prasad1
Active member
Poverty and its alleviation has been, perhaps, the most recurrent theme in India’s political discourse since independence. Yet, an oft-ignored fact for those interested in poverty alleviation is that catastrophic health expenses are the biggest reason for pushing individuals and families into poverty. The poor cannot afford to be sick because they cannot afford to get well.
This raises some critical questions. Why do the poor have such dismal access to healthcare? Why is it that our investments in the health system are so unimpressive? Perhaps the most critical question is this: why do close to 70 per cent of India’s sick, mostly belonging to the poor or lower middle class, choose to go to the private sector when there is ostensibly free healthcare in the public system?
..............................
Yet sickness is such a state that even the most discriminating consumers can be exploited. Imagine you are a poor person living in an urban slum with a cough and fever. After ignoring it for weeks you decide to seek help. Initially you try the government health centre. This, you realise quickly, is not an option if you are a migrant worker or a daily wager. So you end up in the private sector. In all probability your local slum doctor will be a quack. The treatment you will receive will possibly be inappropriate. You may feel better briefly or get sicker with time — it’s a matter of time. But you will go back because your options and time are both limited.
If you are lucky and can afford it, you might actually get to see a real doctor, though not necessarily with the best outcomes. For starters, you may be asked to do a battery of tests. The tests can be done only from particular labs to ensure reliable quality and kickbacks. If the tests are clear, pray to whichever god you worship. If, however, you have a common disease like tuberculosis, the nightmare has just begun.
If the realisation that you have TB or another such ailment doesn’t terrify you, the expenses will. By this time you will have probably spent your savings and are in or about to be in debt. However, there is still no guarantee of appropriate treatment or complete recovery. If you do get the right treatment, the drugs may have side affects and you may not be able to work for days. This will make you poorer. Additionally, you will need a diet that you may never be able to afford. At this point, you will have few choices — either to discontinue treatment, go further into debt or go to the public sector — and wait.
This journey is instructive in many ways about the poor’s ability to access healthcare. For one, the common man cannot really access the public health system easily. Though well intentioned, it is over burdened and slow and insensitive. It needs investment and possibly a complete restructuring to make it accessible. The alternative is an exploitative private sector, where appropriate diagnosis and treatment and recovery is not necessarily guaranteed.
An overburdened public sector and an exploitative private sector - The Hindu
This raises some critical questions. Why do the poor have such dismal access to healthcare? Why is it that our investments in the health system are so unimpressive? Perhaps the most critical question is this: why do close to 70 per cent of India’s sick, mostly belonging to the poor or lower middle class, choose to go to the private sector when there is ostensibly free healthcare in the public system?
..............................
Yet sickness is such a state that even the most discriminating consumers can be exploited. Imagine you are a poor person living in an urban slum with a cough and fever. After ignoring it for weeks you decide to seek help. Initially you try the government health centre. This, you realise quickly, is not an option if you are a migrant worker or a daily wager. So you end up in the private sector. In all probability your local slum doctor will be a quack. The treatment you will receive will possibly be inappropriate. You may feel better briefly or get sicker with time — it’s a matter of time. But you will go back because your options and time are both limited.
If you are lucky and can afford it, you might actually get to see a real doctor, though not necessarily with the best outcomes. For starters, you may be asked to do a battery of tests. The tests can be done only from particular labs to ensure reliable quality and kickbacks. If the tests are clear, pray to whichever god you worship. If, however, you have a common disease like tuberculosis, the nightmare has just begun.
If the realisation that you have TB or another such ailment doesn’t terrify you, the expenses will. By this time you will have probably spent your savings and are in or about to be in debt. However, there is still no guarantee of appropriate treatment or complete recovery. If you do get the right treatment, the drugs may have side affects and you may not be able to work for days. This will make you poorer. Additionally, you will need a diet that you may never be able to afford. At this point, you will have few choices — either to discontinue treatment, go further into debt or go to the public sector — and wait.
This journey is instructive in many ways about the poor’s ability to access healthcare. For one, the common man cannot really access the public health system easily. Though well intentioned, it is over burdened and slow and insensitive. It needs investment and possibly a complete restructuring to make it accessible. The alternative is an exploitative private sector, where appropriate diagnosis and treatment and recovery is not necessarily guaranteed.
An overburdened public sector and an exploitative private sector - The Hindu
