| Course | HCM-3530 Comparative Healthcare Systems |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Written assignment 1: global health and health systems |
| Length | About 980 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | B.S. in Healthcare Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCM 3530 Module 1
Spending $13,473, $3,137 or $85 a Person: What the WHO Framework Shows About the Health Systems of the United States, South Korea and India
Student Name
B.S. in Healthcare Management, Thomas Edison State University
HCM-3530: Comparative Healthcare Systems
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Spending $13,473, $3,137 or $85 a Person: What the WHO Framework Shows About the Health Systems of the United States, South Korea and India
A health system, in the World Health Organization's widely used definition, includes all the organizations, people and actions whose primary purpose is to promote, restore or maintain health (World Health Organization [WHO], 2007). This assignment explains how health systems are described and judged, then applies that framework to three countries at very different points: the United States, which spends more per person than any other country; South Korea, a high-income country that reached universal coverage through social insurance; and India, a lower-middle-income country building coverage for a very large population. All indicators come from the World Development Indicators for the latest year available (World Bank, 2026).
How Health Systems Are Described
The framework (WHO, 2007) describes six building blocks: leadership and governance, financing, the health workforce, service delivery, health information systems, and access to medical products, vaccines and technologies. The blocks are useful because every system must perform each function somehow, even when it does so badly, so they give a common checklist for comparison. Johnson et al. (2018) add that systems also differ in their history, culture and politics, which shape how the blocks are arranged.
The same framework names the goals by which a system should be judged: better health, responsiveness to people's legitimate expectations, fair financing that protects households from catastrophic costs, and efficiency. A comparison therefore needs measures for each goal. Life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality capture health; the share of spending paid out of pocket captures financial protection; and spending as a share of national income and per person, set against outcomes, gives a rough sense of efficiency.
Three Systems Compared
Table 1 sets the three countries side by side on those measures.
| Indicator (latest year) | United States | South Korea | India |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health spending per person, US$ | 13,473 (2023) | 3,137 (2024) | 85 (2023) |
| Health spending, % of GDP | 16.7 (2023) | 8.7 (2024) | 3.3 (2023) |
| Out-of-pocket share of health spending, % | 10.9 (2023) | 33.7 (2024) | 43.9 (2023) |
| Life expectancy at birth, years | 78.9 (2024) | 83.6 (2024) | 72.2 (2024) |
| Infant deaths per 1,000 live births | 5.5 (2024) | 2.3 (2024) | 23.3 (2024) |
| Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births | 17 (2023) | 4 (2023) | 80 (2023) |
| Physicians per 1,000 people | 3.7 (2022) | 2.6 (2022) | 0.7 (2020) |
The United States
The U.S. system is a mix of employer-sponsored private insurance, public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and a residual uninsured population, delivered mainly by private hospitals and physicians. It is strongest on resources: it spends 16.7 percent of its economy on health, roughly twice South Korea's share, and has more physicians per person than either comparison country. It performs poorly on the health goal relative to that spending. Americans live nearly five fewer years than South Koreans, and infant and maternal mortality are more than twice as high. Papanicolas et al. (2018) compared the U.S. with ten other high-income countries and found that it did not use substantially more care overall; its higher spending was driven mainly by prices, including salaries, drugs and administrative costs. In WHO terms, the financing block absorbs resources that the service delivery block does not convert into health.
South Korea
South Korea introduced compulsory social health insurance for workers in large firms in 1977 and extended it step by step until it covered the whole population in 1989, later merging its insurers into a single national scheme (Kwon, 2009). That governance choice gives one public purchaser strong bargaining power over prices, which helps explain how Korea achieves the best health outcomes of the three at about a quarter of U.S. spending per person. Its weakness lies in financial protection. Benefits are limited and cost sharing is high, so households pay a third of health spending out of pocket, a larger share than in the United States. Kwon (2009) also notes that private providers paid fee-for-service dominate delivery, which encourages high volumes of care as the population ages.
India
India spends about $85 a person, 3.3 percent of its economy, and has fewer than one physician per thousand people. Public facilities run by state governments provide free or low-cost care, but many people use private providers and pay directly, so out-of-pocket payments make up 43.9 percent of spending, the highest share of the three. That weakness in financial protection is what the national Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana program, launched in 2018, targets by insuring poorer families for hospital care (National Health Authority, n.d.). India's health outcomes have improved markedly, but infant and maternal mortality remain many times higher than in the other two countries, reflecting gaps in the workforce and service delivery blocks as well as social conditions outside the health system.
