The concept of privatization of health care and private health insurance often raises controversy and discussions about the role of the state in providing medical care. Today, the confusion was caused by Konfederat, who, although he identifies himself as a representative of a party with libertarian beliefs, presented populist demands. Unfortunately, he somewhat discredited the idea of freedom, an issue that requires much deeper thought and debate, and not overly simple election slogans. In the following article, I present an alternative vision of the privatization of health care, which probably optimally combines elements of freedom and regulation. This is a ready recipe for all those in power to quickly heal the system.
Point 1State regulation of the benefits basket. The first step in the proposed concept is to maintain state regulation of the benefits basket. This means that the government would continue to define the minimum range of medical services that must be provided to all citizens. This benefit package would constitute the basis of health care and indicate what benefits citizens can count on in each insurance company. It already exists today - this is the scope of services reimbursed by the National Health Fund. And it should not be subject to downward changes, but newer therapies should be gradually introduced. This is this critically important state element.
Point 2: The participation of private insurers A key element of this proposal is the opening of doors to private health insurers, who would operate outside the National Health Fund (NFZ). Citizens would have the right to choose between public healthcare and private insurers, who would offer a wider range of medical services and comfortable service conditions. Ultimately, everyone would probably deregister from the NFZ, and private, competing insurers would emerge in its place. Competition, almost always means higher quality services for the client, i.e., the patient.
Point 3: Redistribution of individuals currently funded by the state who do not pay contributions. An important aspect of the proposed model is the redistribution of individuals who do not pay health insurance contributions. Currently, the state covers the treatment costs for such individuals through the National Health Fund (NFZ). In the new concept, these individuals would ultimately be allocated proportionally among private health insurers. This would require the introduction of appropriate mechanisms and regulations to guarantee that these individuals receive equivalent medical care as those paying contributions to private insurers. In other words, let's say Insurer 1 would have to guarantee the same standard of service to those who have signed up with them as to a pensioner from Koszalin who is randomly assigned. Since we are paying for it anyway, let's leave it in private hands.
Point 4: Reduction of Personal Income Tax and Elimination of State Subsidies To compensate for the costs incurred by individuals paying contributions, due to the redistribution to individuals not paying contributions, I propose a reduction in personal income tax (PIT) by the amount of the subsidy currently paid by the state budget to the National Health Fund (NFZ) (e.g., for the unemployed). This would mean citizens would have more money available to pay for private health insurance. Simultaneously, the state would gradually reduce to zero the financial subsidies transferred to the NFZ. In other words, instead of going to the NFZ, this money would go into our pockets, although ultimately, individuals paying contributions would still have to pay slightly higher contributions to the insurer. But after all, someone has to pay for the treatment of the unemployed or other individuals not paying contributions.
Item 5: Healing the system A proposed model, combining effective state regulation and private health insurance, would aim to heal the healthcare system. Citizens would have greater freedom of choice and access to higher quality medical services. The redistribution of individuals not paying contributions among private insurers would ensure that no social group is left behind, and a reduction in personal income tax would contribute to greater financial balance for those using private insurance. Insurers would soon appear who would say, "We reward A&E departments" that admit patients within 15 minutes; sign up with us.
Summary:
The proposal presented here to combine elements of health care privatization and state regulation would aim to create a more flexible, effective, and at the same time private health care system. Opening up to private insurers, maintaining state regulation of the benefit package, redistributing people who do not pay contributions and lowering PIT would probably contribute to improving the availability, quality and efficiency of health care for all citizens. Implementing this requires good regulation, close cooperation between the public and private sectors and basing everything from the beginning on sound, non-corruption principles. And a tough response to every attempt to degenerate this truly simple system. If properly designed and enforced, very positive results for society as a whole could be achieved within a reasonable time.