Main parts Article 1
Title, author, Title: Public and Private
year Healthcare System in Terms of
both Quality and Cost
Authors: Betsy Varughese, Ranvir
Singh
Year: 2022
Research The focus of the article is to
problem, compare and evaluate the
question efficiency, quality of care, and
cost-effectiveness of public
healthcare systems against private
healthcare systems. The central
research question addressed is,
"Who would offer healthcare
services more efficiently in terms
of quality of care and cost-
effectiveness – public or private
healthcare systems?”
Main ideas Non-profit organizations,
Universal healthcare system,
public health insurance, Private
health insurance.
The article emphasizes the
benefits of a public healthcare
system, asserting that it reduces
overall healthcare and
administrative costs, standardizes
services, creates a healthier
workforce, prevents future costs,
and guides the population to make
better choices.
Private healthcare, on the other
hand, is criticized for maintaining
a business-driven culture,
fostering unfair competition for
non-profit organizations, treating
healthcare as a commodity rather
than a right, and potentially
influencing healthcare policies
using economic power.
The review of relative benefits
between public and private
Article 2
Title: Private versus public strategies
for health service provision for
improving health outcomes in
resource limited settings: a systematic
review.
Authors: Montagu, Dominic
Aglemyer, Andrew Tiwari, Mudita
Year: 2011
The focus of the article is to compare
health outcomes in private versus
public healthcare settings in low- and
middle-income countries (LMIC). The
research problem is the significant
role of private healthcare providers in
delivering services in resource-limited
settings, where poorer patients tend to
rely more on private healthcare,
resulting in potential disparities in
health outcomes. The main research
question is aimed at understanding
and summarizing the relative
morbidity or mortality outcomes
associated with treatment by public
versus private healthcare providers in
LMIC.
Private healthcare providers play a
significant role in delivering
healthcare services in LMIC.
Poorer patients in these settings rely
more on private healthcare and spend
a higher proportion of their incomes
on it.
The article systematically reviews
studies comparing health outcomes in
public and private healthcare settings.
Meta-analyses were conducted on
identified studies to estimate the
effects of healthcare provision type on
health outcomes.
The focus is on morbidity and
mortality outcomes resulting from
treatment by public or private
providers.
The study includes 21 identified
studies, with a majority being cohort
studies conducted in urban settings.
Diseases such as tuberculosis (TB) are
among the most represented in the
examined studies.
 healthcare systems draws on
empirical evidence, suggesting
that public provision may be more
efficient than private provision,
contrary to the proponents of the
private healthcare system.
The article highlights the
importance of universal health
coverage (UHC) as a goal for
national healthcare reform,
especially in Low and Middle
Income Countries (LMICs), and
discusses the challenges such as
resource availability, reliance on
direct payments, and inefficient
resource allocation.
Methodology
Findings The empirical evidence, including
the meta-analysis by
Hollingsworth, suggests that
public provision may be more
efficient than private provision in
healthcare services.
The article also discusses the
challenges faced by health
systems, especially during the
COVID-19 pandemic, and the
progress some countries are
making toward Universal Health
Coverage (UHC).
Resource availability, over-
reliance on direct payments, and
inefficient resource allocation are
identified as key obstacles to
achieving universal health
coverage.
Conclusion The conclusion advocates for the
administration of health insurance
by non-profit healthcare providers
due to ethical issues in the for-
The meta-analysis suggests that
patients in private healthcare settings
are less likely to die than those in
public healthcare settings.
However, the quality of evidence is
rated as either low or very low.
Systematic review of studies
evaluating the impact of public and
private healthcare provision, meta-
analyses on data within identified
studies, to estimate the effects of type
of healthcare provision on identified
health outcomes.
Twenty-one studies were included,
with 17 being cohort studies from 9
countries, predominantly in urban
settings.
The meta-analysis suggests that
patients in private healthcare settings
are less likely to die than those in
public healthcare settings (OR 0.60;
95% CI 0.41–0.88).
The pooled analysis indicates that
patients in private healthcare facilities
are more likely to have unsuccessfully
completed TB treatment than patients
in public healthcare facilities (OR
2.04; 95% CI 1.07–3.89).
The quality of evidence across
outcomes is rated as either low or
very low, indicating limitations in the
robustness of the findings.
The article concludes that more
evidence is needed to make a
comprehensive comparison of health
 profit healthcare system. Private
healthcare and health insurance
are criticized for various ethical
concerns, including access to
healthcare, unfair competition,
viewing healthcare as a
commodity, poor physician-
patient relationships, reduced
quality of care, diminished value
of medical education, and undue
influence on public policy
regarding healthcare.
The article underscores the
importance of strong funding
mechanisms for health systems,
particularly in achieving universal
health coverage. The drawbacks
of private health insurance,
including potential equity
challenges and increased
healthcare spending, are
acknowledged, leading to the
recommendation for non-profit
administration of health
insurance.
outcomes between public and private
healthcare sectors.
Governments and researchers are
encouraged to play a critical role in
improving the evidence base for
decision-making regarding the
contributions of public and private
sectors in a country’s health system.
Recommendations include
encouraging ongoing data collection
in both public and private settings for
continuous comparison of clinical
data.
When government facilities are
insufficient, contracting with private-
sector facilities is deemed an
acceptable option, with consideration
for profit margins, regulations, and
training for private providers.
Further research is recommended,
particularly in low-income countries
and rural settings, focusing on
diseases affecting the poor, such as
malaria and childhood illnesses.

Description:
Item 1: Healthcare in New Zealand
Item 2: Healthcare in Qatar

Point 1: Cost and Accessibility:

New Zealand: Healthcare is funded through public taxation, providing either free or heavily
subsidized services. The emphasis is on equal access, especially for children and low-income
peoples.
Qatar: While Qatar's public healthcare is excellent and subsidized, private healthcare can be
expensive. The introduction of health insurance in Qatar aims to enhance accessibility and
coverage.

Point 2: Management and Infrastructure:

New Zealand: The healthcare system is organized as a single-payer system, with public
funding and reciprocal agreements with other countries.
Qatar: The Hamad Medical Corporation manages public healthcare in Qatar, investing in
modern facilities and advanced medical equipment to maintain high-quality care.

Point 3: Esurance and Legalization:

New Zealand: Public health insurance is available to permanent residents after two years, and
reciprocal agreements with other countries contribute to emergency healthcare coverage.
Qatar: The new healthcare law mandates employers to provide health insurance for
expatriates, aiming to strengthen the healthcare sector and enhance basic healthcare services
for workers.

Evidence:
New Zealand spends approximately 9% of its GDP on healthcare, operating a single-payer
system through public taxation.
Qatar's healthcare system is ranked as the fifth-best globally and the first in the Middle East
for quality of care, with significant investments in public healthcare by the government.
The Hamad Medical Corporation in Qatar oversees public healthcare facilities, operating 12
public hospitals, community clinics, and the national ambulance service.

Perspectives:
Political: Both New Zealand and Qatar demonstrate a commitment to providing quality
healthcare, with political decisions impacting funding, legislation, and accessibility.
Social: Both countries prioritize equal access to healthcare, with New Zealand emphasizing
free or subsidized services, and Qatar focusing on expanding coverage through health
insurance.
Economic: The funding models differ, with New Zealand relying on public taxation, while
Qatar is introducing mandatory health insurance to support the healthcare sector financially.