The document compares the Beveridge model of healthcare, emphasizing government-funded universal coverage, with Pakistan's hybrid healthcare system that includes both public and private sectors. While both systems aim for universal access and are government-funded, Pakistan faces challenges due to significant private sector involvement and high out-of-pocket expenses. The analysis points to key differences in funding mechanisms and health outcomes, indicating a need for a nuanced approach to improve healthcare delivery in Pakistan.

1. Comparing Beveridge
Model and Pakistan’s Health
Care System
Group 1
5th Batch of PGD Hospital Management

2. TOPIC
Sr. No Name Father's Name
1 Saeed Ur Rehman Tayyab ul Abrar
2 Rauf Alam Muhammad Boota
3 Dr. Nasrullah Abdul Baqi Soomro
4 Dr. Jehan Alam Muhammad E Syal
5 Fahad Riaz Riaz Ahmed
6
Dr. Syed Ali Abuzar
Naqvi
Syed Mujahid Zaighum
Naqvi
7 Dr. Shirin Shah Syed Syed Wadal Shah
8 Dr. Afeefa Khan Muhammad Nawaz
9 Dr. Maryam Anis Anis ur Rehman
10 Afzal Ahmad Shaukat Ali
11 Muhammad Kashif Naseer Muhammad Bozdar
12 Dr. Yasir Kamir Chaudhary Kamir
GROUP 1
beveridge model
13
Muhammad Zahir
Shah
Mian Syed Bakht Shad
14
Dr. Pir Ghulam Nabi
Shah
Pir Ahmad Shah Syed Jilani
15
Dr. Mohammad
Khalique
Haji Mushtaque Ahmed
Shujrah
16 Javeria Saleem Khan Prince Ahmad Saleem
17 Komal Nayyab Muhammad Iqbal
18 Faheem Ahmed Gulzar Ahmed Soomro
19 Dr. Ajaz Ahmed Rahmat Ali
20 Dr. khairunisa fakir hussain
21 Dr. Shazia Kiran Syed Talib Ali
22 Dr.Naila izhar Qazi Qadeer Hassan
23 Dr faisal hassan Hassan awan
24 abdul ghafoor muhammad baksh

3. Introduction
 The Beveridge Model is one of the prominent health care frameworks used
globally, named after Sir William Beveridge.
 It emphasizes health care funded and provided by the government through
taxation, aiming to offer universal coverage at no direct cost at the point of use.
 Pakistan’s health care system, however, is a hybrid model incorporating elements
from various frameworks.
 We will discuss comparative analysis between the Beveridge Model and
Pakistan’s health care system, highlighting key similarities, differences, and
implications for health care delivery and policy.

4. Types of Health
Insurance Models There are four main types of health
insurance models, each with varying
levels of government involvement and
ways of financing healthcare.
• Beveridge Model
• Bismarck Model
• National Health Insurance (NHI)
Model
• Out-of-Pocket (OOP) Model

5. Beveridge
Model
Overview: Healthcare is provided and
financed by the government through tax
payments.
Funding: Government (taxes).
Providers: Government-employed healthcare
workers; most hospitals are government-
owned.
Countries: UK (NHS), Spain, New Zealand,
and Scandinavian countries.

6. Beveridge Model
of
Healthcare

7. Historical Background
Before the Beveridge Model, healthcare in the
UK was fragmented, with services provided by
a combination of private doctors, charitable
organizations, and local governments.
Access to healthcare depended largely on an
individual's ability to pay, leaving many
without necessary care.

8. The Beveridge
Report (1942)

9. Post-War
Implementation
(1948)
The Beveridge Model was realized through the
establishment of the National Health Service
(NHS) in 1948 by the Labour government, led by
Aneurin Bevan, the then Minister of Health.
The NHS was designed to provide healthcare to
all UK residents, funded by taxation. Doctors,
hospitals, and healthcare workers were
employed by the government, with services
provided free of charge at the point of delivery.
The introduction of the NHS revolutionized
healthcare access in the UK, creating a system
where medical services were seen as a public
right, rather than a privilege of the wealthy.

10. Beveridge Model
and
Pakistan’s Health Care System

11. Similarities

12. Government Funding and Public Health
Services
Beveridge Model
 In this model, health care services are
funded primarily through general
taxation.
 The government finances and
provides health care, ensuring that it
is free at the point of use.
Pakistan’s System
 Pakistan operates a network of public health
facilities funded by the government.
 Hospitals and clinics such as those under the
Ministry of National Health Services,
Regulation, and Coordination offer services
with minimal or no direct charges to patients.
 This reflects a Beveridge like aspect of
government funded care.

14. Universal Health Coverage Goals
Beveridge Model
 A key feature is the provision of
universal health coverage, aiming to
ensure that all citizens have access to
necessary health services without
financial barriers.
Pakistan’s System
 The Pakistani government aims to
provide universal health coverage
through public health facilities and
various health programs.
 Initiatives like the Sehat Sahulat
Program seek to extend coverage to
underserved populations, aligning with
the Beveridge Model’s goal of universal
access.

16. Differences

17. Private Sector Involvement
Beveridge Model
 Health care services are
predominantly provided by the
government.
 The private sector plays a minor
role, if any, in the direct
provision of health care services.
Pakistan’s System
 In contrast, Pakistan has a significant
private health care sector.
 Private hospitals and clinics are
widespread, and many individuals choose
to pay directly for services in the private
sector.
 This introduces a market driven element
that is not characteristic of the Beveridge
Model.

18. Funding Mechanisms
Beveridge Model
 Entirely funded through taxation,
ensuring that all health services are
covered without additional costs to
patients at the point of use.
Pakistan’s System
 While public health services are funded
through taxes, the private sector
operates on a fee for service basis.
 Additionally, out-of-pocket payments
are common, which is contrary to the
Beveridge Model’s principle of no direct
charges for health care services.

19. Health Insurance
Beveridge Model
 Typically, health insurance is not a
major component as health services
are funded directly by the
government.
Pakistan’s System
 Private health insurance exists but is not
universal.
 Health insurance coverage is often limited
to those who can afford it, and many rely on
out-of-pocket payments or seek government
funded services, resulting in a fragmented
system.

21. Implications for Health Care Delivery
 Equity and Access
Quality of Care
Sustainability and Efficiency

22. Public vs. Private Health Expenditure
Beveridge Model
 Countries like the UK, with the
Beveridge Model, have high
government expenditure on health care,
which covers the majority of health
needs.
 For example, the UK’s NHS provides
comprehensive services funded through
general taxation.
Pakistan’s System
 According to the World Health
Organization (WHO), Pakistan’s health
expenditure is relatively low compared to
global standards.
 A significant portion of health care
spending comes from out-of-pocket
payments, which impacts access and equity.
 In 2020, around 64% of total health
expenditure in Pakistan was out-of-pocket,
compared to a much lower percentage in
Beveridge Model countries.

24. Health Outcomes
Beveridge Model
 Countries with Beveridge systems often
have high health care outcomes due to
universal coverage and government
focus on preventive care.
 For instance, life expectancy and infant
mortality rates in the UK are generally
favorable.
Pakistan’s System
 Health outcomes in Pakistan are
influenced by the hybrid nature of the
system.
 Issues such as access to quality care and
health disparities impact overall health
metrics.
 Pakistan has struggled with high maternal
and child mortality rates compared to
countries with comprehensive universal
health coverage.

26. Conclusion
The comparison between the Beveridge Model and Pakistan’s health care system highlights
both similarities and significant differences.
While Pakistan incorporates elements of the Beveridge Model through its public health
services and universal coverage goals, the hybrid nature of its system introduces challenges
related to private sector involvement, funding mechanisms, and health equity.
Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced approach that leverages the strengths of
various models to improve overall health care delivery and outcomes.

27. BIRD VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION
ANY
QUESTIONS