As food and oil prices rocket all over the world, consumers are getting a crash course in economics: When demand increases, prices increase. Although food and oil dominate the headlines, life’s other essentials also obey this cast-iron law, including healthcare, which is threatening to bust government budgets all over the world. As with food, part of the solution lies in opening up trade and competition.
The Organization of Economic Community and Development estimates that world average healthcare expenditure last year accounted for 9 percent of GDP, up from just over 5 percent in 1970. The US now spends more than US$2 trillion per year on healthcare, eight times the amount in 1980. US healthcare costs are currently increasing by twice general inflation, a general trend in rich countries.
As populations grow older and more demanding, these inflationary pressures will increase. Politicians are finding cashed-strapped voters increasingly unwilling to stump up the large amounts of tax needed to fund government health systems, forcing them to deny treatments to patients in a bid to constrain costs. In the US, healthcare costs have become a major issue in the presidential election.
The last decade, by contrast, has seen very low inflation for other goods, partly because of a massive increase in global trade. The arrival of China and India as major new exporters has meant that most countries have been able to import goods cheaply, keeping prices down.
While the role of free trade in driving down prices and driving up quality has long been accepted by economists (and, to an extent, politicians), healthcare has been one area in which there has been almost no international trade. It is time for this to change.
Communications technology makes it increasingly easy for hospitals to outsource services such as diagnostics to laboratories overseas, cutting costs and treatment time.
Patients can get treatment overseas where costs are lower. Open-heart surgery in India costs only one-sixth of the price in the US, including travel, accommodation and medicines. If only 10 percent of US patients went abroad for 15 types of treatment, they and insurance firms could save US$1.5 billion a year, including travel.
Patients are already voting with their feet. In 2006 alone, Singapore treated 500,000 foreign patients, India treated 600,000 and Thailand around 1.2 million. Other favorite destinations include Malaysia, South Africa and Cuba. Taiwan’s Council for Economic Planning and Development believes it could bring in NT$7 billion (US$230.4 million) a year.
While the benefits of free trade in health are clear for rich countries, developing countries also stand to gain. Most obviously, there are opportunities for much-needed investment of foreign capital.
These financial opportunities would also give developing countries’ medical staff a far greater incentive to remain at home, reducing the debilitating “brain drain.” As more money came into the health sector, some of the burden on government healthcare would be removed.
Despite the significant benefits, only two developed countries have ratified a WTO agreement on trade in healthcare — Iceland and Norway. While developing countries such as Gambia, Jamaica, Malawi and South Africa are prepared to liberalize, wealthier countries seem bent on protectionism.
This reluctance is largely down to lobbying by interest groups in developed countries. Public sector unions seek to protect their members and industries from competition. Non-governmental organizations ideologically oppose trade in healthcare, claiming that only governments can ensure “equity” and “universal” treatment — even though public healthcare in most of the world fails patients miserably.
This is a massive wasted opportunity. Free trade in healthcare could help rich countries keep the lid on healthcare inflation while helping poorer countries attract investment and skills and retain valuable medical professionals.
For this to happen, developed countries must encourage insurers to cover overseas treatment and open up their medical sectors to international competition. Developing countries need to standardize their qualification and licensing requirements in order to attract customers and improve skills.
Healthcare doesn’t have to go the same way as food prices. Rich and poor countries should ignore calls for protectionism and liberalize their healthcare for the good of patients everywhere. Health tourism can be healthy for everyone.
Fredrik Erixon is director and Lucy Davis a trade policy analyst of the Europe Centre for International Political Economy, a think tank based in Brussels.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s