In Canada questions have arisen about the best approach whether it is public or private for healthcare. The evidences point out to be that more people want public services offering better health care facilities.
In Britain the London's public Queen Elizabeth Hospital is an example financial difficulty due to public-private partnership (P3s).
In the US a study reveals that the health care provided by the not-for-profit hospitals is better than those by the for-profit hospitals.
In Canada people disagree that the P3s, concept will help in putting the country's need for increased public infrastructure but on the other hand will increase the risk of taxpayers.
The present financial status of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is due to the high cost of the private financing (about $18 million Canadian/year which is higher than a government loan).
Other hospitals which are built in this way make the patients suffer when the budget is squeezed to make up for the excess.
A study headed by Dr. Eric Schneider of the Harvard School of Public Health compared four measures of care: breast cancer screening, diabetic eye examination, beta-blocker medication after heart attack, and follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness.
The quality of care was reduced in for-profit plans when compared to not-for-profit plans.
After adjusting for variations in demographic factors and others still three out of the four services showed better care facilities in the not-for-profit plan sector.
This is due to the fact that that the financial incentives provided for the for-profit plan reduced the quality of the health care.
Hence he as a member of the Cancer Quality Council of Ontario concluded by saying that public approach to health care has to be developed as privatization has increased the spending spree rather than reduce it.