[ad_1]
Ispress is known to be facing serious financial problems, which can ultimately be attributed to two Supreme Court rulings. The provisions of these judgments have had a very adverse effect on the income of the aforementioned insurance companies, and their liabilities have therefore rapidly increased. Not only that, except for government intervention. There are concerns that the early bankruptcy of Ispress could bring a major crisis to the entire healthcare system. In fact, the situation has further fueled the debate about the country’s healthcare system.
In fact, if the government allows Ispress to fail and offers to transfer its customers to Fonasa, it will, for all practical purposes, run a single national health insurance company, similar to the NHS in the UK. First class institutions will be established.favored by the government
From an economic point of view, such a single insurance company is inefficient because of its monopoly and monopoly power. It will become a monopoly because it will be the sole health insurance provider for all practical purposes. It will be a monopoly because, in effect, it will also determine the amount of demand for medical services. And we know that monopolies and monopolies are not efficient. Moreover, in the case of this single insurer, implicit rents tend to translate into higher-than-optimal-wage jobs in the corporation rather than higher revenues for the government.
The previously described alternatives to centralization and nationalization of health—restricting and prohibiting freedom of choice—build upon what already exists. This can be achieved by significantly increasing competition between insurance companies (Fonasa and Isapress) and healthcare providers (hospitals, clinics, etc.). A core tool to enable this greater competition should be the definition of some standard health plan offered by all insurance companies (replacing the current hundreds of plans, which prevents any comparisons), the system of risk compensation systems between insurance companies is largely It has contributed to changes in insurance companies to a certain extent, and health subsidy programs for low-income people.
Like any crisis, the health crisis presents an opportunity to make progress. Indeed, the environment could be used to lay the groundwork for a national health system similar to the UK’s, which would be less efficient than the present one, in addition to limiting our freedom of choice. But it could also build on existing ones to create a health plan that is more effective, vastly expands the possibilities of choice, and is more equitable.
for Rolf Luderseconomist
[ad_2]
Source link
