Paradise postponed
By : Anna KociNska
Last week, the Sejm postponed the introduction of private Patients Funds, saying their creation had to be addressed by an act separate from the existing 1997 insurance and healthcare act.
If created, the private funds would compete with 16 regional public Patients Funds that collect and administer compulsory healthcare contributions and contract out medical services through public and private healthcare facilities.The decision came as the Sejm amended the 1997 act, which provided for the introduction of private Patients Funds as early as January 2002.
"We are not going to renounce that concept, but neither 2002 nor 2003, as suggested by the government, are realistic (dates for introducing private funds)," said Tadeusz Zielinski, a Freedom Union (UW) deputy and member of the multi-party healthcare committee. "We simply don't want to mislead potential investors interested in establishing such funds. The current law is insufficient, so we need to send a message that it's still not the time (to introduce private funds)." According to Zielinski, the separate act is unlikely to come into being during the Sejm's present term.
Once private Patients Funds are established, patients would be able to register with both publicly run and private Patients Funds while paying the monthly contribution of 7.5% of their income that now goes only to the former.
According to estimates by market research company Pentor, most of the respondents who claimed they would join private funds came from small cities with populations of less than 50,000. Health Ministry studies indicate that 10% of respondents were ready to transfer their contributions to private Patients Funds.
"The existing (Patients) Funds are not against the introduction of competition," said Zbigniewa Nowodworska, spokeswoman for the National Association of Patients Funds. "It would put an end to all those accusations that we are a monopolist."
According to Nowodworska, the introduction of private Patients Funds would enrich the medical insurance market. "Every country with a compulsory health insurance system needs additional kinds of insurance," she said. "Private Patients Funds could also attract foreign investment."
But Zielinski said that private companies would push the public Patients Funds off the market because they would attract young and healthy patients while the old and sick remained with existing funds. "The public Patients Funds won't be able to afford the treatment of the old and the sick because most of the money (contributions) would go to private funds, which would attract the healthiest from among the insured," he said.
Nowodworska said, however, that the private funds "would have to pay a certain contribution to other funds that are financially weaker" as existing funds are required to do. Under current regulations, every Patients Fund must be prepared to subsidize less viable funds with up to 30% of their patient contributions.
But despite the delay, private medical institutions remain optimistic.
According to Agnieszka Szpara, director general of the private medical group Medicover, those who oppose the introduction of private Patients Funds are worried that those funds would manage their money more efficiently and consequently provide better services. "There is no better way to cure the healthcare system than by introducing honest competition," Szpara said.
