| Course | HS820 Global and National Health and Health Systems |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Comparative matrix |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Health Science (DHSc) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS820 Unit 3
Same Mandate, Opposite Premiums: A Unit 3 Comparative Matrix of the Dutch and Swiss Insurance Systems Across Eight Rows
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS820: Global and National Health and Health Systems
Unit 3 Comparative Matrix
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The facts about the Netherlands and Switzerland and the sources cited are real; figures are rounded for the course.
The Rows
Each row asks a question both systems must answer: legal basis, insurer market, premium setting, income-related financing, risk equalization, cost sharing, subsidies for low incomes and hospital financing. Cells hold facts with their source, not judgments.
The Matrix
Legal basis. Netherlands: the Health Insurance Act of 2006 created a single compulsory market for basic coverage, replacing a split between public sickness funds and private insurance. Switzerland: the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994, in force from 1996, made basic coverage compulsory for all residents.
Insurer market. Netherlands: a small number of insurer groups, with the largest four covering most of the population; insurers may operate for profit within rules. Switzerland: around forty insurers offer basic coverage, which must be provided on a not-for-profit basis.
Premium setting. Netherlands: each insurer sets one community-rated premium for its basic policy, the same for every adult it insures regardless of age or health. Switzerland: insurers set community-rated premiums that may vary by canton and region and by three age bands (children, young adults, adults).
Income-related financing. Netherlands: about half of basic coverage funding comes from an income-related employer contribution paid into a central fund, with the rest from flat premiums and government contributions for children. Switzerland: there is no income-related contribution for basic coverage; premiums are flat per person within a region and age band.
Risk equalization. Netherlands: the central fund pays insurers risk-adjusted amounts based on age, sex, diagnoses, prescriptions and other factors. Switzerland: a risk equalization scheme compensates insurers based on age, sex, prior hospitalization and pharmaceutical cost groups, and has become more refined over time.
Cost sharing. Netherlands: a compulsory annual deductible of about 385 euros for adults, with general practitioner visits exempt. Switzerland: a minimum annual deductible of 300 francs, with higher optional deductibles in exchange for lower premiums, plus 10 percent coinsurance up to an annual cap.
Subsidies for low incomes. Netherlands: a health care allowance from the tax authority for lower-income households. Switzerland: cantonal premium subsidies, which vary widely by canton.
Hospital financing. Netherlands: insurers negotiate prices and volumes with hospitals for most services. Switzerland: cantons pay a large share of inpatient hospital costs, with insurers paying the remainder through diagnosis-related group rates.
The Dutch fund half of basic coverage through an income-related contribution, the Swiss fund none of it that way, and that one row explains why Swiss subsidies matter so much more.
Commentary: Why One Row Drives the Others
The income-related financing row is where the systems diverge most, and it shapes three other rows. Because Swiss premiums are flat regardless of income, a low-income family pays the same premium as a high-income one, which makes cantonal premium subsidies essential and puts pressure on the deductible choices people make. In the Netherlands, the income-related contribution means flat premiums are a smaller share of what anyone pays, so the health care allowance plays a supporting rather than central role. Commonwealth Fund profiles describe both systems as achieving near-universal coverage through regulated competition, with Switzerland relying more heavily on household spending (Tikkanen et al., 2020).
Commentary: Why Compare Two Similar Systems
Comparing two systems that share a design, compulsory private insurance with risk equalization, isolates the effect of the rows where they differ. A comparison between Switzerland and a tax-funded system would show many differences at once, making it hard to tell which mattered. Health financing frameworks recommend comparing arrangements function by function for this reason (Kutzin, 2001).
How the Matrix Fits a Functional Framework
The eight rows map onto the functions health systems perform: raising money (income-related financing and premiums), pooling it (risk equalization), purchasing (insurer market and hospital financing) and setting entitlements (cost sharing and subsidies). Organizing a comparison by function rather than by national label follows the framework that describes systems by what they do (World Health Organization [WHO], 2000). It also makes the matrix extendable: a third country could be added as a new column without changing any row.
What a Reader Should Take From the Matrix
The two systems look alike from a distance: compulsory private insurance, community-rated premiums, risk equalization and deductibles. Up close, the Netherlands spreads the cost of basic coverage across incomes through a payroll-linked contribution, while Switzerland places it on households as flat premiums and then softens the effect with cantonal subsidies that vary in generosity. A Swiss family's exposure to premium costs therefore depends heavily on where it lives, while a Dutch family's depends more on its income. Any argument that one country's design could be borrowed by the other, or by a third country, needs to start from that row.
Limits
The matrix describes rules, not outcomes. A later unit could add rows on out-of-pocket spending and satisfaction, but those depend on many factors outside the financing rules.
