Universal health care is described by Word Health Organization as a situation where all citizens can access health services without incurring financial constraint. This is a goal that is shared among many policy makers where they target equitable use of healthcare services for all those who need them regardless of social economic or cultural background. Despite the large share of government spending to ensure universal coverage in UK, inequality in the health care system persists. The growth of private hospitals damages the universal health coverage and creates inequality.
Equity in health care can only occur if individuals with the same medical needs receive equal treatment. Ideally, it is factual that the varying quality of services offered by different health organizations may be greatest cause of rising private health sectors. Also, while the universal coverage solves the issue of access, it does not ensure same quality of services. Most people prefer private hospitals to public healthcare because they believe to offer quality services. A study carried out by Saito et al., (2016) showed that there was a pro-rich concentration of private healthcare usage than public care utilization. What was more unbelievable is the fact that the poor had even less probability of using the public health care system because of the qualities of services provided (Saito et al., 2016). Factors such as long waiting times, drug shortages, lack of important medical Equipment among others are some of the factors that increased underutilization of public hospitals.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The increasing cases of private health providers have created marketization of healthcare. Leaving healthcare in the arms of market forces do not only challenge the services of public sector but also create confusion and inequality among patients and care providers. It involves cases of outsourcing, public private partnerships and competition among the care providers and problematic issues such as medical tourism ( Tansey, 2017 ). As such, richer countries can export their healthcare issues to countries with cheap medical services subjecting the vulnerable individuals of invaded country helpless. The most limiting factor created by the market is that the needy people are unable to pay the market price which increases inequality.
Competition among the private health providers has caused a situation known as trading health for profit ( Tansey, 2017 ). Basically, physicians in most of private institutions are now eager to customize their services regardless of whether a patients needs a higher level hospital or not. The exaggerated use of these hospitals is possible due to the idea that there is no referral system and, thus, an individual is free to seek treatment for whichever illness they are suffering from as long as they can pay ( Kaestner& Lubotsky, 2016) . Moreover, the fees for service and for- profit operation of hospitals offer health workers with strong motivation to attract patients and charge highly, which erodes the physician’s ethics of providing most suitable care for individual health needs. The high prices of services discourages the less fortunate who are left to visit lower level hospitals that have less facilities, insufficient medicines and health workers.
Income distribution is the other factor that foster inequality especially when coupled up with presence of private hospitals. The fact that public hospitals charges less costs but provide less quality services, while private sector charges very high and gives quality services acts as a great deterrent for universal health coverage. Even when insured, a person is exposed to out of pocket expenses and, hence, private hospitals becomes the better alternative for seeking treatment ( Flatø & Zhang, 2016 ). For the less fortunate that cannot afford the cost sharing, they opt to not seek medical assistance at all.
Increased privatization means reduced government expenditure on health. As discussed earlier, most people are fond of private hospitals than public ones. This kind of competition created between public and private hospitals has led to less crowding of the public organizations which, therefore, diverts the government expenditure to other crowded areas. Even if this is a positive issue, the poor who mostly use the public services are left with limited medical supplies and, thus, the inequality continues.
The increased choices for patients is undoubtedly a cause of confusion, inequality and financial strain for patients. First, private hospitals give priorities to those who can pay. Secondly, more flexibility on the type of service given depends on financial flexibility of an individual. Finally, private healthcare facilities have limited forms of insurance where some insurers may accept some hospitals and not others. While most UK citizens can get free healthcare on the National Health Service, the presence of alternatives becomes the major cause of inequality and limited universal coverage.
In light of the above, it is clear that increased growth of private hospitals damages the universal health coverage and creates inequality. Most people prefer these healthcare providers because of the quality of services given, flexibility as well as the fastness in delivery of treatment. The increase of these hospitals, however, creates a kind of competition where the health providers` motives change from offering the appropriate treatments, to a heightened desire of attracting patients and making as much profits as possible. Treatment services are, therefore, customized according to what an ill person can pay regardless of whether a patient needs referral to a higher level hospital. For the poor, their main resort is the public health cares and due to the poor management in these health sectors, most prefer not to seek medical assistance. Consequently, the policy makers need to look into improving services and management of public sectors in order to encourage access of all people to these facilities.
References
Flatø, H., & Zhang, H. (2016). Inequity in level of healthcare utilization before and after universal health coverage reforms in China: evidence from household surveys in Sichuan Province. International journal for equity in health , 15 (1), 96.
Kaestner, R., & Lubotsky, D. (2016). Health insurance and income inequality. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 30 (2), 53-78.
Saito, E., Gilmour, S., Yoneoka, D., Gautam, G. S., Rahman, M. M., Shrestha, P. K., & Shibuya, K. (2016). Inequality and inequity in healthcare utilization in urban Nepal: a cross-sectional observational study. Health policy and planning , 31 (7), 817-824.
Tansey, R. (2017). The creeping privatization of healthcare. Retrieved from https://corporateeurope.org/en/power-lobbies/2017/06/creeping-privatisation-healthcare
