The public is once more debating whether the National Health Insurance (NHI) should cover the expenses of pharmacy-only medicine. Benefit payments provided by the NHI for pharmacy-only drugs last year totaled NT$2 billion (US$65.2 million), Ministry of Health and Welfare figures show. The amount is based on a population of about 18.5 million people. If each person was charged NT$200 for the minimum medical service fee, the amount of diagnostic fees would be about NT$3.7 billion, medical and pharmaceutical expenses about NT$1 billion, and self-bearing medical fees about NT$2.7 billion. Altogether, the NHI provided about NT$9.4 billion last year. If the amount could be reduced, the nation would be able to introduce more up-to-date drugs and implement other insurance plans.
Drugs are generally classified into three categories: drugs with higher risk, stronger efficacy and greater side effects are designated as prescription drugs; milder ones are classified as pharmacy-only drugs; and the rest are over-the-counter drugs.
Some say that if the NHI stops covering pharmacy-only medicine, it would infringe on people’s right to pharmaceutical services and the probability of treatment delays would increase.
That is an arbitrary judgement, as all pharmacy-only drugs must go through three stages of clinical trials; their safety is guaranteed by every country.
Moreover, pharmacists in local drugstores remind their customers to see a doctor immediately if the medicine does not work well. This is how levels of healthcare and responsible self-medication are practiced, and is a standard process in most advanced countries.
However, the nation should consider public opinion before changing the NHI policy. To avoid negative reactions, the NHI should modify insurance plans incrementally.
Furthermore, rather than referring to medical specialty and number of patients as the major criteria, other factors must be taken into account, including the drugs’ safety, indications, timing of use, side effects and clinical necessity. For pharmacy-only medicine that would continue to be covered by the NHI, the government should also help pharmaceutical companies apply for certificates.
Carbomix, for example, is classified as a pharmacy-only drug due to its relative safety, yet it is also used as an emergency treatment. Therefore, Carbomix must be certified as both a prescription and pharmacy-only drug, so that people can purchase it at pharmacies, while its clinical use is covered by the NHI.
The NHI covers 841 items classified as pharmacy-only drugs. The government should remove the outdated ones from the list. Officials should consult academics and medical experts to review those items based on empirical data and accurate statistics.
Meanwhile, as pediatricians have pointed out, drugs for children under the age of 12 should be prescribed by doctors. The issue must be further discussed by officials and experts. If pharmacy-only drugs are covered by the NHI, would that make parents more willing to take their children to a doctor?
Each year, a budget is allocated to the NHI. Taiwan should not go against the international trend by allowing more benefit payments for pharmacy-only drugs. For now, reform should be implemented gradually, but ultimately, Taiwan should follow the example of advanced countries, where pharmacy-only drugs are paid at one’s own expense.
Huang Jin-shun is national policy adviser to the president and president of the Federation of Taiwan Pharmacists’ Associations.
Translated by Emma Liu
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS