In an excellent post (unfortunately not online), Andre Chuffart commented in The Times yesterday transparency in health insurance. A very consensual, that. Everyone is okay, and more is in the law, health insurers who practice the basic insurance required to undergo supervision and accountability. Unfortunately, this beautiful consensus conceals a trickle. Monitor accounts not far from a hundred companies, it takes time and resources, the Supervisor of Switzerland (in this case the BAG) was not sufficient for this task. The ticket yesterday so how the initiative Transparency health insurance " launched by Swiss doctors last fall, and presented here is an argument with .
What's this? Basically, for an insurer 'means' health insurance is a strange thing. Consider an example. If you have a big car, and that the repair in case of breakage is expensive, everyone agrees that you must pay your car insurance more expensive. It is the even for fire insurance, household insurance, in short such an adjustment for risk is considered normal in any insurance. Except in health insurance. Why? Because here is to cover a basic need. Health. A need that we cover collectively because we can not budget alone: he is too unpredictable. And where you can choose to make a car cheaper, or not having, it will be difficult to give up a body and its fragility. Social insurance, therefore, in the true sense. It is used to pool risk, not to make profit. For this reason, it can not select people healthier, or make people pay more for sicker.
Supplementary insurance, however, is seen as an insurance like any other. And may deny sick people and make a profit.
Managing these two species in the same company? In construing charitable, it is a trick acrobatics. In the most pessimistic interpretation, a lot of knots of conflicts of interest.
One reason why the ticket Andre Chuffart is interesting is that he criticizes the initiative of doctors, however, requires nothing less than the prohibition to both the basic insurance and supplementary insurance, for its restraint. According to him,
' This initiative is certainly laudable (...) (...) However, to achieve the goals of the initiative committee, amending the Federal Constitution is, to our eyes, a condition certainly necessary but not sufficient (...) But there are other measures that produce the effects expected by the initiative committee, including: I-Obligation
clarify and publish the executive compensation and the costs of administration and management of each insurer in the same group, and the method of allocating these expenses;
II-Requirement to limit the costs included in the calculation of insurance premiums complementary
III-Requirement to distribute supplementary insurance to policyholders 80% or 85% of over-Interest earned on investments (this solution is applied in Germany since 2001) and especially
-IV the requirement of a minimum charge of loss in health insurance complementary, that is to say the obligation to pay policyholders as benefits a minimum percentage of premium income. "
'Produce effects expected by the initiative committee, and these effects are? According to the initiators, the main goal here is to allow control of funds by the authority. You remember? The thing on which everyone agrees ...
We see that the agreement often looks like the glass of the picture. Fragile and not very transparent. Unless we have good reason to have this agreement. And suddenly the alternatives are few. Continue to make basic health insurance, social insurance, therefore, that the prospect for a body to experience more and more pressure-self-monitoring for the social could operate. 'The alternative to private insurance is not to try to counter that claim, but refuse to assume this role in society and to refrain from practicing health insurance '. Chuffart analysis has the merit of putting too often, dot the i. The fate of this initiative will show if the election is soon, or later ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment