Healthcare, a yardstick for human development after our millennia of development as a species. Humans have come very far since the moments Homo Sapien Sapiens trod Earth with the creation of antibiotics, the x-ray, concentrated cancer treatment, innovative stroke treatment, AEDs and many many more. The profound effect of diseases on humans was demonstrated in Newton’s time, in the form of the “black death” or bubonic plague but the many shadows that it has cast on the current time remains present. It could be in the form of cancer, diabetes, heart disease (myocardial infarction, angina, and heart failure), renal failure, Alzheimer's, depression, influenza, stroke, AIDS/HIV or any of the other pollutants of health. These are all very real threats to the human population and are not just limited to the approximately 150 countries where some form of Universal Health Coverage is adopted. However, I believe that Universal Health Care, its effectiveness should be considered as a major factor in which indices use to measure up national development.

Firstly, countries which have adopted some form of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) usually rank higher than their other counterparts especially regarding equal access, efficiency and satisfaction regarding such a system. According to the “Bloomberg Health-Care Efficiency Index” Singapore was listed as 2nd most efficient healthcare system with Hong Kong ranking first, both regions being praised for their Universal Healthcare system and the inspiration that they are to the world. The report takes into account relative health expenditure such as the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare, life expectancy and absolute health expenditure. 

Elaborating, Singapore adopts a National Health Insurance system, common in Newly Industrialised Countries, which is able to ensure that the population is well covered for basic healthcare but also leaves space for the more fortunate to buy higher levels of healthcare. Looking at another example, the commonwealth fund ranking method it says in the report about the country without UHC, the US, “Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.” All these indicators show that the is a ridicule of a developed nation and the way we decide to accounts to being developed needs to seriously be considered. The largest economy in the world only has a life expectancy of 79 years, a relative health expenditure of 17% (higher than all other countries ranked) and huge absolute health expenditure of roughly $9500. Woefully inefficient.

Considering the one country without UHC ranked lowest or near last on all equity, healthcare outcomes, accessibility and administrative efficiency, it is obvious, whether you check WHO rankings, individual studies, commonwealth charts etc, the countries without a form of UHC, the level of healthcare is significantly lowered. Even American researchers conclude that the US has a disorganised system with the highest rate of mortality because of healthcare, and even spends nearly twice as much on healthcare as most other countries. It is clear from all rankings that countries with any type of UHC fair much better than those that do not, yet another indicator as to why each country should adopt a type of comprehensive UHC. 

It is evident that the presence or absence of a UHC system is synonymous with the level of development, economic wealth, political model or any other factor. It is vital that we are able to consider the implications of using certain indicators as measures of the overall health performance in certain countries. The compressive legislation supported plan provided by any type of UHC, whether it be in Britain or Cuba, improves the overall health of the respective society and the emotional security and satisfaction for all. It is a laughing stock that Cuba, a country hit by many sanctions and suffering economic downfall and shortages of medicines, can afford a widely acclaimed and inspiring UHC system whilst the United States, the largest economy in the world, has a disappointing health system that is falling apart.

Concluding, it would be wise if the presence UHC did play a role in deciding whether a country would be considered “developed.” However, in cases like the US where the country is certainly developed but does not have one of these systems, exemptions have to be made when using it as a yardstick. I was not surprised to learn it is already a goal for every country to have UHC, in some shape or form, by the World Health Organisation. Development itself is defined by the economic state of the respective nation but the quality of life that each individual can experience should be a part in deciding and health, one's ability to live a successful thriving life, constitutes to a huge fraction of this. Each country should be widely regarded around the world for not only its ability to foster the latest technology but also its ability to transfer the wealth efficiently to a system that is able to distribute healthcare indiscriminately amongst the wider population.