, legumes, dairy foods.

In the same journal issue is a commentary by Daan Kremer. Some snippets:

The current observational study is unlikely to end the discussion on whether red meat intake increases risk of type 2 diabetes and even less likely to end the epistemological debates on how to grade quality of observational evidence when many efforts are made to reduce bias and confounding.

+ + +

All in all, the study by Gu et al. may arguably be the best evidence to date on the relation between red meat intake and type 2 diabetes. Yet somehow, I feel that the books have not been closed.

  Steve Parker, M.D.

Mild-Blowing Interview by Tucker Carlson of Mike Benz, Exec. Director of Foundation For Freedom Online

Mr Benz alleges that the waves of online speech censorship we’ve seen since ~2018 are due to collusion between the legacy media/social media giants and the U.S. State Department, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, NGOs, and the Department of Defense. And it’s not limited to the U.S. In fact, it started with efforts to by the CIA and DoD to combat international terrorism and meddle in other countries’ politics.

Click for the Foundation For Freedom Online website.

The Deep State does not appreciate this interview. I hope Mr Benz has a hefty life insurance policy. He should have stated for the record that he is not now nor has he ever been suicidal, and he’d never kill himself. I would not knowingly get in an airplane or in a car with him.

If you can impeach Mr Benz’s credibility, please share in the Comments.

This interview is more important the Tucker’s recent interview of Putin.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Neurontin or Lyrica for Chronic Pain?

“You can take this pill, but there’s not much evidence it does any good.”

Physicians in the U.S. who prescribe opioids need a license from the Drug Enforcement Administration and it has to be renewed periodically. By the time of my next renewal, I must be able to prove to the DEA that I’ve had six (eight?) hours of approved continuing medical education on drug abuse and addiction. Because of the prescription opioid “epidemic” that reared it’s head several years ago, regulators are putting pressure on prescribers to reduce prescriptions. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it can be taken too far, like expecting a patient with very recent knee or hip replacement surgery to be just fine with acetaminophen (aka paracetamol) alone. Big Pharma has convinced some prescribers to substitute opioids with Neurontin (aka gabapentin) or Lyrica (pregabalin). If not substitution, then augmentation of opioid effect at lower doses. I definitely see that in my part of the world.

Regarding that, here’s a thought-provoking article from Paul Ingraham:

One of the most notorious examples of Big Pharma living up to its reputation for evil-doing is the illegal promotion of anticonvulsant drugs like Neurontin and Lyrica for painful problems like back pain. Pfizer coughed up billions for lawsuit settlements and record-breaking fines. I think it’s safe to say that they didn’t actually pay enough to undo the damage, though…

Thanks to that horror show, and to research by Peet et al, we now know that there was a mighty 5× surge in gabapentin prescriptions in the 2000s and 2010s. That was — and continues to be — a chilling demonstration of the power of under-handed and well-funded marketing. Even as opioid prescriptions fell somewhat, gabapentin scrips rose dramatically, despite the dubious value for most of what it was being prescribed for (most kinds of pain).

  Steve Parker, M.D.

“Dry January” Is Almost Over: Should You Extend It to 100 Days?

I don’t know Andrew Huberman’s credentials or reliability, but you might find the following helpful. I haven’t watched it yet and may never; it’s two hours.

Reduce Risk of Alzheimer’s Dementia with Mediterranean Diet

Not sure where this is. Leave a comment if you recognize it.

From Queen”s University Belfast:

A Mediterranean diet of seafood, whole grains, nuts, fruit and vegetables could lower the risk of dementia by almost a quarter, according to a recent study.

Significantly the findings suggested that, even for individuals with a higher genetic predisposition to dementia, having a more Mediterranean-like diet reduced the likelihood of developing dementia.

The study which has been ongoing for the past two years, was led by Newcastle University in collaboration with colleagues from Queen’s University Belfast, University of Exeter, the University of East Anglia and the University of Edinburgh and has been published in the medical journal, BMC Medicine.

This was a large-scale project with analysis of data from over 60,000 older adults in the UK, which explored whether individuals who followed a Mediterranean-like diet had a lower risk of developing dementia than those who did not.

