Commercialization of Health Care: Good or Bad?

Its a very famous saying "money can buy anything". Even emotions, pleasures, joy etc. Can be bought in this materialistic world. But when it comes to health we can't deny the fact that it is completely dependent on the money factor. A rich person gets every accommodation only because he can afford it but on the other hand poor person starves even for a good diet and getting higher medical facilities is something what he can't even think of.

At the same time, commercialization also means increase in the cost of treatment which can be afforded only by people living in urban areas. Hospitals would therefore become inaccessible by rural people. Doctors, for profit, may ask for a lot of tests to be done which again cannot be afforded by the poor. Poor people can only get benefit from government hospitals. So govt should take steps to improve the conditions of public hospitals. !

India is digitizing very fast and I think if we make health also digital and connect general public through any Online Healthcare Platform then it will change the whole picture of health care in India. IMedicalHub Health Records is an initiative to offer compete healthcare online and make the general people able to track their complete health anytime, anywhere with an ease.

Hi friends,

In my view health care should not be commercialised. There is development in hospital, nursing home India. This is the result of huge development of science in India. But the people under BPL are not getting medical facilities.

Government should take care of that. Government should make new policies and to implement those policies which will result in proper medical treatment of the poor people.

Nowadays, doctors are becoming greedy. They don't pay attention to public medical center, rural areas. They concentrates on their clinic, private hospitals, nursing homes. So, to avoid these government should see whether doctors are doing their duties well or not.

Thank you.

I think people want commercialization in health care just because they feel government hospitals are not providing sufficient care to the patient and less cleanness. So, by looking into these facts I think the main problem is in the IMPLEMENTATION of the rule in the government sector. So, why are we running from our responsibilities. And private hospitals are costly just because they are spending money to buy new and advanced machines from OTHER countries. Therefore, if we start manufacturing these machines in INDIA itself, then surely they charge less, so that the common people can afford treatment there. SO, even if want COMMERCIALIZATION in health care first we need to take care of our responsibilities, we are the second largest country, therefore we need to manufacture these machines to make our TREATMENT cheaper.

Hi this is Samiksha.

I have read above all the opinions n also they are quite satisfying but I just wanted to say that Why always when there is talk about the commercial disaster the only example remain there is INDIA. I know that it may be not a developed country but in the field of medical lots of improvement has been done by INDIA. And I too think that commercialization of medicine would be regarded as the blessing for the whole nation.

If we talk about the poverty which is faced by the people while giving the fees of the private hospitals, so for that there is the phrase in Hindi that is, "Sar Salamat to Pagdi pachas". In today's world life is the important component n we have to life it not for ourselves or family but also for the nation. Poverty is not only the main reason for not supporting the commercialization of medical sciences but also less awareness about its benefits.

Commercialization of health care can either be good or bad, bearing in mind that in society we have the poor and the rich. Though it can improve service delivery in the health care, on the other hand there is some degree of skepticism in this regard as it likely to lead to exploitation of people resources. Government care more the well being of its citizen while the private health service providers care more of the medical cost as well profits.

Commercialization of health care either her good or bad. The coin has two sides of positive and negative. If we urgency any accident or any reason, also require quick and timely. So Commercial health care provides better than the government Hospital. But government improve the technology, provide good service so, definitely not required to commercial health.

I conclude that it is required both, if any urgency when we do not reach in any government hospital, we required to go private hospital near the location.

Following the large scale macroeconomic reforms introduced in many countries since the 1990s, there has been a shift in the provisions of public goods, including health and education. Certain Asian and Latin American countries have opened up the medical care market for privatization and introduced the concept of user fees in public health services. The concept of segmented medical care was given in the World Development Report itself- offering private, market-oriented better quality care for the rich. By comparison, the public health facilities look woefully inadequate. They were widely criticized, and the government expenditure on health declined sharply.

This change in the healthcare sector where private players have started treating it as a flourishing business is premised on the view that the public sector is unable to act as a sole provider of those services within the backdrop of shortage of resources. Even when there is no recession, the capital need to be deployed in several other sectors mainly industry, agriculture and infrastructure so that health care falls short of funds. It is now being realised that greater competition is the only option for better quality services and improvement in the overall efficiency of these services.

The advocates of reform hold that the state should undertake only minimal interventions in the economy, and for health service it should provide only the essential service. This view totally overlooks the issue of incompatibility between public welfare and private provision. More importantly, this approach does not address the problems of poverty, inequality among social classes, religious groups and gender aspects. The poor and socially backward classes depend on public provision of health care almost entirely.

The system of health care as it is present in most of the developing countries is that while the poor would go for the public care for essential clinical services, the rich would prefer high-tech private medical care. Consequently, consumer choices of health services remain restricted to only those who can afford to pay for services in highly expensive private hospitals and clinics. The 'willingness to pay' is often equated with 'ability to pay'. But some studies have shown that in some family's highly expensive treatment of serious diseases like heart ailments, cancer, nervous system disorders have lead to erosion of family assets, high indebtedness. Some families have known to resort to inadequate diet, drop out of school children, especially girls.

