Rising health care costs in developed countries makes it difficult for many people to find the right medical care. From 2011 to 2012, health care spending in the United States increased by 3.7 percent, surpassing US $ 2.8 trillion or US $ 8,915 each. According to some estimates, the latest figures were close to 3.8 trillion. Doll. USA with government spending on a whopping 17.9% of GDP.
Australians spent $ 132.4 billion on health care, and people in the UK spend $ 24.85 billion. Government spending in both countries makes up 9–10% of GDP, which may seem more manageable than the United States, but health leaders in both countries are firmly committed to preventing any escalation of these percentages.
Given the high costs of healthcare all over the world, many owners are wondering whether the introduction or adjustment of copayments will improve health outcomes.
This topic is hotly debated in Australia, where the liberal government offered joint payments for visits to general practitioners in its latest Federal Budget statement. However, despite the fact that health insurers seem to be obsessed with costs, the question is that copays actually improve health outcomes for these countries?
Health benefits and benefits: is there a correlation?
Researchers have studied the effects associated with the effects of health effects for many years. The RAND experiment was conducted in the 1970s, but recently a new report was prepared for the Kaiser Family Foundation. Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D., from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, studied the RAND experiment and found that high copayments can reduce public health use, but cannot affect their health outcomes. The study was accompanied by a wide layer of people who were rich, poor, sick, healthy, adults and children.
In a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that reverse justice applies to older people. Those who had higher surcharges, reduced the number of visits to the doctor. This worsened their illness, leading to costly hospital care. This is especially true for those who have low income, low education and chronic diseases.
Although we can intuitively feel that co-payments in healthcare can add value to our own health, these two studies suggest that this is not necessarily the case. In fact, higher payments may result in additional health care costs for the health care system due to the indirect increase in the number of hospital beds for the elderly.
Those who are not senior citizens may be able to avoid inpatient treatment, since they do not have a high medical risk and, therefore, are less susceptible to the adverse effects of such co-payments. Having drawn any conclusions about the implementation of the surcharge, we could also draw lessons from the correlation of health outcomes, and this is another consideration when studying the effects of surcharges.
Drug payment: does it affect adherence and health outcomes?
The study, funded by the Commonwealth Fund, showed that when the American insurance company Pitney Bowes eliminated the co-payments for people with diabetes and vascular diseases, drug adherence improved by 2.8%. In another study on the effects of reducing or eliminating medications, it was found that patient compliance increased by 3.8% for people taking medications for diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and congestive heart failure.
Considering that adherence to medications is important when you are trying to determine whether treatment costs are affecting health. When people take medications as prescribed for the prevention or treatment of diseases and illnesses, they have better health outcomes. A review of the literature published in the US National Library of Medicine (MIH / NLM) explains that many high-cost patients were associated with reduced adherence to drugs and, in turn, poor health outcomes.
The ratio of drug adherence to health effects is also found in other parts of the world. According to the Australian medical applicant, the increase in copayments depends on low-income patients and chronic diseases requiring multiple drugs. When they cannot afford their medicines, they either reduce or stop many of their medicines, which can lead to serious health problems. These patients need more visits to the doctor and in severe cases - inpatient care.
The effects of drug side effects on health outcomes were also found in the study “Free Rx-Event and Economic Evaluation after Myocardial Infarction” (MI FREEE). Non-white patients with a heart attack were more likely to take their drugs after a heart attack, if the supplements were eliminated, which significantly reduced their number of readmission.
Treatment results based on medical and medical care?
Is it possible that costly supplements can only affect health for people who are on multiple drugs? The study is similar to the fact that this may be so. It seems that people go to a doctor less when high co-payments are high enough, but it seems that older people are the ones who end up suffering from poor health outcomes due to the lack of regular medical supervision and possibly treatment. Reducing adherence to drugs seems to have the greatest impact on health outcomes, especially when prescription drugs are intended to treat a disease or illness. It seems that older people and people who need a few medicines will benefit most from lower copayments in terms of improved health outcomes.
Should there be a surcharge for visiting doctors in countries like Australia?
Therefore, my thoughts are that if additional payments are made to visit a doctor, we must provide exceptions for those who cannot afford it, for example, retirees and pensioners. We also need to consider putting a cap on a surcharge so that those with chronic conditions that really require several medical visits are not ludicrous because of their pockets.
Human nature is such that when we get something for free, it is often not properly evaluated. I think that placing a nominal price for our health care is good in Australia, since I believe that the vast majority of people will appreciate the overall good quality of the medical care we receive in this country.
Payment is suitable for those who can afford it, and should not be at the expense of those who can not. This supports the promise of equalizing health laws that Australia seeks to continue.
Here we must be careful about how we discuss this issue, and do not put the problem in one generalized basket. I have a very strong attitude to the health care system, which is adaptive and adapted to individual needs, and this is what we should expect in our discussions on copayments.
What do you think?
