Privatisation of South African health services--are the underlying assumptions correct?
Six key assumptions made by proponents of privatisation are critically appraised in the light of Canadian, US and UK studies. 'Counter' assumptions, equally credible, are: (i) the economic behaviour of the health-care market does not correspond to the idealized rules of the free market nor, given the nature of health care as a 'public good', should it do so; (ii) national health-care systems with a heavy emphasis on private insurance are as or more costly than universal public systems; (iii) private for-profit hospitals do not usually enjoy any cost-efficiency advantages over public hospitals; (iv) subsidizing individuals to purchase private care carries a risk of adding administrative costs, fueling the inflationary spiral in health care, and reducing public accountability of tax money; (v) user-fees and co-insurance will not deter over-utilisation without penalising and reducing legitimate use of health services; and (vi) savings from privatisation are unlikely except for the more affluent citizens of the RSA who will carry a slightly reduced tax burden--all others will pay more and may be deterred from seeking necessary care.
Naylor
C D
CD
Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
D002170:Canada; D006296:Health Services / Q000191:economics*; D006298:Health Services Administration; D010067:Ownership / Q000191:economics*; D011332:Privatization / Q000191:economics*; D013019:South Africa; D006113:United Kingdom; D014481:United States