The research found that those with the highest level of adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 23% reduced risk of developing dementia over a nine-year period than those with the lowest level of adherence.


Steve Parker, M.D.

H/T Jan at Low Carb Diabetic.

COVID-19 Link Dump: New mRNA Omicron Booster is Dead; the Unnatural Origin of COVID-19; Dr Dalgleish Calls for mRNA Vax Ban; Wm Briggs Says Your Mask Doesn’t Work; Cochrane Library on Mask Effectiveness

n95 mask, goggles
Me and my N95 mask in ~ March 2020

RIP, mRNA. From Alex Berenson:

Dr. Mandy Cohen, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, accidentally announced mRNA’s passing on Friday on X (aka Twitter). Wearing a blue dress and her trademark vapid smile, Dr. Cohen admitted barely 1 out of 50 Americans have received the new mRNA Omicron booster.

Hours later, Pfizer confirmed the death, saying it will write off nearly $1 billion in mRNA jab inventory because of weak demand. Pfizer expects the market for shots to be one-third smaller than it predicted just weeks ago – though its new estimate still appears too high.


From Paul Craig Roberts:

I contacted a scientist who had been involved in the study of the original SARS for his evaluation and explanation of the Japanese scientists’ report. His explanation is below. It is challenging for non-professionals to follow, but less so than the Japanese study itself. As I understand the findings, it is the absence of synonymous mutations in the variants that reveal that Covid and its variants are lab creations.

I suspect that the Japanese study will be suppressed and that any American or Western scientist who took up this inquiry would find himself cut off from research funds and his career terminated.


Dr Angus Dalgleish calls for immediate banning of all mRNA “vaccines.” First two paragraphs:

Those of us who knew from the beginning that the sequence of SARS-CoV-2 contained inserts which could not have possibly occurred naturally, and were similar to ones that had already been published from the Wuhan laboratory, have had to endure unbelievable scorn, scientific ostracism and the ignominy of being ‘cancelled’ by the mainstream media as well as by professional colleagues for nearly three years now.

In the summer of 2020 a paper I co-authored, describing the findings of an Anglo-Norwegian team of scientists who had demonstrated unique ‘fingerprints’ of laboratory manipulation in the Covid virus, was suppressed in both the U.S. and U.K. This was at the time that the World Health Organisation, leading science journals and others were going to huge lengths to persuade us that Covid was a natural occurrence, and that we should spend a lot more money to fight any such future threats. 


William Briggs says masks don’t work:

Dear reader, a full-on spacesuit equipped with oxygen tanks, or with filters down below the viron level, will protect you from inhaling a respiratory virus. As long as you have it on. And don’t have to change the filter. 

And you don’t eat. Or drink. Or use the facilities.

So it can be said “masks work” in blocking the spread of bugs. 

But the flimsy plastic cheesy gappy snot-filled breath-soaked “surgical masks” the panicked hand-wringing shaking fear-filled hersterics made it a crime not to wear?


From a Cochrane Library article on physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks.” What about hand hygiene and medical/surgical masks versus N95 masks?

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. 

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.


  Steve Parker, M.D.

The New Explanation for Osteoarthritis (aka Degenerative Joint Disease)

Photo by Tofros.com on Pexels.com

Radical new information on osteoarthritis from Paul Ingraham:

One of the most deeply held beliefs in musculoskeletal medicine is that osteoarthritis is a “wear and tear” condition — that joints slowly crumble under the onslaught of gravity and use and abuse. This fundamentally mechanical view of arthritis directly suggests that the heavier we are, the more likely we are to have trouble in our load-bearing joints.

But that’s just not the case: osteoarthritis prevalence doubled in the 20th Century independent of age and weight (Wallace 2017).

So something else has to be going on. People got heavier on average, but not twice as heavy!

Or consider this: obese people get more osteoarthritis of the hand (Jiang 2016), but probably not because they are walking on their hands.

So … why?

This post weaves together the threads of several past posts about the biochemical foundations of seemingly “mechanical” problems, and you may recognize some pieces. But this is an all-new synthesis, anchored by some good science news you can use — practical and encouraging, which is a rare pleasure.


It’s a short read, well worth your time.

  Steve Parker, M.D.