Despite the National Health Insurance (NHI) premium increasing to 5.17 percent on Jan. 1 last year, the system’s finances are again in dire straits.
The Ministry of Health and Welfare has proposed a package of reforms, including changes to the portion of NHI fees borne by the public and the provision of a safety reserve fund.
In addition to the “fixed rate system,” setting fees according to the level of the hospital where treatment is sought, tests and repeat or refill prescriptions for patients with chronic diseases are no longer to be completely exempt from fees.
In the current NHI system, the premium contribution ratio is calculated according to which classification the insured person belongs to, and is shared between the insured, their registration organization and the government. An individual could pay anywhere from 0 percent to 100 percent of the premium. The premium itself is calculated according to the individual’s payroll bracket.
Consequently, the level of the premium is unrelated to how much a given individual might abuse the system.
The ministry’s reforms could be an important tool in curbing the excessive use of medical resources.
However, increasing the portion borne by the public is something of a double-edged sword. If the portion is kept low, it would not have the desired effect; if it is too high, the economically disadvantaged would be less likely to seek medical treatment.
Let us look at the charges for emergency room treatments, in which the portion borne by the public for serious category 1 and 2 issues has been reduced, and for minor issues has been increased.
The problem is that most people have no way of discerning whether their issue is serious or minor, and head to an emergency clinic because they want their problem dealt with promptly. However, they could be deterred by the possibility of having to pay for an expensive visit. This concern is greater among the economically disadvantaged.
Even with an upper limit on fees or exemption conditions to ensure fairness of access to treatment, it would not be easy to strike the right balance.
For example, if the fees for tests or drugs are capped at NT$100 to NT$400 and NT$200 to NT$300 respectively, it would still be much less expensive than paying for the tests or medication oneself without insurance, but there is no guarantee that this will lead to less demand for more expensive tests or drugs.
Maximizing the cost benefits of how much a person pays for medical treatment is not conducive to reducing expenditures. After all, even if the portion borne by the insured is increased, part of the cost of treatment for serious illnesses, which accounts for a large proportion — 30 percent — of medical expenditure, would still be partly exempt, so this would not necessarily improve the NHI’s financial situation.
I am not opposed to the “user charge” system, which has the potential to reduce medical expenditures quickly, but in terms of addressing the financial losses of the NHI system from one year to the next, it is difficult to see what other alternative there is apart from increasing premiums.
The government should find a way to factor an individual’s accountability for their own health into the calculations of individual premiums, so that insured people who do not avail themselves to vaccinations and preventive medical services could have their premiums increased.
In this way, even if the NHI fund is not increased, at the very least people will be encouraged to look after their own health and reduce the burden they might place on the health system.
Huang Jui-pei is a dietitian and senior medical affairs officer.
Translated by Paul Cooper
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS