When healthcare officials talk about the National Health Insurance at home or abroad, they boast that there is almost universal coverage, and that the system is not only "cheap and abundant" but also "incomparably convenient" -- anyone can see a doctor anywhere without needing to wait.
Yet, in his lecture "Creating a high-value healthcare system: Implications for Taiwan" on April 30, management guru Michael Porter said that while Taiwan's universal health insurance is an extraordinary achievement, insurance is only one segment of healthcare policy. The ultimate goal of the national health insurance policy is "protecting the health of all the people," and its most important task is to provide "high-value healthcare" for all.
Value-based healthcare means it is best to prevent illness, or to detect illness at an early stage, quickly come to the correct diagnosis, give the right treatment at the appropriate time and avoid mistakes in the course of the treatment.
What people should expect from health insurance is proper protection of their health; they should not be looking to receive more medicine, more health checks, or more treatment. Merely giving people a lot of medical services, said Porter, does not benefit them at all.
Porter proposed a direction for the future. Apart from those hospitals that provide basic healthcare, different hospitals should specialize in the treatment of different major diseases. Also, quality should be determined by universalization, implying that no matter how many hospitals there are, they are of no use if they do not provide quality care.
When people in the audience suggested that without universalization, convenience is lost, Porter gave this example: There are 139 hospitals that conduct heart transplants in the US. Some are good hospitals that have a lot of experience and a fatality rate in surgery of zero, and some are bad ones that only do a few operations a year, don't have much experience and have a fatality rate of 100 percent. In the end, it would be enough if there were only 20 or so hospitals left that offer this surgery.
Of course, no one would choose a hospital that has a 100 percent fatality rate just because it is more convenient to get a transplant there. Therefore, when making decisions about life and death, convenience is the lowest priority.
So why is it that the public is content with a healthcare insurance that boasts of being "cheap and abundant" and convenient, causing hospitals to use their size and equipment as an appeal?
The problem is that the public lacks a standard with which to judge the quality of healthcare, so they believe "if the temple is big, there must be a god in it." "Cheap and abundant" healthcare means hospitals can earn more, and convenience means good service.
Porter is of the opinion that no matter how cheap, bad healthcare is a waste. The most effective way to control medical expenses is by increasing the quality of healthcare, that's why the competition in healthcare will be competition in quality.
Therefore, one of the main points of insurance reform is to establish a system for surveying the quality of care by setting up an information network. After that, the results have to be more transparent. A good health insurance system should also encourage the constant improvement and innovation in the healthcare system so that hospitals who improve get more resources.
The most important thing is to give the public a basis to judge for themselves how good or bad a hospital is, giving them the opportunity to have more control over their own lives.
Andrew Huang is the president of the Koo Foundation Sun Yat-sen Cancer Center.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS