|
Voucher scheme needs revising |
|
|
Written by MICHAEL LEUNG CHO-YIU
|
|
Wednesday, 02 April 2008 |
In his Policy Address, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-Kuen said the
healthcare voucher scheme was designed to “give something back to our
senior citizens who had contributed so much to the development of Hong
Kong”.
 The scheme clearly is well-intentioned, but probably with wrong
positioning.
Under this healthcare voucher scheme, all citizens aged 70 or above will receive five $50 healthcare vouchers each year, which subsidizes them to acquire services provided by the private medical sector.
The vouchers are usable both for preventive services like medical examination and vaccination, and therapeutic services by western doctors and Chinese herbalists.
Excluding the amount of subsidy proposed, the scheme plays a good role in driving the local medical system to reform. The vouchers are only usable in the private medical sector.
This certainly diverts the elderly people, who have put much pressure on the public medical services over the years to the private market. It relieves the high demand in public clinics and paves the way for future medical reform.
Also, it strengthens market forces in the private medical market as the elderly people can now choose which doctors they go to.
Meanwhile, the scheme fully utilizes the advantage of private medical market- flexibility. There are nearly 650,000 elders qualified for this healthcare benefit. The flexible private medical market is able to adjust its size to take in this big leap in demand. The elders can also be benefited as they will not have to queue up in the early morning for their quota of government medical service.
But still it is the amount of subsidy which causes much criticism from the public. We think $250 a year is not enough to cover the elders’ medical expenses. For healthier elders, that may be enough. But for the general elderly people, they need a wide range of healthcare services from dental care to cataract removal. Such treatment from a private doctor probably will cost a couple of hundred to a thousand dollars, which is more than the value of the mere five vouchers.
In this sense, we think that the government should raise the amount of subsidy to fully put the scheme in the frame of “give something back” to our senior citizens, or simply a welfare policy. While the amount raised is still hotly debated between political parties and the government, we propose the subsidy should be doubled and raised to $500 each year. That will be more effective in financing the elderly healthcare services but still avoid people fully relying on the government subsidy.
The Food and Health Bureau seems to have put a wrong focus in explaining the scheme to the public. Donald Tsang, in his Policy Address, said it is more of a welfare benefit for the old people in Hong Kong, but health chief York Chow contradicted that in his following policy explanation, saying the scheme is not a welfare policy.
Such positioning of policy is confusing. Of course, it is a step worth taking in reforming the local medical system. But if it is what Donald Tsang said, as part of a welfare policy, then we truly think the subsidy of $250 a year is never enough to meet basic medical expense of the elderly.
Elderly people have contributed so much to our city’s prosperity and they should be helped in their late stage of life. As our government has record-breaking revenue in this financial year, it should also be able to take a bigger step forward in social welfare policies. Having a good will but not having a good execution plan is not what we want to see.
Edited by EWA MANTHEY
 |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 03 April 2008 )
|
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
