1

International Comparison of Data for United States, China and Australia

Walden University

2
International Comparison of Data for United States, China and Australia
They say perception is reality and in most cases that is true however; when it comes to
healthcare some are misguided. The U.S. healthcare delivery system has changed vastly over the
last 8 years. Reform has reshaped and redesigned how care is delivered and health outcomes
today. In the following paper I will discuss how the U.S. compares to China who is a developing
country and Australia a developed country in the outcomes of life expectancy, total expenditure
on health per captia GDP and mortality for children under five.
Three health indicators
Three health indicators that I focused on are life expectancy at birth, the total expenditure
on health per capita GDP and under five morality rate in view of the population. In the chart
below I have outlined each area.
Indicators

U.S.
79.56 years

China
Developing
75.15 years

Australia
Developed
82.07 years

Life expectancy at birth

Total expenditure on health per capita
GDP
Under five morality rate (per 1,000 live
births)
Population

17.9%

9%

5.2%

6.17
318.9 million

14.79
1.364 million

4.43
23.49 million

There are many factors that shape the delivery of health services and outcomes. The
population of the U.S., China and Australia vary greatly and so do the forces that predict the
outcomes such as, political climate, economic development, technological progress and social and
cultural norms play a factor in influencing outcomes (Shi & Singh, 2015). Although life
expectancy is also linked to lifestyle each country is unique in that manner with regard to diet,
food resources and disease.

3
China and Australia are in line with the U.S. as far as life expectancy at birth. Australians
appear to live 6.92 year longer than China and 2.51 years longer than those in the U.S. The health
determinates are not out of the norm and consistent when reviewing other countries with similar
populations when considering the overall effect of health and well-being (Shi & Singh, 2015).
Under five mortality provides insight into the social and environmental conditions which
children are exposed to. Chinas under five mortality rate is a huge problem due to its large
population and is usually preventable and treatable through simple affordable interventions. More
than likely these children die from pneumonia, pre-term birth complications, diarrhea, birth
asphyxia and malaria (WHO, 2016). There are approximately one third of all children deaths
linked to malnutrition and it is not exclusive to any one particular country as all are vulnerable
(WHO, 2016).

Australia has taken many steps to improve its under-five morality rate through community
awareness, improved neonatal intensive care units and a robust vaccine-preventable disease
program (AIHW.gov, 2016).

4
The United States is slightly above Australia and the deaths are usually related to
pneumonia and influenza. Although the U.S. has a vigorous vaccination program and demands all
those who work in healthcare be vaccinated sometimes those vaccinations do not cover a
particular strand and thus result in death. Globally there has been a push by the World Health
Organization (WHO) to decrease the rate of those deaths under five through education,
prevention and outreach to local communities.
Total expenditure on health per capita GDP tells a story in itself of public and private
health expenditures it covers for health services that are preventive and curative. China only
spends 5.2% of the GDP on health care and initiatives (OCED). Unfortunately they are a
developing country that has grown so vastly in such a short time that infrastructure has not kept
up with the GDP and the population growth. Australia a developed country that spends 9% of
GDP on its delivery of health care (OCED). Australia in comparison to China is one of the
worlds wealthiest economies and has the fifth highest per capita income. Australians
infrastructure has grown with its population and has invested in its resources. The United States
spends 17.9% of GDP on healthcare (OCED). Although this figure is wavering amongst
comparable countries it has changed due to health reform and infrastructure changes. Living in
the U.S. and paying for my healthcare through my employer some are left paying for health care
or feeding their families, a choice that should not be part of our economic culture.
Summary
In conclusion, U.S., China and Australia although vary on the spectrum on the delivery of
care there are several factors to consider such as the economic, and political climate surrounding
the country. Overall health care delivery is going to vary amongst the different systems in place.
What will constitute the successful delivery of healthcare will be dependent upon infrastructure,

5
GDP allocation and policy that is put into place. The U.S. has not perfected the delivery of care
yet other countries tend to look up to how we deliver care and our outcomes. I would like to see
improved policies and the delivery of care more refined as to prevent deaths that are preventable.

6
References
Docteur, E. & Berenson, R. (2009). How Does the Quality of U.S. Health Care Compare
Internationally? Retrieved April 10, 2016 from
http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/411947-How-Does-theQuality-of-U-S-Health-Care-Compare-Internationally-.PDF
OECD. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2016 from http://www.oecd.org
Shi, L., & Singh, D. (2015). Delivering health care in America: A systems approach (6th ed.).
Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
The World Bank. (n.d.). Country and lending groups. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from
http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-and-lending-groups
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Countries. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/countries/en/