A few years ago, I characterized the prospective National Health Insurance (NHI) policy of “insuring major illnesses, but not insuring minor ones,” which the Cabinet was considering, as an “undead theory.”
This topic was taken up by several experts who asked how anyone could draw a line between major and minor illnesses. After that, the idea ceased to be a focal issue.
An “undead theory” is one that academic experts pronounce dead after they determine it to be invalid, but that is resurrected from time to time by non-experts.
One example was when medical specialists decided to play the role of economists by suggesting that the healthcare market should gradually raise the copayment limit in accordance with the “user pays” principle to avoid “wasteful non-essential” medical treatments.
The mass resignation in June at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital focused attention on the cost of medical tests and medication. Many physicians proposed increasing copayments as a way of avoiding “wasteful” treatment, making this a second “undead theory” in healthcare economics.
Tests, use of drugs and treatments can only get the stamp of approval after physicians have assessed a person’s health needs. This is standard healthcare procedure and shows that physicians are the main decisionmakers who carry out procedures on a patient’s behalf.
However, copayments give behavioral incentives to the patient. The underlying assumption is that patients must be the main decisionmaker with regard to their medical treatment. Such a policy gives rise to a number of serious basic contradictions.
First, if a patient uses “non-essential” treatments, the main responsibility for this lies not with the patient, but with the physician’s complicity or use of economic incentives instead of medical knowledge when prescribing a treatment method.
This kind of motive, which does not give prime consideration to the patient’s health, is contrary to medical ethics. It is also the reason the state must reform the reimbursement system to give physicians economic incentives to conserve medical resources, rather than incentivizing patients.
Second, since patients are not the main decisionmakers, any attempt to limit the use of medical treatments through patients’ copayments is unlikely to be very effective.
Third, the limited extent to which copayments can be effective includes both “essential” and “non-essential” medical services, because patients who lack specialized knowledge could make poor decisions that might be detrimental to their health.
Fourth, since increased copayments would mainly affect people who are in a weak position financially and physically, it would further exacerbate financial and health iniquities.
Fifth, the main reason copayments still exist in many countries is not to limit non-essential costs, but for insurers to generate substantial revenue without having to increase premiums, and for hospitals and clinics to improve cash flow management.
Sixth, as of 2015, 40 percent of the nation’s total health insurance expenditure came from the private sector, while 34 percent was paid out-of-pocket. These figures are much higher than in most industrialized nation and seriously detracts from the NHI’s second function of income redistribution. Raising household copayments might make this situation worse.
Finally, and most seriously, with this high percentage of private healthcare payment, the core value of social insurance — or “sharing financial risks” — will soon exist only in name. It is odd to see clinicians who work within the framework of social insurance claiming that its abolition would instantly embody the spirit of “user pays.”
Healthcare market reform cannot be fulfilled by more tinkering and sleight of hand. Showy moves and fancy footwork are not the right way to run a country.
Lee Jwo-leun is an associate professor at the National Taichung University of Science and Technology’s Department of Senior Citizen Service Management.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and