At the moment, we are facing a gap between the needs and the capacities of the health system. The aim of change is to take more active responsibility for our own health and to set clear criteria for which lifestyles lead to better health. In this way, prevention would be put first and foremost and would be a constant presence in the minds of citizens. Deviating from these guidelines would mean a higher contribution rate to health insurance. The current regulatory approach leads citizens to passivity, to irresponsible behaviour towards themselves and their own health, which is the preserve of doctors and medical staff, not of the individual with a health problem.
The basic idea, which of course needs a team of economists and a lawyer to work it out, is to raise the contribution rate for health insurance by a factor of three. Reliefs follow:
- for a reasonable body weight, e.g. 0.5 of the coefficient
- for drinking within the limits of low-risk drinking: 0.3 coefficient
- for a vegetarian diet: 1 coefficient
- 2 factors for a whole-food diet
- for regular exercise 0.5 factor
- for participation in psychotherapeutic treatment 0,3 factor
And malus:
- for smoking: 1 coefficient
- for risky sports (all professional sports, sports related to flying, extreme mountaineering, etc.): 1 coefficient
I am only presenting a sample of thinking here.
The matter would be initially framed by questionnaires at the first visit to the personal/family doctor, who would report the number of points to the insurer. In the event of a breach (e.g. someone declares that they are drinking within the limits of less risky drinking, but is under consideration for drink-driving or disturbing the peace), this is followed by an increase in the contribution rate by e.g. 2 factors for a period of two years. The aim of this reform is not control, but to establish clear social notions of what health is, how we can get it and that we are personally responsible for it.
Greetings to you all, Miloš Židanik, doctor.