3 ms·

It's fairly irellevent who pays, everyone ends up paying in the end. The Netherlands spends $5385 per year per person on healthcare, 80% of that is spent by th

It's fairly irellevent who pays, everyone ends up paying in the end. The Netherlands spends $5385 per year per person on healthcare, 80% of that is spent by the government. The UK spends $4192 per year, again 80% is by the government. The UK has trickier cost areas to handle too (healthcare in Scottish islands is far more per person than in Rotterdam) Measuring the objective quality of a health care system is almost impossible (it varies dramatically on your subjective priorities), let alone measuring value per dollar, but I don't think I've ever seen one that claims the Netherlands is better than Scanadavian ones.

jorvi 8y ago
As far as I know the EHCI (Euro Health Consumer Index) is the one that is considered a very accurate source, and they have ranked The Netherlands as having the best system for 8(!) years in a row so far, with the Swiss hot on our heels[1]. They're also coincidentally Sweden-based, in case you might feel they would be biased. The problem with comparing worldwide is that the WHO does an annual health report, but this focusses on a different aspect each year, instead of a general outlay. It has been done in 2000, with data from 1993-1997. The Netherlands switched from a completely socialised system ('Ziekenfonds') to the hybrid system in 2006. A lot of our improvements are because of that, and thus aren't in the 2000 WHO ranking. The only other source I could find is the Legatum Institute prosperity index[2], which puts us 6th behind: Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland, Japan, Austria, Sweden, Norway. As their healthcare research is only part of a bigger picture (and thus less focused), I tend to give it less weight. As a sidenote, aside from a small bit of extra pride its not very important where a country sits in the top 15, all these countries their healthcare systems can be regarded as top notch. The only places to attain a higher level of care would be in (usually foreign) private institutions, which come with such high costs that they are only accessible to an elite few. [1]https://healthpowerhouse.com/media/EHCI-2017/EHCI-2017-report.pdf https://healthpowerhouse.com/media/EHCI-2017/EHCI-2017-repor... [2]http://www.prosperity.com/rankings http://www.prosperity.com/rankings
- isostatic 8y ago
  It's interesting. Looking at total healthcare spending from 1990 to 2005, Netherlands and Sweden were about the same per capita. From 2005 Netherlands costs shot up, overtaking countries like France, Germany, Iceland etc. Sweden didn't shoot up until 2010. The Netherlands has spent a lot on healthcare, especially after 2006 - not as much as Norway (which I suspect has higher costs due to sparsely populated areas), Switzerland, and Luxemburg, but more than the rest of Europe. If you pay more, you get more. Are you sure the benefits of your hybrid system aren't because you increased health spending by over 50% (about 7% pa) from 2004 to 2010, where Sweden only increased by about 30% (about 4% pa)?

jorvi 8y ago

As far as I know the EHCI (Euro Health Consumer Index) is the one that is considered a very accurate source, and they have ranked The Netherlands as having the best system for 8(!) years in a row so far, with the Swiss hot on our heels[1]. They're also coincidentally Sweden-based, in case you might feel they would be biased. The problem with comparing worldwide is that the WHO does an annual health report, but this focusses on a different aspect each year, instead of a general outlay. It has been done in 2000, with data from 1993-1997. The Netherlands switched from a completely socialised system ('Ziekenfonds') to the hybrid system in 2006. A lot of our improvements are because of that, and thus aren't in the 2000 WHO ranking. The only other source I could find is the Legatum Institute prosperity index[2], which puts us 6th behind: Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland, Japan, Austria, Sweden, Norway. As their healthcare research is only part of a bigger picture (and thus less focused), I tend to give it less weight. As a sidenote, aside from a small bit of extra pride its not very important where a country sits in the top 15, all these countries their healthcare systems can be regarded as top notch. The only places to attain a higher level of care would be in (usually foreign) private institutions, which come with such high costs that they are only accessible to an elite few. [1]https://healthpowerhouse.com/media/EHCI-2017/EHCI-2017-report.pdf https://healthpowerhouse.com/media/EHCI-2017/EHCI-2017-repor... [2]http://www.prosperity.com/rankings http://www.prosperity.com/rankings

isostatic 8y ago
It's interesting. Looking at total healthcare spending from 1990 to 2005, Netherlands and Sweden were about the same per capita. From 2005 Netherlands costs shot up, overtaking countries like France, Germany, Iceland etc. Sweden didn't shoot up until 2010. The Netherlands has spent a lot on healthcare, especially after 2006 - not as much as Norway (which I suspect has higher costs due to sparsely populated areas), Switzerland, and Luxemburg, but more than the rest of Europe. If you pay more, you get more. Are you sure the benefits of your hybrid system aren't because you increased health spending by over 50% (about 7% pa) from 2004 to 2010, where Sweden only increased by about 30% (about 4% pa)?