References
Kutzin, J. (2001). A descriptive framework for country-level analysis of health care financing arrangements. Health Policy, 56(3), 171-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(00)00149-4
Tikkanen, R., Osborn, R., Mossialos, E., Djordjevic, A., & Wharton, G. A. (2020). International health care system profiles. The Commonwealth Fund.
World Health Organization. (2000). The world health report 2000: Health systems: Improving performance. World Health Organization.
The Purdue Global HS820 Unit 3 instructions
The third unit commonly calls for a matrix comparing two health systems across set dimensions, followed by commentary. Expect a table of six to ten rows and two or three pages of explanation. Choose rows before researching, so that a missing or vague cell shows a gap rather than hiding it. Each row should ask a question both systems must answer. Keep cells factual and sourced, and save interpretation for the commentary. Pairing two similar systems isolates the differences that matter; pairing very different systems produces too many differences to explain. Link rows to a framework, such as financing functions, so the matrix could take a third country. Commentary should identify the row that drives the others rather than summarize every cell.
How this HS820 Unit 3 example is built
The sample lists its eight rows and their logic first. Each row then gives the Dutch and Swiss facts side by side: the 2006 Health Insurance Act and the 1994 federal law, a few large Dutch insurer groups against about forty Swiss not-for-profit insurers, one community-rated premium per Dutch insurer against Swiss premiums varying by canton and age band. The income-related row shows half of Dutch funding coming from an employer contribution and none of Swiss funding. The highlighted sentence ties that row to the weight of Swiss subsidies. Commentary sections explain why one row drives three others, why two similar systems make a better comparison, how the rows map to system functions and what a reader should take away.
Where the points sit in the HS820 Unit 3 rubric
Comparative matrices in this course are generally marked on choice of dimensions, accuracy of cells, quality of commentary, sources and presentation. Commentary often counts most, because it shows whether the learner can explain differences rather than list them. Dimensions earn credit when they are chosen for a reason and apply to both countries. Cells must be accurate, current and sourced; judgments placed in cells tend to cost points. Presentation matters because the matrix must be readable at a glance. Matrices padded with rows neither country answers, or commentary that repeats the table, lose marks. Linking rows to a recognized framework is often rewarded. Every cell's fact should trace to a reference entry.
HS820 Unit 3 help from the desk
The usual weakness is a matrix built from whatever facts were easy to find, so rows do not line up. Another is cells full of opinion, such as better or worse, which belong in commentary. Some learners compare countries so different that every row differs and nothing can be explained. Commentary often summarizes the table instead of finding the row that drives the others. If your pair is different, perhaps Germany and France or Canada and Australia, send the countries and any required rows, and we can build a matrix with sourced cells and focused commentary.
Get an HS820 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Which two systems does your Unit 3 matrix compare, and are its rows set for you? Those answers, with the rubric, let work begin. The grid will hold identical rows with a dated source in every cell, and the commentary will separate causes from consequences. Expect it within 24-48h; your first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HS820 papers and DHSc samples
- HS820 Unit 1: Spain Discussion Post
- HS820 Unit 2: Estonia Health System Profile
- HS820 Unit 4: Financing Analysis
- HS820 Unit 5: Burden of Disease Review
- HS820 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HS820 Unit 7: Case Study of a Reform
- HS820 Unit 8: Transferability Appraisal
- HS820 Unit 9: Country Comparison Paper
- HS820 Unit 10: System Recommendation Report
- HS810 Unit 3: Stakeholder Power Map
HS820 Unit 3 questions, answered
How many rows should a comparative matrix have?
Enough to cover the dimensions the later comparison depends on, commonly six to ten. The sample uses eight because each answers a question both systems must settle. Rows that only one system can fill, such as a feature the other lacks, still belong if the absence matters; write the absence in the cell rather than dropping the row.
Why compare two similar systems?
Holding most features constant lets one feature show its effects. The Dutch and Swiss systems share mandatory private insurance and risk equalization, so the premium design stands out as the variable behind the other gaps. Pairing very different systems produces many differences at once and makes causes hard to assign. That is why the sample picked neighbors in design rather than opposites.
Can the matrix include judgments about which system performs better?
Keep judgments in the commentary. The grid should hold facts a reader on either side would accept, each with its source. Performance claims belong below the grid, where they can be argued with evidence and caveats. Mixing the two makes the matrix harder to check and weakens the analysis built on it. A reader who disputes one judgment should still be able to trust every cell above it.
Where can I find a free HS820 Unit 3 sample paper?
The complete Unit 3 matrix is posted here, comparing Dutch and Swiss insurance systems across eight rows with commentary.
What row matters most in the Dutch and Swiss comparison?
Income-related financing, because the Dutch fund half of basic coverage through it and the Swiss fund none, which shapes premiums, subsidies and deductible choices.