Now that the United Kingdom National Health has said that Homeopathy is not supported by any evidence to justify the government paying for it, why do private health insurers want to pay for alternative therapies when they don't provide efficacious treatments. I would think that wasting money on a treatment that is ineffective would be a priority for an insurance company.
They spend a lot of money on investigating fraud from the claimants, logically I think looking at some of the providers that may be supplying ineffective and costly treatments.
We (well those that have private health cover), pay premiums so that when we need medical treatment it is available. The cost of health cover increases each year to cover the increasing costs of medical treatments. The government subsidises these premiums by giving us tax breaks.
So are the government agencies happy about subsidising ineffective treatments. Especially when the budget for Health is under constant pressure for cuts. These cuts come directly from proven medical treatments, via public hospital funding.
Is it fair?
Is it reasonable?
I think it needs a closer look, initially by the insurance companies, ans maybe from a government point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment