Comparative studies and healthcare policy: learning and mislearning across borders.

This article addresses the vocabulary of cross-national analysis and commentary about health care, health policy and health politics. We conclude there is a large gap between promise and performance in comparative policy commentary and point to major sources of confusion, such as the lack of generally agreed vocabulary, vague language and the use of faddish and misleading terms and aspirational labels (illustrated by a selection of widely used expressions in comparative reports). We next examine the basic purposes of international policy comparison, distinguish three useful and two misleading approaches and frame defensible ground rules for comparative work.