Bridges John F
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Health Services Research Division, Case School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine, Room WG57, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-4945, USA.
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(2):109-17.
In recent years the private sector has played a more important role in the funding and provision of Australian hospital care as a consequence of federal government policies aimed at increasing participation in private health insurance (health funds). These policies include tax incentives, a 30% rebate on premiums and lifetime community rating (premiums set by age). While these policies have improved the short-term profitability of the private sector, its long-term success is not certain. This is because negotiations between health funds and private hospitals are often myopic, the nature of the insurance product may be inefficient, and there is a general lack of academic research on the private sector. This paper highlights the importance of the relationship between health funds and private hospitals in ensuring the long-term viability of the industry. It uses a simple overlapping generations model to demonstrate that it is not only the price that health funds pay that impacts on the capital value of hospitals, but also it is important how they structure their policies and attract individuals. The model demonstrates the potential benefits of implementing health insurance based on intertemporal transfers of funds rather than the current cross-subsidization. Such a policy would see health funds become an important store of capital. Also highlighted are the difficulties of discussing fundamental changes to the health care system. While recent health care reforms have been described as driven by ideology rather than evidence, in the Australian context there is little evidence on which to base policy. Researchers need to be more proactive in their consideration and evaluation of alternative health care policies. Through quality research on the private sector, academics can better guide policy makers at the national and institutional level.
近年来,由于联邦政府旨在提高私人医疗保险(健康基金)参与率的政策,私营部门在澳大利亚医院护理的资金筹集和提供方面发挥了更重要的作用。这些政策包括税收激励、保费30%的回扣以及终身社区评级(保费按年龄设定)。虽然这些政策提高了私营部门的短期盈利能力,但其长期成功尚不确定。这是因为健康基金与私立医院之间的谈判往往目光短浅,保险产品的性质可能效率低下,而且对私营部门普遍缺乏学术研究。本文强调了健康基金与私立医院之间的关系对于确保该行业长期生存能力的重要性。它使用一个简单的世代交叠模型来证明,不仅健康基金支付的价格会影响医院的资本价值,而且它们制定政策和吸引个人的方式也很重要。该模型展示了实施基于资金跨期转移而非当前交叉补贴的医疗保险的潜在好处。这样一项政策将使健康基金成为重要的资本储备。还强调了讨论医疗保健系统根本性变革的困难。虽然最近的医疗保健改革被描述为受意识形态而非证据驱动,但在澳大利亚的背景下,几乎没有政策依据的证据。研究人员在考虑和评估替代医疗保健政策时需要更加积极主动。通过对私营部门的高质量研究,学者们可以更好地指导国家和机构层面的政策制定者。