To control the increasing prices of medical materials and to give the public more options when making healthcare decisions, the Ministry of Health and Welfare is to address a controversy over capping out-of-pocket co-payments by improving price transparency. The idea is that price transparency would promote competition and drive down prices.
Growing expenditures on medical materials is not unique to Taiwan. Did other nations solve the problem by implementing price transparency rules?
Imagine someone buying a new car. Since it is at the buyer’s expense, they are concerned about the price, so they gather lots of information, compare vehicles, test drive and make cost analyses.
However, the “market mechanism” for self-financed medical materials offers extremely little space for cost-effective decisionmaking. Medical expertise is needed and there are legal restrictions on advertising. People thus become heavily reliant on the advice of physicians.
So what are the benefits of price transparency?
Medical expenditures in the US are higher than in any other country, and it has long tried to reduce the cost of medical materials through price transparency.
However, according to a 2008 economic analysis on the transparency of medical material pricing in Health Affairs, a well-known journal on medical policy, pricing transparency might on one hand help patients make decisions, but on the other hand facilitates price-fixing among hospitals or device providers, which reduces price competition.
Moreover, because self-financed medical materials might be paid for by insurance companies, patients might not want to know the prices differences.
The analysis concluded that pricing transparency leads to price reductions only when four conditions are met.
First, there are price disclosures. The cost of gathering information is high, but can be reduced by price disclosures.
Second, the disclosed price is the current market price.
Third, there is competition among hospitals. Competitive pressures make hospitals more willing to share the benefits of cost savings with patients.
Fourth, the differences in hospital procurement prices are not mainly decided by procurement volumes.
These conditions might not be met in the context of all medical materials, and price-fixing might increase due to limited availability of certain products and services.
Some countries have strategies similar to the National Health Insurance Administration’s (NHIA) plan. For example, since February, India has been implementing price caps on medical materials, and medical material prices may not increase by more than 10 percent within one year.
India might go even further than the NHIA’s plan and considers regulating margins between wholesale and retail prices of medical materials, restricting it to 30 percent, which led to a US-India trade dispute.
Another example is in the US. Since last year, US hospitals have been required to publish the prices of all medical services on their Web site. Due to the complexity and length of the price lists, one news outlet said that “unless you’re a machine, good luck reading the prices.”
Given these trends, it is necessary to consider whether the main policy concern in Taiwan, a rich nation with universal health insurance coverage, should be to focus on low prices?
Chen Chih-hsiung is a professor and director of National Chiao Tung University’s Institute of Technology Law.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS