The decision by the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) to
cut down on some services it previously offered is a double-edged sword
that could erode gains it had made in winning over customers.
Complaints
with the outpatient capitation care in particular have seen many
physician-staffed facilities pull out leaving less than three per cent
offering doctor consultations in the OPD. The chief question is how
medics can provide for the health needs of a patient at Sh300 for four
months. This amount is meant to cover consultations, diagnostics and
medicines.
From an actuarial perspective, it can only
work where efficiency is high and huge volumes of patients are channeled
to such a facility, achieving a low-margins-high-volume model. The new
strategy to expand accredited facilities means fragmented patient pools
and barring magic from these facilities, a certain loss-making period.
What
is making it harder is also NHIFs inability to adhere to set financial
and contractual timelines as was exhibited in the previous financial
year.
Three affected services of the scheme are imaging, surgeries and
renal care. Though previously hailed by renal physicians for including
dialysis as a fully covered item with sessions based on the patient’s
outcome and the physician’s discretion, this new directive will leave
both the patient and the insurer none the better.
In
medicine the adage half a loaf is better than none does not apply. Due
to limited dialysis sessions, if a patient does not recover, the insurer
still pays for the few session given.
If they
deteriorate because of this they now become inpatients where the insurer
will again have to pay for the bed stay. Essentially, this translates
to the NHIF having paid twice for a service they would have paid for
once.
In the unlikely event of a demise of the patient
due to deterioration of renal function, especially for civil servants,
the NHIF will have to pay for the life component of the cover. The main
problem for the NHIF is that it is choosing to do too many things, some
of which it should not even be venturing into. The life component in
particular is baffling. For a struggling insurer with a product priced
almost ten times below the market average, how it hopes to meet its
financial needs is hard to envision.
Either the
product is to be repackaged or the premiums raised. The anticipated
increase in members of the public joining the scheme will also not help,
if the fundamental flaws and hiccups experienced by the stakeholders
are not addressed.
What do patients desire and what are
service providers not happy about? Once these two are addressed a long
term win-win situation will be arrived at.
Feedback: email: info@healthinfo.co.ke Twitter: @healthinfoK
No comments:
Post a Comment