Discuss the contrasting health care approaches in countries at different stages of economic development (LEDC + MEDC)

Within countries such as the USA healthcare is focused mainly on the aging population, with many people suffering from age related illnesses such as Arthritis. In contrast to many of its European counterparts, The USA offers a pluralistic healthcare system, i.e. healthcare is viewed as a consumer product. The state role in healthcare is minimal and indirect, allowing healthcare to exist based on free market principles. Within America the consumer pays for everything and most people have to have insurance to cover the cost.  Approx. 63% (in 2004) are covered through independent medical insurance plans. Health insurance companies are very powerful as they decide the prices at which to charge for healthcare. This is in contrast to the system in Cuba, whereby free healthcare is offered to all. The American government is yet to intervene in matters to do with the provision of health, especially those regarding its price. In Cuba, a socialised system is offered, supported by the state. It is important to note that while Cuba only has a life expectancy rating of one less than the USA; Cuba spends ten times less per person meaning that their healthcare is clearly more effective. In the past 35 years Cuba has tripled it number of healthcare workers, going from one doctor for every 1393 people to 1 doctor for every 159 people. Today Cuba has 130,000 healthcare professionals with a university education, 25,845 of whom are serving as volunteers in international missions across 68 countries. Having successfully applied Castro’s dream of ‘a doctor on every block’, Cuba now seeks to export this model through its medical diplomacy initiatives. Despite its status as a ‘Low Income Country’ Cuba excel with its healthcare system, surpassing infant mortality rates to that of the USA. In terms of actually applying healthcare, there are stark differences between the USA and Cuba. For instance Cuba places much more emphasis on preventative treatments, whereas the USA, curative. Within the USA there is a higher prevalence rate of diseases of affluence, which are often harder to treat and require greater technology. This is not to say that Cuba’s healthcare system is basic. While its accomplishments in the primary care sector are notable it also has been developing high tech medicine and biotechnology. The key distinction is that the general population of the USA is less healthy thus requiring greater amounts of treatment. There are a number of causes for this, perhaps the lack of preventative awareness from the government or the high income of the people being used to supply unhealthy food, etc. To conclude it is clear that there are a number of different approaches each healthcare system uses. In the USA there is little government intervention in the application of health with the government accounting for 46% of the total expenditure on health, this figure is almost opposite of Cuba’s who pay for 91% of total healthcare. In the USA facilities are privately and publicly owned; in Cuba, mainly all are publicly owned. Despite these obvious differences, there are some similarities. For instance in both countries, physicians operate as solo entrepreneurs and as members of professional associations, which are strong. They both seek to reduce equality – for instance Cuba’s increase in government spending in healthcare after the 1990’s economic hardship to reduce the most vulnerable section of society. America’s ‘Medicare’ and ‘Medicaid’ provide low cost health care to the poor and elderly.