argues that holds costs down. A Swedish conservative says "not necessarily" .Certainly the Swedish system of central medical drug purchasing and freer use of generics isholding those costs in check. Remember we are paying only about 9% of GNP to the system,half of what the USA is paying. Yes, you could call the Swedish health system as a rationing system, but so is the American in which private insurance companies and employers aremanaging the rationing. I would suggest the Swedish system, therefore, has moreaccountability built in, to say the least.
The second lesson is that market-oriented reforms must permit the market to work.Specifically, government should not protect health care providers that fail to providepatients with a quality service from going out of business.
A Swedish conservative has no trouble with this. And even a lot of the modern social democrats would have no problem with that. A number of "more market oriented reforms" have in fact been put in place by the earlier social democratic majority governments. Sincethe Swedish system more and more is putting health care providers (including the government run providers) into competitive bidding, we are strengthening the positives of the so called "market" while we try to diminish the negatives. And while on the "market" issue, I would like to make one more point. Health care in myworld can never be an "insurance" issue. Something like 70-80% of all medical costs occur in the last 2-3 years of our lives.... a very predictable event. Insurance is for unpredictableoccurrences where a collective of payers share the risk for the unpredictable. To me healthcare is a fundamental social right, managed as such and paid for by all more or lessaccording to their ability to pay. To me that is pragmatism, not socialism or any other "ism" that conjures up a lot of "hot" feelings among people.
Researchers studying Swedes waiting for hip or knee replacement concluded that"almost every aspect of daily life is affected by the indeterminate wait for surgery andthe related experiences of pain and disability.
We now have a 3-month care guarantee in place which means if that or any other operation/treatment is not underway, the patient can go to another county where their carecapacity might be more for just that treatment/operation and could thus treat quickly. The"home" county then pays the treating country for the procedures. There are a number of other reforms that have reduced the "popularity" of clinics to run "wait lists" - so popular during the social democratic years - that also use more market oriented mechanisms toimprove health facility and personal usage. While we can always improve, we think we havedone a lot to keep the "pain and disability" level as low as possible. In a small country wherewe have an easier time to measure cause and effect than you do in the USA, we also see that we are more quickly getting people off the "sickness income insurance system" and morequickly back to being taxpayer than was the case earlier.
While rationing may permit the government to save on costs and thereby restrain healthcare budgets, putting patients on waiting lists is not cost-free. One study that examinedover 1,400 Swedes on a waiting list for cataract surgery found that 5.2 million kronaswere spent on hospital stays and home health care for patients waiting for surgery. Thatwas the equivalent of what it would have cost to give 800 patients cataract surgery.