Looking at the health systems in these countries across the different types and respective dimensions of governing health care, several findings stand out. Only four out of the nine countries included in the study fully fit one of the three types of health system (Britain, Sweden, Germany and the US). In contrast, the remaining countries are more or less only close approximations of the individual ideal types. This highlights the fact that the institutional contexts of the governing of health care are more complex than suggested by the definition of the health system. Instead, institutional contexts are often highly specific in terms of how individual aspects combine themselves in individual countries. Such specificities also point to additional aspects of institutional context. Consequently, within a country the two sets of institutions associated with the governance of funding may actually fit different types of health systems thus making categorization problematic. The same problem might also apply to the comparison of the governance of funding and provision.According to the typology, public control of the total resources allocated to health care can be expected to be highest in national health services with access to health care based on social citizenship and lowest in private insurance systems where access to health care is based on private insurance, with public control in social insurance health systems lying in between. This is true for four of our countries, but the picture is more complex in the remaining five countries, pointing to the importance of country-specific institutional contexts.