This course aims to analyze the origins, developments, and current challenges of modern health systems through comparing and identifying the similarities and differences (and their implications) of the systems in multiple states. In PART I, we will adopt the analytic framework with a sociopolitical perspective that emphasizes the cultural patterns, socioeconomic status, and political institutions that the health systems rooted in. Particularly, we will focus on a typical normative presumption of most of the modern publicly funded health systems, that is, social solidarity. PART II starts with the discussion of the prototypes of modern health systems, namely the social health insurance (SHI) model originated from Germany and the national health service (NHS) model from the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries. We will also cover the “Chimera” health system in the United States, which is unique to its counterparts in other developed countries. PART III turns our sights back to the late-developing health systems in Asia. We will start with Japan, the earliest one that adopted the SHI with the exceptional bureaucratic capacity. South Korea and Taiwan went through the major expansion reforms towards universal health coverage along with democratization; however, what turned out were different. Singapore, upholding the “Asian Values” as the core principle of health system, is one interesting case ought not to be neglected. Lastly, China, once succeeded to the communist ideals, has now gone through the roughest health reforms towards privatization and marketization. In PART IV, the course concludes with the discussion of current challenges of health systems, including the boundary problem that questions the membership of health politic, the intrinsic conflicts between sustainable health systems and democracy, and the possibility of a human solidarity in health that extends beyond the borders and generations. *The course will be instructed in English, but if necessary students could choose to use other languages for in-class discussion and QA sessions of the presentations to facilitate communication.

By the end of this course, the students are expected to be able to: 1. describe and explain the influences of the social and political factors on the development of health systems 2. identify the related social and political contexts of a health system and its major reforms 3. identify the major similarities and differences (and their implications for reform) of multiple health systems 4. evaluate a health reform through the comparative lens

1. Reading assignments and weekly memos Reading is an essential component of the course. Students are expected to read all assigned readings in advance and come prepared to participate actively in the class discussion (See the class schedule section below). Students are also required to submit a weekly memo (no more than one page, typed in MS Word, 12 font size, single-spaced), in which they will address the question(s) derived from the assigned readings. The question(s) will be announced by the instructor five days before the class. The memo should be uploaded to NTU COOL one day before the class and should be brought to class and shared with other fellow students. 6 out of 11 memos with the higher grades will be calculated as a part of the final grades (Grading for each memo: Excellent 5 pt--- fair 1 pt; poor/missed 0 pt). 2. Class participation Each students is required to prepare a 20-minute class presentation (sign up a topic in the first week of the class). The presentation should include a summary (less than 10 minutes) and critical analysis of the week’s assigned readings to an ethically or politically controversial issue in health systems. After the presentation there would be a 10-minute QA session in which the class should respond to the presentation. Active participation in the QA sessions and in-class discussion in general would positively influence students’ final grade. 3. Policy brief Each students is required to submit a policy brief with a 3000-word limit in the Midterm Exam week. Students could choose one of the approaches below for the policy brief: a. Country-driven approach: Choose a country of your interest, identify an emerging or debating issue in the country’s health system, describe the current status of the issue, and consult the experience of other countries (with a clear case selection rationale) to propose a reform for the representatives in the legislative body to consider. b. Issue-driven approach: Choose an issue in health system of your interest, identify the current status of the issues in the health systems in multiple countries (with a clear case selection rationale), compare the similarities and differences between these systems, identify the advantages and disadvantages of policy alternatives, and propose a synthesis of the issue for the representatives in the legislative body to consider. 4. Final exam Students are required to finish a take-home Final Exam. The instructor will announce the questions on the regular meeting time of the class in Final week, and the students will have a 3-hour time slot to finish the task and submit their exams to NTU COOL. 5. Other requirements a. Students should notify the instructor of their absence in advance. Students will not pass the course with three times of absence without proper justifications. b. Students should cite properly when writing weekly memos, policy briefs, and final exams. Students fail to do so will receive a notice from the instructor in the first time and be reported to the Office of Student Affairs for further decision on punishment in the second time. If you are not sure about how to cite properly, please consult the instructor or your thesis advisor. c. For learning purposes, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) or large language models (LLMs) are not allowed for the preparation of the Midterm policy brief and the Final exam. The beauty of comparative study lies in your own observation and synthesis of existing facts, evidence, trends, among others. This essential component requires your own work, especially through thinking and writing your thoughts down.