"Zu Beginn des 2024 wurde die Erstattung für Patienten von acht Euro auf 30 Euro pro Besuch erhöht. Ziel war es, Warteschlangen im öffentlichen Gesundheitswesen zu verkürzen, indem mehr Menschen ermutigt wurden, einen privaten Anbieter zu wählen.
Jetzt wird fast dreimal so viel Steuergelder für die Subventionen wie zuvor ausgegeben, aber die Anzahl der Besuche ist laut KELA -Daten um nur etwa zwei Prozent gestiegen
Mika Kortelainen, Professorin für Gesundheitsökonomie an der Universität von Turku und Forscher am finnischen Institut für Gesundheit und Wohlfahrt (THL), sagte, dass die Subventionreform aufgrund der Zahlen scheiterte.
"Die Begünstigten scheinen diejenigen zu sein, die ohnehin einen privaten Arzt besucht hätten, selbst bei niedrigeren Erstattungen."
https://yle.fi/a/74-20177993
Von FinnishAlien
6 Kommentare
Interesting this is getting down voted. I am curious as to if those downvoting have something to say or refute this. Genuinely curious as this suggests that it is playing out how I would have predicted…
Happy to be wrong and have better more affordable healthcare for all.
It was obviously going to go exactly like this.
Ah, so the thing everyone knew would happen and told the administration would happen happened. Would you look at that.
Who could’ve guessed that Kokoomus makes politics which benefits the private healthcare companies, but not the common people?
Shocking. Absolutely shocking. Who could’ve seen this coming (literally everyone).
Bad article. It’s just cherry picking to create a reaction.
What should be quoted is this:
‘Kela research professor Hennamari Mikkola noted that part of the subsidy increases has ultimately gone to private medical companies, which raised their prices at the time of the reform.’
That would be an actual problem and it’s a classic corporate problem. Then again what is the actual official inflation. Can we trust that it is measured correctly or is does some shrinkflation(smaller packs and lower quality) in goods hide the actual inflation.
Quoting things like ‘nearly 3 times as much tax money spent’ is just ment to agitate potential blind readers. It sounds outrageous. Yet it isn’t. Because if the reform was ‘a success’ the number would be e.g. 6 times as much or more…
And the article measures a 2.3% increase in overall private healthcare visits. Well wow. We now have two random numbers put together that tell us nearly nothing.
What’s the numbers for the public sector in comparison? Rise or fall? How does this 2.3% tell us anything about impact on public sector? What was the overall health situation in the country? Could it be that maybe some percentage was able to still go to private sector namely because of the reform?