This is known as medical poverty trap. This takes place so often and in every region of our country that we have no reason to accept that the government should provide only the essential clinical services. They need medical care against diseases like respiratory infections, renal problems, intestinal disorders, vitamin deficiencies, arsenic poisoning, fatal accidents, mental disorders, etc. Under gross economic equalities, the application of market system and sticking to the segmentation of health services will pass on the benefit only to the rich.

In India the post-reform era shows a gross neglect of the health scenario. Investment in health sector yields only long-term gains which seem to be at odds with short term political gains which our politicians always tend to seek. Under the Structural Adjustment Programme funded by IMF-World Bank, the government's share in total health has not shown a commensurate rise with the increase in population. Due to poor access and quality of service, the rate of utilization of public facilities has in fact shown a decline over the years as per report of the National Sample Survey Organisation. It has also been observed that whatever public facilities are available they are utilized more by the rich sections.

The share of richest 20 per cent for inpatient bed days is about 6 times more than that of the poor. In monetary terms, less than 10.2 per cent of total government investment on health service goes to the poor and to 31 per cent to the richest by comparison. It is clear that the poor spend disproportionately higher per cent of their incomes on health service.

More than 30 per cent of their income goes for treatment for minor ailments, infections and communicable diseases. The neglect of preventive health care in public health policy is the chief cause of this situation. Out of the total government expenditure, only 13 per cent is spent on primary care, 25 per cent on public health research and a hopping 60 per cent for the secondary and tertiary health care. Due to this, 55 per cent of rural primary care is sought from the private practitioners, of whom many are unregistered and another about 24 per cent from private clinics or nursing home. In this backdrop, the issues of traditional medical systems and their usage appears to be of great importance in India.

Another unexpected trend needs to be mentioned. Although market-based reforms in health care are advocated in almost all the developing countries, the state continues to play a major role in the delivery of health care services in developed countries, especially in America, West Europe and Australia. However, the degree of commercialization of health care services as measured by the spending of the private individuals varies from country to country.

The results of commercialization of healthcare, considered generally, and not with specific reference to India have not been very encouraging. The observations made in this regard show that countries with better health outcomes, have significantly lower commercialization in health care services; better care at birth is associated with more of GDP spent by the government on health, but not with more private health spending to GDP; higher commercialization at primary health care is associated with greater exclusion of children from treatment when indisposed.

It is quite evident that the introduction of private competition and user charges in public health discriminates against the sick and the poor. The condition of health care system in all big and small cities in India shows that the poor have no or little access to health care facilities. The public hospitals are all full of patients; beds are not available wherever we go. The medicines are always short in government hospitals. The situation in remote areas of the country and most of the villages leaves much to be desired. On the other hand, the rich have access to the health care everywhere. In cities, private clinics, hospitals and diagnostic centres are in every part. They welcome patients who can afford expensive treatment.

Commercialisation of education is certainly against the policies of social equalities which India aims to bring. It has also led to many undesirable practices. Private clinics often subject the patients to conduct many tests which are not necessary. They admit patients who do not require admission. This is done to earn more money. Operations are performed at times when they are not required or are bad for the patient's health. However, some hospitals and clinics keep a strict code of conduct and do not adopt such unscrupulous practices. Their high charges are justified because of high cost of inputs.

The fact cannot be denied that the commercialization of health care has supplemented the public facilities in this regard. It has rather helped the government to maintain a high level of health care in the country. In all major and small cities and towns, private health centres are open day and night and are ready for any emergency. They are saving the lives of thousands every day. The private hospitals and clinics have provided employment to lakhs of doctors, nurses and other staff across the country. The government is earning huge revenue in the form of taxes.

These clinics, diagnostic and treatment centres have also created a huge demand for health care products, instruments and medicines. This industry has flourished to become the fourth largest health care industry in the world. The economy owes a lot to this commercialization. Today, India has a strong and sophisticated tertiary health sector where people from outside the country come for medical tourism. Given this situation, India can take advantage of its indigenous medical system to ensure cheap, accessible and capable medical care for her population, particularly the poor. India has many systems like Ayurveda, Unami, Siddha, etc. Which it has developed since the ages. These systems need to be expanded and exploited for improvement of general health of the people.

Everything now becomes a business. Marketing strategy in medicines causes a poor. Infrastructure in govt hospitals is very poor. So, private takes it as advantage earning huge. High-class peoples spend a lot of money for health care. But, pours only way is govt hospitals. The increase of private hospitals leads to commercial business. So, govt should take action to improve the govt hospital standard and quality of lives.

In my opinion, commercialization is good for health care. It's due to in private hospital you will get more facility rather than government hospital. Now I am talking about what Indian government did on the field of a government hospital. They have done tremendous work to improve the facility of government hospital but as I know India is the 2nd largest country according to the population. So whatever government is doing that is not fruitful to us. So if commercialization is not happened then rich as well as poor family will face many problems in healthcare.