Thursday, May 12, 2011

Choices for the national patient

The wicked old Tories want to abolish National Health, I hear. One would be made to think that they intend to replace it with National Sickness. The choice their opponents would set before us is the NHS or the US model. Left-wingers are often fond of accusing the US of forgetting about the world beyond its doorstep; it is ironic that those same left-wingers should forget about the Continent beyond our own doorstep.

So let's leave the angry hordes of British lefties for more Continental climes, and ask ourselves how some other countries organise their healthcare systems. I'm going to draw most of this from Wikipedia, but I'm sure it's basically accurate.

Bear in mind that the opponents of reform invariably cast their concerns in terms which imply that what they really want is a centrally directed healthcare system: one giant super-hospital, with multiple branches throughout the nation, paid for entirely out of taxation.

First on our round-Continent trip, then, it's off to Sweden, that social-democratic paradise so beloved of the left (W). It has, like us, what is termed a 'Beveridge' system, as opposed to the other three we shall inspect, which have 'Bismarck' systems (src). The national Ministry of Health sets general policy and provides funding. County councils commission care from private providers, and raise most of the funding from local income taxation (how very Liberal Democrat!). Every doctor's visit and prescription has a small charge attached, but there is an annual cap on the amount that patients pay.

Next off, let's go to the place where everything is always in order, Germany (W). Here, they have an insurance system, where the government offers a sort of basic insurance policy which you can take, or you can opt to take private insurance instead. 85% of Germans take the government plan. Co-payments are a feature of the system, and a little over half the hospital beds in Germany are provided by public sector hospitals (ppt), with the rest being a mix of charitable and for-profit private provision. The private provision is growing, while the public provision is shrinking.

Well, let's follow the historically-usual route out of Germany and skip past the Maginot line by heading into the Netherlands (W). The Dutch have a system of "social insurance", in which policies cannot be priced according to age, medical history or other factors; instead, insurers pool the risks and charge roughly the same premium. About half the finance for the system comes from premiums, with the other half coming from taxation. Most of the healthcare system, including the insurers and hospitals, is privately run on a not-for-profit basis. Interestingly, the Dutch allow opt-outs (some Christian groups object to insurance), and so have a small, parallel healthcare savings system as well.

Finally, we'll enjoy some of the finer things in life by visiting la belle France (W). Widely regarded as having the best healthcare system in the world, the French are required to buy insurance from a public insurer according to their income. Doctors mostly form private practices, while provision of hospital beds is about two-thirds public, a fifth profit-seeking and a sixth charitable. French people pay up-front for their healthcare and then get typically about 70% back from the insurer: so much for free at the point of use!

Four major European countries. Four different healthcare systems. But all far more similar to each other than to the UK system, and all have the following key points:

  • Private delivery ranges from being the norm (Sweden) to a minority but accepted element (Netherlands, France).
  • Sometimes a flat levy (Netherlands), at others strictly proportional to income (France), all systems but the Swedish have a direct contributory principle at their heart, in addition to taxation funding.
  • Co-payments are entirely common, with costs either co-paid on the spot (Sweden), or the patient's cost being defrayed later (France).
  • The multiplicity of providers ensures in all four systems that patient choice is real and occurs, from insurer where.
If anything, the Government's healthcare reforms will make us more European. So are you forward-looking, progressive, European in your outlook? Then for pity's sake, support the healthcare reforms. Let's leave opposition to the Little Englanders who think the United Kingdom so far superior to the Continent we can learn nothing from them, and the reactionaries who think that the late Forties are just the years for us.

2 comments:

opinion prole said...

And then there's Japan.
Here the monthly national health insurance charge is geared to income. Clinics and hospitals are mostly private but can be university or city owned. You pay 10% to 20% of the cost of treatment in cash with a cap for long term or very costly treatment. As an in-patient you can share a room with others at minimum cost or have a private room if you pay. Hospitals offer excellent attentive care with state of the art technology.`Patients choose whichever doctor or hospital they wish and you can be seen by a top specialist just by walking in with your medical card, no need to ask your doctor first. Waiting times are short. Good hospitals attract more patients and flourish: bad ones - if there are any - close down. It works.
The British obsession with 'free at the point of delivery' is a red herring for handwringing lefties to whine about. There's nothing so expensive as something that's free and you will never, ever, get good service from a state run bureaucracy.

Fearsome Pirate said...

I like how our system in the USA is called a "free market," when this is actually how it works:

If you are below a certain income threshold or over 65, your health care is entirely financed via taxes. The government pays for whatever your doctor prescribes--the catch is that a central agency sets the prices. This accounts for 2/3 of the health care market. The rest is private, but the tax code largely prevents you from buying your own insurance and forces you to have a plan owned by your employer, which means you lose it if you change jobs. And now we have a new law requiring you to buy insurance if you don't have it.

But we don't have socialized medicine in America, no sir!