HCM 340 Module 8 International Comparison Discussion example

Reviewed by Delia Ravenscroft, MSN, RN Healthcare Delivery Systems Southern New Hampshire University Full sample paper Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This complete HCM 340 Module 8 discussion post compares the U.S. delivery system with the Netherlands on measures a reader can check: share of national income spent on health, insurance coverage, life expectancy and an international performance ranking. It explains how the Dutch system organizes universal coverage through regulated private insurers and primary care gatekeeping, identifies the reason the comparison is not simply about spending, and proposes one design feature the United States could adapt. Figures come from published comparisons.

What this page holds

A complete HCM 340 Module 8 post, about 350 words, comparing the United States and the Netherlands on spending, coverage, life expectancy and ranking, explaining the Dutch model and proposing one feature to borrow. Searches like "hcm 340 module 8 assignment", "hcm340 module 8 international comparison discussion" and "hcm 340 module 8 example" land here.

The HCM 340 Module 8 example, in full

1

Module Eight Discussion: The U.S. System in International Perspective

Re: The Netherlands, measured against us

I compared the United States with the Netherlands because both rely on private insurers, which makes the comparison fairer than one with a single-payer system. On spending, the United States devoted 17.8 percent of its gross domestic product to health care in 2016, while the other high-income countries in one major comparison spent between 9.6 and 12.4 percent (Papanicolas et al., 2018). On coverage, about 90 percent of Americans were insured in that comparison, compared with 99 to 100 percent in the other countries. On outcomes, U.S. life expectancy was the lowest of the group. On overall performance, the Commonwealth Fund's 2024 comparison of ten countries ranked the Netherlands second and the United States last (Blumenthal et al., 2024).

The Dutch system reaches everyone through regulated competition. Residents must buy a standard benefit package from private insurers, insurers must accept all applicants at the same premium, a risk equalization fund compensates insurers for enrolling sicker people, and general practitioners act as gatekeepers to specialist and hospital care (Kroneman et al., 2016).

What surprised me is that the spending gap is not mainly about Americans using more care. The same analysis found U.S. utilization broadly similar to other countries; prices for labor, drugs and devices and administrative costs drove the difference (Papanicolas et al., 2018). We are not buying more health care than the Dutch; we are paying more for each piece of it.

The feature I would borrow is risk equalization. It lets private insurers compete on service and efficiency instead of on avoiding sick people, and a version already exists in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Extending it more broadly would keep private insurance while reducing the incentive to cherry-pick healthy enrollees. It also fits American politics better than the alternatives, because it changes how insurers are paid rather than who provides coverage.

For classmates: if you could import one Dutch feature, gatekeeping, a standard benefit package or risk equalization, which would face the least resistance in the United States?

What this page is doingThe post compares on stated, sourced measures, explains the other system's mechanism accurately and finds a counterintuitive result in the evidence. Proposing one specific, feasible feature shows judgment rather than a wish for wholesale change.
2

References

Blumenthal, D., Gumas, E. D., Shah, A., Gunja, M. Z., & Williams, R. D., II. (2024). Mirror, mirror 2024: A portrait of the failing U.S. health system. Commonwealth Fund. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024

Kroneman, M., Boerma, W., van den Berg, M., Groenewegen, P., de Jong, J., & van Ginneken, E. (2016). Netherlands: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition, 18(2), 1-240.

Papanicolas, I., Woskie, L. R., & Jha, A. K. (2018). Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA, 319(10), 1024-1039. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.1150

How this HCM 340 Module 8 example is structured

The post states the comparison country and the measures first, so the comparison is anchored in numbers rather than impressions. It then explains how the Dutch system is organized, identifies prices rather than use as the main driver of U.S. spending, and closes with one concrete lesson and a question for classmates.

Get HCM 340 Module 8 written to your instructions

Share the HCM 340 Module 8 prompt and rubric. A discussion post comparing health systems, or closing the course in the way your prompt asks, comes back within 24 to 48 hours; the first is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.

HCM 340 Module 8 questions, answered

What is HCM 340 Module 8 usually about?

The last module of a healthcare delivery systems course often looks at the U.S. system in comparison with other countries or at the future of healthcare delivery. A discussion may ask students to compare the United States with another nation on specific measures and to suggest lessons for reform.

How does the Dutch health system provide universal coverage?

Residents of the Netherlands are required to buy a standard basic health insurance package from private insurers, which must accept all applicants and charge everyone the same premium for a given policy. A risk equalization fund compensates insurers that enroll sicker members, and income-related subsidies help people afford premiums.

Why does the United States spend more on healthcare than other countries?

Comparisons of high-income countries have found that Americans do not use dramatically more health services overall. The difference is driven mainly by higher prices for labor, drugs and devices and by higher administrative costs, rather than by more doctor visits or hospital stays.