Following a period of silence, the question of medical exchanges between Taiwan and China has once again come to the fore, after Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) visit to Shanghai last month.
However, it seems the government’s plans to promote cross-strait medical exchanges and medical tourism is focused on pure economic interest, while it turns a blind eye on the possibility that such a system could be open to abuse. The government has also failed to consider what legal regulations or policies could be put in place to act as suitable preventive measures against malpractice.
Following its accession into the WTO — and in accordance with the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) — Taiwan pledged to open its health service industry; the aborted cross-strait service trade agreement also contained a similar clause.
The problem with opening the medical industry to exchanges with other nations is that the practice could have an impact on medical tourism, medical immigration and long-distance medical treatment, as well as international research. If bureaucratic systems and laws are not robust enough, it will inevitably have a far-reaching impact on the rights and interests of the public.
The extent of the flow of information on medical treatment between countries will have a direct effect on the prognosis and subsequent treatment patients would receive.
However, aside from the Cross-Strait Cooperation Agreement on Medicine and Public Health Affairs — which allows the exchange of information in the event of large-scale accidents — the regulations are inadequate. Also, it must be clarified under what circumstances each party would be responsible for medical treatment. This includes the case when a patient is transferred to another country for treatment: Would the doctor treating the patient abroad maintain responsibility for any follow-up or therapeutic care? Furthermore, if a dispute occurs during the treatment of a patient, would the government assume that since each side has different standards for determining clinical errors and compensation payouts, it should not establish any regulations at all — meaning that patients would be left to take on this risk?
As for the question of distribution of resources, there are few assessments on whether the opening of the medical industry to international exchanges will worsen the nation’s already unequal healthcare system.
The National Heath Insurance (NHI) system allows the reimbursement of self-paid medical expenses for treatment received abroad, but according to article 55 of the National Health Insurance Act (全民健康保險法), reimbursement is confined to “those afflicted with special illnesses ... or requiring local medical care due to unforeseen illnesses or emergency childbirth.”
There has been no discussion over whether the NHI system should pay for the treatment of Taiwanese who have been transferred abroad for medical treatment.
Given the prevailing trend toward globalization, the government is undoubtedly under pressure to open the medical industry to international exchanges.
The government needs to carry out an evaluation of and provide appropriate responses to the questions that might come up as a result of opening the medical industry. It should also plan complementary measures to avoid causing harm to both the rights and interests of Taiwanese and the nation’s medical insurance system.
Wu Chuan-feng is an associate research fellow at the Academia Sinica Institute of Jurisprudence.
Translated by Edward Jones
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US