Health Systems in Australia and Four Other Countries: choices and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of health systems is the pursuit of healthy lives. The performance of the Australian health system over the last decade is compared with the United Kingdom and its three other offshoots: the United States, Canada and New Zealand. In the first instance, system performance is assessed in terms of threats to healthy lives from risk factors and changes that have taken place during the decade. In view of the emphasis of the five systems on the return to health after trauma and illness, and the human-resource intensity of health services, an appraisal is made of changes in the number of the major health professionals in relation to the growing populations. Then related changes in hospital, medical practitioner and dentist services are assessed. Changes in pharmaceutical drug prescriptions in Australian are also examined. The levels of national expenditures arising from the provision health services are then considered in the context of the costs of administration of the varied organisational modes, use of expensive medical technologies, pharmaceutical drug consumption and remuneration of health professionals. Finally, health outcomes in Australia and the other four countries are assessed in accordance with their human development level, life expectancy, potential years of life lost from different causes, as well as healthy life expectancies. Further, gaps in health and life expectancy of Indigenous people in the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are reviewed, as well as health and survival inequalities among people in different social strata in each country.
 Abbreviations: GDP – Gross Domestic Product; HDI – Human Development Index.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".