Background and Aims: The United States of America and Sweden both contain a public and private component to their healthcare systems. While both countries spend a similar amount per capita on public healthcare expenditures, the United States spends significantly more in the private healthcare sector. Sweden has a social democratic model of health care, and given its identity as a welfare state, private health insurance providers have a small and nuanced role.
Methods: This paper was completed after searches were queried for "Sweden," "United States," and variants of the words "insurance," "public," "private," "Medicare," "Medicaid," "public," and "costs." A preliminary search in May 2022, yielded 78 articles, of which 45 were ultimately considered relevant for this review. Inclusion criteria consisted of English language articles, topic relevance, and verification of MEDLINE-indexed journals. These searches were performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane. Summary findings of these searches are compiled in this review.
Results: Sweden guarantees low-cost appropriate care to all citizens with equitable access; however, drawbacks of its system include high financial burden, lack of primary care infrastructure, as well as geographical and socioeconomic inequities. On the other hand, the United States' healthcare system is built around the private sector with public health insurance reserved only for the most vulnerable patient populations.
Conclusion: Our goal is to provide an overview, compare the role of private health insurance in both countries, and highlight policies that have had beneficial effects in each nation. Possible solutions to the drawbacks of each nation's health insurance policies could be addressed by additional support to Sweden's vulnerable population by developing a program similar to the US' Medicare Advantage program. Conversely, the United States may benefit from increasing access to public health insurance, especially in instances where families face unemployment.
