Sustainable health care

Posted on September 12, 2011 in Health Delivery System

Source: — Authors: – health
September 12, 2011.    By Mark Rovere, The Windsor Star

In response to an advisory panel report commissioned by the Canadian Medical Association, CMA president Dr. Jeff Turnbull conceded that when it comes to health care financing, all options should be considered in order to manage the unsustainable growth in health care spending. The report provided 10 recommendations; among them, changing the way that hospital services are financed and allowing greater competition in the delivery of publicly funded medical services. But the most contentious endorsement was related to patient funding; specifically the use of user fees.

Available economic evidence and international experience support Dr. Turnbull’s call for user fees. Every country in the developed world has the same social goals for health care as Canada – universal access. Yet, nearly all of them also have some form of patient costsharing where patients are responsible for contributing to a portion of their health care costs. In many European countries, those who cannot afford to contribute are either given a tax-funded subsidy or are exempt altogether. Notably, these countries achieve universal health care without the long wait times that have become the standard in Canada.

The fundamental problem with the way health care is financed in Canada – also the primary reason health care spending across most provinces has grown at an unsustainable pace – is that patients bear no responsibility for the costs of the medical services they use. That leads to an unawareness of price, and that has created a situation where, for example, people use their local hospital emergency ward for minor bumps and bruises, something they may otherwise think twice about doing if a minor fee was required.

In fact, economic research shows that patients do react to price signals. Research from the Rand Health Insurance Experiment, the largest social science experiment in history, shows that patient cost-sharing is effective in reducing unnecessary use of medical goods and services. Overall, the study found significant differences in health care utilization between participants with a free care plan (no cost-sharing) and those with a cost-sharing plan. Importantly, the study concluded that while the use of health care was reduced, it did not result in increased negative health outcomes for most people. The exception was a small percentage of individuals who had a chronic health condition such as high blood pressure.

The Rand study concluded there is no need to shield most people from the entire cost of health care. They noted that when it comes to user fees, it would be far more efficient to exempt only those people who have chronic health conditions requiring regular preventive medical treatment. After all, they are the only people whose health outcomes might be affected by exposure to user fees.

Critics of user fees claim they transfer costs from third-party payers to patients. That is precisely why we need them. The real world tells us that insurance can increase the demand for health care. As with any type of insurance, when people are shielded from the costs of a good or service – and the good or service is considered highly valuable (like health care) – they will demand more of that service because it costs them little or nothing up front. This is rational and predictable behaviour.

< >

Tags: , , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 11:12 am and is filed under Health Delivery System. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply