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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS