These three countries are relatively similar. They have similar cultures, the same language, etc. But are their healthcare systems the same? How can we compare the National Health Service (NHS) to the Australian preferential system or the US private model—all three exhibit different degrees of development, accessibility, efficiency, and patient outcomes? Let’s explore.

The UK: Universal Coverage with Resource Strains

The NHS is considered a socialised system.

The healthcare system in the UK provides universal coverage for all citizens and is financed through the taxation system. Out of the three, it’s one of the most fair health systems because everyone is given free care. A prescription has a maximum limit, and certain groups, like children and the elderly, are given free medications. Only a tiny fraction (10.5%) of the population has private health insurance plans, mainly for elective procedures, as it helps them avoid extensive waiting periods in NHS services.

The NHS is that it is more affordable, with lower administrative expenses than most other countries, and typically has excellent equipment and highly specialised doctors. From simple benefits like using high-quality equipment like the self retaining surgical retractor to telehealth, the NHS is excelling.

However, it also grapples with the challenges of limited resources. Compared to many other similar countries, the per capita doctor and hospital bed availability is lower in the UK, resulting in longer waiting periods. In 2024, about 7.5 million people were on NHS waiting lists.

The US: A Predominantly Private Model with High Costs

The US tends to differ, but it does have some of the worst healthcare outcomes, especially maternity, in the world.

Most patients in the US are covered under employer-based insurance plans, with programs like Medicare and Medicaid funding segments of the population, like the elderly or low-income patients. The cost associated with healthcare in the US is quite high—in 2022, costs accounted for more than 16% of GDP, which is much higher than in the UK (10.3%) or Australia (9.3%).

The US has the best healthcare technologies and processes, coming second in preventive measures and safety but not in terms of care equity and health results. Roughly 26 million people in America are still without insurance, while the insured have high deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. 

This results in many missing necessary treatments, which leads to poor results such as lower average lifespans and higher incidences of treatable deaths.

Australia: A Hybrid of Public and Private Care

Australia’s healthcare system illustrates a combination of private and public models.

Through sufficient tax resources, the healthcare system provides coverage for the most essential health services, which include hospitalisation and general practitioner visitations. The presence of private health insurance allows a person to be treated without waiting long for elective surgeries. Approximately 50% of Australians have private insurance, which is favourably promoted by tax rebates and government incentives.

Australia surpasses not only the UK and the US in some metrics, like cancer survival and heart attack or stroke deaths, and has a shorter surgical waiting list than the NHS—though public hospitals can be slow sometimes.

The federal nature of Australia’s system helps the states operate their hospital systems, which allows flexibility and accountability at the local levels. Still, it was not completely without drawbacks: access disparity between urban and rural areas and copayments for some services are problems.

These systems of health care have their particular strengths and weaknesses. Evaluating them is interesting, and we can’t say one is better than the other, although we would say the US comes last for everything other than innovation and research.