What the Comparison Shows
Three lessons emerge. First, spending and health are linked only loosely among high-income countries: the United States spends four times as much per person as South Korea and achieves worse outcomes, so the way money is organized matters as much as the amount. Second, the goals can conflict. Korea's low prices and strong outcomes coexist with weak financial protection, while the U.S. has a relatively low out-of-pocket share but very high total costs that reach households through premiums and taxes. Third, the framework guards against simple conclusions. India's results reflect low resources and workforce shortages that no single financing reform can fix, while U.S. results reflect high prices and fragmented coverage that more spending will not cure.
Conclusion
The WHO building blocks and goals provide a shared language for comparing very different health systems. Applied to the United States, South Korea and India, they show that a system's results depend on how financing, delivery, workforce and governance fit together, not on spending alone. Later modules will apply the same framework to each world region, with the United States as the constant point of comparison.
References
Johnson, J. A., Stoskopf, C., & Shi, L. (2018). Comparative health systems: A global perspective (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Kwon, S. (2009). Thirty years of national health insurance in South Korea: Lessons for achieving universal health care coverage. Health Policy and Planning, 24(1), 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czn037
National Health Authority. (n.d.). About Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY). Government of India. https://nha.gov.in/PM-JAY
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
World Bank. (2026). World development indicators [Data set]. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
World Health Organization. (2007). Everybody's business: Strengthening health systems to improve health outcomes: WHO's framework for action. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/43918
HCM 3530 Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
HCM-3530 assigns four written assignments, eight discussions, five open-book quizzes, a proctored midterm on Modules 1 to 3 and a two-part final project comparing an issue in the United States with at least two other countries. The syllabus asks for APA papers with a title page and a references page, and for scholarly sources integrated throughout to show how they apply to the material. Module 1 covers global health and health systems, so expect to define a health system, explain how performance is measured and apply the ideas to real countries. Choose countries that contrast in instructive ways. The quizzes and midterm test the same vocabulary, so learning the framework well in Module 1 pays off across the course. If your section names the countries, use them; if not, choose a contrast you can explain.
Inside the HCM 3530 Module 1 example
The paper opens with the WHO definition and the reason for choosing three very different countries. It then explains the six building blocks and the four goals, so the reader knows what will be measured. A single table presents comparable World Bank indicators with years. Each country receives a paragraph that applies the framework and uses at least one study or official source, and a comparison section draws three lessons that would not be visible from any single country. The conclusion links the framework to the regional modules that follow. Every number carries its year and source, and every judgment is tied to one of the framework's goals.
HCM 3530 Module 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Mentors grade HCM-3530 written assignments from 0 to 100. They look for accurate use of course concepts, here the building blocks and performance goals, and for comparisons supported by current, properly cited data. Papers that explain differences between countries with causes, such as payment methods, governance or workforce supply, score higher than those that describe each system separately. A proper APA title page and reference list, research built into the comparison rather than tacked on, and clean prose finish the score. A table that presents indicators clearly, with years and a source note, helps the mentor check the comparison quickly and counts toward organization.
HCM 3530 Module 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
First papers in this course often describe three systems in three separate blocks without ever comparing them. Use the same measures for each country and put them in one table. Another frequent weakness is quoting old figures; the World Bank and WHO update their data every year, so give the year with every number. Give at least one difference a cause, such as how prices are set or who is covered. Our writers can prepare an HCM 3530 written assignment comparing the countries your section assigns. Keep the framework visible in your headings so the mentor can see each goal addressed, and avoid judging a whole system as simply good or bad.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HCM 3530 and B.S. in Healthcare Management sample papers
- HCM 3530 Module 2: Americas Systems Written Assignment
- HCM 3530 Module 3: European Systems Written Assignment
- HCM 3530 Module 4: Middle East and Africa Discussion
- HCM 3530 Module 5: Asia-Pacific Systems Written Assignment
- HCM 3530 Module 6: Final Comparative Paper
- HCM 3080 Module 7: End-of-Life Decisions Discussion
- HCM 4040 Module 4: Improvement Team Paper
- HCM 4060 Module 5: Labor Relations Case Study
- HCM 3070 Module 4: Turnover Cost Analysis
HCM 3530 Module 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HCM 3530 Module 1 sample paper?
The first Comparative Healthcare Systems written assignment is shown above in full: the WHO building blocks and goals applied to the United States, South Korea and India with World Bank data and APA references.
What are the WHO health system building blocks?
Governance, financing, workforce, service delivery, information systems, and access to medical products and technologies.
Why does the United States spend more on health care than other countries?
Research comparing high-income countries attributes most of the difference to higher prices, including salaries, drugs and administrative costs, rather than to much greater use of care.
What textbook does HCM-3530 use?
Johnson, Stoskopf and Shi's Comparative Health Systems: A Global Perspective, second edition.
Where can I find comparable data on health systems?
The World Bank's World Development Indicators, the WHO Global Health Observatory and OECD Health Statistics publish indicators defined the same way across countries.