It seems to be a year where we talk about cost containment of health. Last fall, the Federal Court issued a ruling ( 9C_334/2010, for the curious) I will comment to you all soon. And the Federal Department of the Interior shall make a decision on decision on that. On the merits, the better! It's been far too long that the question did not discussed. So as an introduction to what will probably become a series of posts over time, I am giving you something I wrote some time ago already, elsewhere. About where to put the limit when the limit ... health care costs:
"(...) it is easy to agree on the necessity of refraining from what "n ' is not reasonable. "The problem is that we do not all have the same understanding of what is" reasonable. "To complicate matters further, we have the unfortunate but understandable tendency to change my mind depending on whether we are in turn the patient who needs attention, or that the insured pays the bill. If only there was a "universal meter" to determine what care is reasonable, we might refer to fixing our limit, but this kind of test does not exist. Unfortunately, or fortunately for supporting the idea that individuals must have their say, so we have to adopt a "reasonable limit" and we agree. The limit is the most defensible one that can be considered the best by all concerned, then they know they are all at risk of being disadvantaged by the cracks. "
Who's that, people at risk? Basically, it's everybody. Same source:
"(...) the equity and solidarity that underpin Europe's health systems, are "useful" to something. They are the sign of a society that cares for all its members, including the most vulnerable. We recognize a right to everyone to have access to health care. The "best attainable standard of health is also recognized as a fundamental right by WHO . Health is a prerequisite essential so that everyone has a fair chance to have a good life . But in addition, solidarity and fairness of our health care system, we offer more security to all. Alone, I'm thank you for sudden illness and expensive to treat. With my fellow citizens, this risk is amortized as shared. We do not know who will fall ill, or who will be depleted by illness, so we may all one day become victims of a health system that would disadvantage the poor or sick. This risk is not purely hypothetical. A study recently published in the journal Health Affairs serious shows that medical costs are involved in half of bankruptcies in the United States, and that 75.7% of these people were initially insured . [small note, this was before the housing crisis, that ...] A system that tolerates that one ignores the poor and the sick quickly becomes useless for even those who come to need whatever their starting point. In short, any strategy of medicine at several speeds, we may one day find ourselves in the last class. "
equity of the system is therefore one of the major yards that must judge the distribution measurements in an area like health. It is a subject that we will review. This principle, fortunately, does not really questioned in Switzerland. But as is often the devil is in the details, because the protection is often more difficult than expected. And this is not to forget way. In the meantime, I appreciate your feedback. The elimination of reimbursement for the telescope, the charge for meals in the hospital, coverage for complementary medicine, increasing from generics, the enhanced surveillance of diseases funds, what do you think?
Question 1: You think it will have an effect (good or bad) on health care costs?
Question 2: You think it will have an effect (good or bad) on the fairness of our system?
Question 3: good idea, not a good idea?
I must say that there are many ideas that I like in there. A priori. But it is early. And we'll talk.
0 comments:
Post a Comment