Deber Raisa B
Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto.
Healthc Pap. 2004;4(4):51-60; discussion 80-4. doi: 10.12927/hcpap..16854.
Arguments about where private sector healthcare delivery fits within a publicly funded system should distinguish among types of private delivery. In Canada, most healthcare delivery is already private, albeit not-for-profit (e.g., hospitals) or small business (e.g., physicians, dentists). The expectation that corporations provide a return on investment to shareholders is more problematic if the dual loyalties that professionals have as agents of their patients conflict with the profit imperative. Consideration of where such firms can generate their profits, and the "production characteristics" of healthcare, suggests that certain sectors lack the contestability, measurability and complexity needed to make competitive markets function effectively. Neither is it likely that competition can co-exist with requirements for a single payer. In that connection, it must be recognized that the incentives inherent in a corporate structure, all other things being equal, appear inimical to many desired outcomes of a healthcare system. These tendencies can be controlled, but only through fairly elaborate measurement and monitoring of performance, which carry their own costs, and which smaller providers may be unable to meet. Chodos, MacLeod, Romanow and Kirby have done a great service of reminding us where we want to go--and where we do not.
关于私营部门医疗服务在公共资助体系中的定位的争论,应该区分不同类型的私营医疗服务。在加拿大,大多数医疗服务已经是私营性质的了,尽管是非营利性的(如医院)或小企业性质的(如医生、牙医)。如果专业人员作为患者代理人所具有的双重忠诚与盈利需求相冲突,那么企业要为股东提供投资回报的期望就更成问题了。考虑到这些公司能从何处获利,以及医疗服务的“生产特性”,这表明某些领域缺乏使竞争性市场有效运作所需的可竞争性、可衡量性和复杂性。竞争也不太可能与单一支付者的要求并存。在这方面,必须认识到,在其他条件相同的情况下,公司结构固有的激励措施似乎不利于医疗体系的许多理想结果。这些倾向是可以控制的,但只能通过相当详尽的绩效衡量和监督来实现,而这本身是有成本的,而且小型医疗服务提供者可能无法满足这些要求。乔多斯、麦克劳德、罗曼诺和柯比为提醒我们目的地何在——以及不在何处——做出了巨大贡献。