中英医疗制度对比 英文版

盛雪20110100137 Comparison of Healthcare System between the UK and ChinaIn Britain’s healthcare system, National Health Service(NHS) is so significant a existence to be ignored. It you happen to have watched the open ceremony of 2012 London Olympics, you may still remember one splendid performance, which aims to pay tribute to those nurses from NHS who have been working hard for the nation’s health since 1944. As regards China, a nation with a much harder life, its healthcare system is not that mature or excellent. But the whole nation have witnessed China’s progress in modifying its medical-care system. The New Rural Cooperative Medical Care System, as a 2005 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, is a strong evidence for China’s good job in promoting its medical care system. I will compare the healthcare system in the UK and China in three aspects as follows: operating ideas, operating patterns and challenges.Operating ideas:Britain: NHS’s core idea is to provide universal healthcare to all the legal residents in UK. It is primarily funded through the general taxation system. And it is believed in Britain that healthcare system shall be comprised of three sub-systems: local primary service, regional treatment service and central hospital service.China: Cooperative Medical System (CMS) is established to offer basic medical security for all the workers both in cities and in towns. Medical expenditure of each individual is shared proportionally by the country, enterprise and the employee himself. Besides How much the employee would benefit from the system depends properly on how much he contributes to the nation. Furthermore, it is required in China that local administrations, enterprises and agencies shall anticipate in local Social Medical Insurance, to standardize the amount of money people shall pay and help implement related policies.Comparison: Three major differences can be concluded from their operating ideas. Compared with the ideas of China, Britain’s vision has a wider coverage. NHSmanages to serve all the people in the UK, including farmers, people without ability to work as well as disadvantaged groups, some of which are neglected by China’s healthcare system. Secondly, NHS has various medical services, like primary care, in-patient care, long-term healthcare, ophthalmology, and dentistry. As to china, only basic medical insurance is available instead of actual treatment services. At last, funding for each system is obvious not alike, which will be discussed further.Operating patterns:Britain: NHS consists of organizations at all levels: public hospitals, all sorts of clinics, Community Medical Center and Nursing Home etc. These organizations work for British people, concerning with daily medical services, with both the consultation and reservation fee not required. More specifically, everybody in Britain can register with a local GP, namely General Practitioner, who is well-trained in medical and can give advice and treat basic illnesses. GPs are paid by the government according to how many their patients they have. Their services come free of charge.In Britain, Social Security Tax, as an income for government, is levied exclusively for NHS. 82% of NHS funding comes from government fiscal allocation, 12% from National Insurance contributions. Other less significant sources of income include charging overseas visitors and their insurers for the cost of NHS treatment, charges to patients for prescriptions and dental treatment, hospital car parking, patient telephone services, etc.China:The Basic Medical Insurance Fund is implemented by the combination of unified social adjustment and individual account, meantime collected in principle by prefecture-level department. All employers and employees in cites and towns are obliged to pay for the Basic Medical Insurance Fund. At present, the employers will pay for employees’insurance by extracting 6% from employees’salary, and employees pay for themselves by 2%, which will be deposited into individual account. While, the money paid by the employers will be divided into two parts: pooling fund and individual account. Pooling fund has a standard minimum and a cost limitation,mainly functioning for hospitalization expenses and some of the chronic-disease treatment fees. Individual account is responsible for general out-patient expenses. Comparison:People in the UK can receive equal medical care in regardless of people’s social statues or how much money they have. In this respect, British healthcare system is far more fair than China. But, the drawbacks are clear too, in that public sectors operate with a relatively low efficiency. As a result, people often have to wait for a long time to receive treatment. At the same time, medical-care personnel do not get payments equal to their labor, most of the time, which reduces their activity and enthusiasm. China’s way of operating, in some way, avoids these aforementioned problems, but have other big issues: regional imbalance in terms of healthcare development, insurance fund malapportioned so on and so forth.Challenges:Britain: Primarily, To control the funding in an efficient way is very difficult for NHS. Over-supply would produce a heavy burden for the government, which is not good for the sustainability of the system. Funding-deficiency would damage the quality of the services, which would induce complains from citizens. At the moment, UK is quite a scrooge in funding, producing a number of quite expected troubles, such as canceled operations and poor nursing care. Errors by doctors who are either too pressed for time or inadequately funded are also a growing problem. Studies indicate up to 15 percent of all patients in Britain are diagnosed incorrectly or have ailments that are overlooked. Finally, the quality of care is uneven, because local authorities decide which medications or treatments are available.China: What kind of healthcare one would receive relates to his profession, where he was born and what kind of office he is working for: state-owned or private. In my opinion, this is not as fair as Britain. I can’t agree anymore that people shall receive as much as they give. But, in a world everyone is seeking for humanity, wealthy people should pay more and receive the same as the poor. This is a indirect but positive way for the rich to help the poor. I think it is a big challenge for China to minimize theclassifying section in healthcare system. Another big challenge lies in putting-cart before-the-horse phenomenon in the function of administrations and enterprises. Enterprises have to undertake their employees’ healthcare procedures, which should be handled by the administrations. As a result, the development of these enterprises slows down gradually. Last but not least, distribution of healthcare resources is unreasonable, so is cost burden for each person. Thus, remote areas can not enjoy a qualified medical service most of the time.There is no justification to rank these two systems because I am sure that each healthcare system is formulated according to other social patterns, like education, culture, history, laws and so on. But comparing is meaningful because we can learn from each other by doing so. And as long as the government put people’s well-being as the first priority, as long as the government can acknowledge the need to make things better, people in that country would live a happy life, and of course enjoy a better healthcare service.参考文献：∙[英国医保模式对我国医保制度的启示与借鉴] 顾海，鲁翔，左楠- 《世界经济与政治论坛》- 2007年5期。