Bridging Healthcare Gaps: What U.S. Cities Can Learn from Japanese Public Health

Bridging Healthcare Gaps: What U.S. Cities Can Learn from Japanese Public Health

DC
Dr. Clarence KongChief Pain Fellow Physician, Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University
6 min read

Earlier this month, I had the honor of presenting interventional pain management techniques to medical students and physicians during grand rounds at the University of Kindai Hospital in Osaka, Japan. While the immediate focus was on clinical procedures, I quickly realized the deeper significance of this opportunity. Experiencing Japan's healthcare system firsthand and engaging with its medical professionals gave me valuable insights into how healthcare is managed at a municipal level, both in Japan and in the United States. The experience raised important questions about how municipal governments contribute to healthcare delivery, how systems differ internationally, and what lessons we can apply to improve our own municipal health management back home.

Municipal governments have a critical role in shaping the delivery of healthcare services. In the United States, local governments often serve as the first line of public health response. They manage public hospitals, clinics, and health departments, and are responsible for implementing state and federal health regulations. According to a study in the Journal of Urban Health, municipal health departments in the U.S. are instrumental in controlling chronic disease, conducting immunization programs, and managing emergency preparedness operations—responsibilities that directly impact community well-being1.

Japan’s healthcare system, while also largely universal, operates under a different structural framework that assigns more centralized control to the national government. Yet, municipalities in Japan are still deeply involved in managing public health centers, administering vaccinations, and promoting community wellness programs. One strength of the Japanese system is its efficiency in primary care coordination, which is supported by municipal-level collaboration with national policies2. For example, in Osaka, I observed how municipal health managers integrated preventive care into routine practice, especially in managing chronic pain and rehabilitation—a growing concern in Japan’s aging population.

One of the most notable differences between the two countries lies in how healthcare is financed and delivered. In Japan, every citizen is required to enroll in a health insurance plan, either through employment or via municipal governments. This system, known as the Statutory Health Insurance System, ensures equitable access to care and eliminates many barriers to treatment such as cost and insurance gaps3. Municipalities are responsible for administering the National Health Insurance (NHI) for those not covered by employer-based plans, which helps maintain uniformity in service delivery.

In contrast, the U.S. healthcare system is fragmented, with multiple payers and a mix of public and private providers. Municipal governments often face resource constraints and policy limitations that hinder their ability to deliver consistent care, especially in underserved areas. A study by the National Academy of Medicine found that local health departments in the U.S. struggle with workforce shortages, insufficient funding, and limited data integration capabilities—all of which compromise service delivery4.

My experience in Osaka highlighted the value of integrated, community-based care. Japanese municipal hospitals and clinics work closely with national systems to ensure smooth patient referrals and continuity of care. This coordination is particularly effective in managing chronic conditions like low back pain, which can benefit from multidisciplinary interventions. In the U.S., implementing such coordination at a municipal level remains a challenge due to siloed systems and lack of interoperability. However, some cities, like Boston and Seattle, have made strides by developing data-sharing agreements between hospitals and public health departments5.

Another lesson from Japan is the cultural emphasis on preventative care and community engagement. Municipal health officials in Osaka organize regular community health workshops and screenings, which help identify conditions early and reduce the burden on tertiary care facilities. These efforts are supported by trained public health nurses who conduct home visits and follow-ups. In the United States, preventive care is often underutilized due to gaps in insurance coverage and public health outreach. Yet, research shows that municipal investment in preventive services yields long-term cost savings and improves population health outcomes6.

Technology and data systems are another area where Japan’s municipal healthcare has demonstrated effective practices. In Osaka, electronic health records are standardized and interoperable across municipal and private providers, enabling seamless patient care. This infrastructure allows for better tracking of health outcomes and more responsive public health interventions. In comparison, many U.S. cities still struggle with fragmented data systems that hinder comprehensive care planning. Investing in municipal data infrastructure can greatly improve disease surveillance, resource allocation, and emergency response capabilities7.

There are many lessons to be drawn from international collaboration. My time in Japan reaffirmed the importance of municipal leadership in advancing equitable, efficient, and compassionate healthcare. By learning from global models and fostering cross-cultural exchange, municipal governments in the U.S. can enhance their capacity to serve communities more effectively. The future of healthcare depends not only on medical innovation but also on the strength of local governance, the quality of collaboration, and the commitment to continuous improvement.

The exchange of best practices and the spirit of lifelong learning I experienced in Osaka are not just academic ideals—they are essential tools for effective municipal management. Whether through better coordination, investment in preventive care, or cultural humility, there is ample opportunity for municipal leaders to build systems that are not only efficient but also deeply humane.

  1. Brownson, Ross C., Jonathan E. Fielding, and Lawrence W. Green. “Building Capacity for Evidence-Based Public Health: Reconciling the Pulls of Practice and the Push of Research.” Annual Review of Public Health 39 (2018): 27–53.

  2. Ikegami, Naoki. “Universal Health Coverage for Inclusive and Sustainable Development: Lessons from Japan.” World Bank Group, 2014.

  3. Kato, Hiroko. “Japan’s Healthcare System: Maintaining Equity and Efficiency.” Health Policy 132, no. 1 (2018): 1–3.

  4. National Academy of Medicine. “Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities from a National Academy of Medicine Initiative.” Journal of the American Medical Association 317, no. 14 (2017): 1461–1470.

  5. Perreira, Krista M., and Robert A. Blewett. “Community-Based Health Initiatives: Lessons from the Healthy Communities Program.” Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 22, no. 6 (2016): 611–619.

  6. Schroeder, Steven A. “We Can Do Better — Improving the Health of the American People.” New England Journal of Medicine 357, no. 12 (2007): 1221–1228.

  7. Takaku, Reo, et al. “The Effects of Health Information Technology on the Quality of Care in Japan.” Health Economics 30, no. 6 (2021): 1272–1287.