An interesting healthcare approach

[Martinus]

Why would Poland be the way it is "normally" done? As far as I can tell, it is done differently in Germany for example.

yeah, plus, I am not sure I understand that model. Are there varying levels of service offered by the hospitals/doctors based on the kind of insurance one has? I am fine with that, but it hardly sounds the universal way of doing it.

The way it works, we have state owned hospitals (usually managed as companies by local authorities and municipalities) and we have private hospitals.

The national healthcare system operates through a national agency that has regional branches, which act as wholesale purchasers of healthcare services (it is funded through obligatory healthcare insurance contributions and the national budget). Each year they run public tenders and contract for services from providers (i.e. the aforementioned hospitals).

I think a similar system is used in Spain, for example.

[Martinus]

Why would Poland be the way it is "normally" done?

Because when we were doing it, the systems available globally have already been quite developed, so we did not grow it organically but rather adopted a popular/sensible system.

I'd imagine countries like Germany, that have a very old system, would have some unusual solutions.

[Ideologue]

We have a 2-tier system in Hong Kong.  We have nearly free and universal health care provided by public hospitals that takes care of everything.  It does a decent job of fixing anything major and urgent.  Say, you have cancer and the system does everything technology allows to fix it.  Free-of-charge. 

Where it does a poor job is treating chronic and non-urgent problems.  You have cataract and wants to fix it without paying?  It is a 2-3 year wait. 

That's where the private system comes in.  You don't mind paying US$200 to see a specialist?  You can do it within the hour.  No need to go through any GP.  You want the latest, baddest medicine in experimental stage, you can, if you can afford it.  You want a famous professor to operate on you, rather than some nameless guy from a remote public hospital?  You can.

Huh.  For once PRChina manages to be sensible.

Well, stop manipulating your currency!

[Brazen]

We have a 2-tier system in Hong Kong.  We have nearly free and universal health care provided by public hospitals that takes care of everything.  It does a decent job of fixing anything major and urgent.  Say, you have cancer and the system does everything technology allows to fix it.  Free-of-charge. 

Where it does a poor job is treating chronic and non-urgent problems.  You have cataract and wants to fix it without paying?  It is a 2-3 year wait. 

That's where the private system comes in.  You don't mind paying US$200 to see a specialist?  You can do it within the hour.  No need to go through any GP.  You want the latest, baddest medicine in experimental stage, you can, if you can afford it.  You want a famous professor to operate on you, rather than some nameless guy from a remote public hospital?  You can.

Interesting approach, the UK could learn from this.

[Monoriu]

Huh.  For once PRChina manages to be sensible.

Well, stop manipulating your currency!

The Brits designed it

The medical system on the mainland is a mess 

[Ideologue]

Ah, that fits in better with my prejudices.  Thank you.

Sina delenda est.

[Sheilbh]

Why would Poland be the way it is "normally" done? As far as I can tell, it is done differently in Germany for example.

I don't think there is a 'normal' healthcare policy, there's certainly no 'European' approach.

[BVN]

Why would Poland be the way it is "normally" done? As far as I can tell, it is done differently in Germany for example.

I don't think there is a 'normal' healthcare policy, there's certainly no 'European' approach.

True. If I remember correctly the study I read some time ago, you can divide the European healthcare systems in about 5 broad categories.

The study also focused on the costs to change from one system to another, and the results indicated that it is best to try to make your own system more efficient then to adopt a whole new system. The effort to set up a whole new national healthcare system is so enormous, that it is not worth it. For example, Ireland had studied the possibilities to change their NHS-type system with the Dutch system, but they abandoned their efforts quickly.
The study thus suggested that there isn't one fit-for-all healtcare system that works best. Furthermore, the healthcare system is something a large part of the population tend to find important and have had experiences with and people don't like to see a complete overhaul of something they are familiar with (granted that it works with a minimum of effiency and quality).

[grumbler]

I've always liked the German health care system, and when I researched some for the major health care systems for school a few years back, the German system was the one liked best by its users.  It was also one of the least expensive per capita.

[Zanza]

It was also one of the least expensive per capita.

From the studies I can remember, it usually ranked among the more expensive systems in Europe as a percentage of GDP (around 10%). Germany's GDP per capita is of course lower than that of many other nations with expensive healthcare systems (e.g. USA, Scandies, Netherlands or Switzerland) so the absolute per capita amount might be lower.

[grumbler]

From the studies I can remember, it usually ranked among the more expensive systems in Europe as a percentage of GDP (around 10%). Germany's GDP per capita is of course lower than that of many other nations with expensive healthcare systems (e.g. USA, Scandies, Netherlands or Switzerland) so the absolute per capita amount might be lower.

A valid point, and not something I examined.  The German model is currently running behind only the US (by a lot), Switzerland, and France. 

I'll have to look and see if it is still the one most popular with its recipients.

What always staggers me is that the Japanese pay 8% of GDP to cover 100%  of its populations; the US Federal government spends more than 6% of GDP to cover 28% of its population, and private health care spends another 10% to cover another 55% of the population.  The Japanese are not alone; the Brits pay just a bit more and also get 100%.

[hotshot]

Nah, it's well known that people are unable of taking care of themselves.

We are. That's why societies evolved.

Nicely put.

[DGuller]

Nah, it's well known that people are unable of taking care of themselves.

They are, but they're generally not very good at all facets of it.  If we all were perfectly able to take care of ourselves efficiently, civilization wouldn't develop.

[Iormlund]

I think a similar system is used in Spain, for example.

It's not really homogeneous. Each regional agency can do things slightly different - PP's Madrid puts more emphasis on private run hospitals IIRC while here the public sector will privatize secondary services within the hospital (say cleaning).

There's also quite a bit of what Monoriu described. There are long lists to see a specialist or get a test when no urgent actions are deemed necessary. The private sector (very cheaply for US standards) fills that void.

[Tonitrus]

Nah, it's well known that people are unable of taking care of themselves.

We are. That's why societies evolved.

Nicely put.

I didn't think Languish could fail so hard at seeing sarcasm.