Table of Contents
The international model of NHS and the medisave model are used by Singapore to administer their healthcare (Samwel, 1995). Just like any other method, it has certain merits and demerits. Different countries have endeavored to select one of the two models in an attempt to implement Medicare policies based on the desires of general nature of the citizenry, whom the policies will be applied to. Several research studies have found out that these two models do have a wide range of merits and demerits based on their evaluation concerning the scenarios, in which they are to be applied. This forces the governments of the various countries that want to employ their usage to do a thorough analysis before settling on which model to apply (George, 2002). This paper endeavors to study the various merits and demerits of these two models. The merits and demerits have been found to range from their efficiency, the ways they work best to the citizens when applied, and the amount and mode of funding in its application; the demerits may include biases and negative implications in terms of strains on the citizens. Countries must, therefore, decide on the model that best suit them depending on their analysis.
NHIS Model of Health and Disability Provision
The model is being funded through the general taxation system; hence, making it a better way to be used. Its efficiency is being drawn from the fact that the tax is paid by everybody (George, 2002). On the other hand, this may also be viewed as a weakness in the sense that even those involved in paying the taxes are not fully entitled to the medication. This is seen to be biased as some of the citizens involve in tax paying but do not enjoy the medical method efficiently.
Another its advantage is drawn from the fact that it provides healthcare to any person, who is normally legally resident in the country. Apart from being in the country, it also covers other parts of the country. This makes it efficient, as it is not biased, and a person, who finds himself or herself in the country, does not have to use money for medical care, as it is catered for in this method. On the other hand, this is not seen as better ways as much as foreigners benefit the taxpayers, who are permanent residence, have to accommodate the funding of foreigners’ medical bills.
The model can be highly recommended arguing the point that in case charges are involved, the charges made are lower than those of the private health care providers. This makes it a better way, as the patients are entitled to the lower payments; therefore, less strain in case there is a need for payment. As a matter of fact, the payments should not be made, as the citizens, who pay taxes, should be considered to have funded the model through their taxes (Allyson, 2004).
This model shapes its services around the needs of the preferences of individual patients, their families, e.g. sons, daughters, father, mother, grandchildren, and even the cares. It is seen as an advantage, as the patient is enable to fend for even family on the health matters. The family is, therefore, entitled to the medical care in relation to the patient involved. This can in other way be viewed as a drawback in the point that a large family involved due to only one patient is seen as biased. That is, some families are small and others are big; thus, the smaller families do not benefit in the same measure.
The fact that the method is viewed to be free at the time of delivery is an advantage, since it does not involve the patient in payment at that time. The patients are, therefore, entitled to the medication, even when they do not have money at the time of sickness. This is a sure way of dealing with emergencies, as there are times, when a patient may need treatment without him having to pay for it (George, 2002).
The method uses the public fund to administer the services. Its ability to work continuously to improve the quality of services is a strength, which is considered to help in the satisfaction of the patients involved. The patients’ needs are met and they are considered to be the main reason for the model. In this matter the plights of the patients come first.
Since the method ensures response to the different needs of people, it’s seen to be favorable, as the citizens are assured of their needs being met at any time. Its response to different population is a proper way of gauging its efficiency, since the patients live with a surety of being attended to at any time.
This method provides affordability of healthcare and is more sufficient in the sense that even those with the low levels or payment are able to be considered in this model.
The model can be used in New Zealand
Reasoning from the above justification, the method can efficiently be applied in New Zealand, as the natures, in which its services are administered, are efficient. The citizens are assured of their emergency cases being met, even when they do not have money at the moment.
In other words, the method enables the New Zealand’s citizens and foreigners, who are fully registered, to enjoy the services with their family members at large.
The model is the best, since its services are channeled to ensure efficiency towards its patients; thus, their needs are met vividly.
This method is justified to be used dealing with citizens’ needs, as it is medical fit to enable them to be treated even in times of need and when they need it.