LAST month, Minister of State Joseph Harmon at a post-cabinet news conference, announced that the administration is in talks with an insurance company to finalise health insurance for ministers of government.
It is commendable that the government recognises the importance of effective health services being made available for the ministers to access. Putting an insurance plan in place for ministers hopefully would see expansion to Members of Parliament, magistrates and judges, who represent the other two branches of government. Examination of this approach outside of avoiding political accusations of bias or discrimination against any group, there are greater benefits to be derived in a group insurance by way of premium and areas of coverage. It is also past time that government officials at such levels participate in health insurance plan.
There have been several instances where society has been in uproar when it was felt that taxpayers’ money was being used by ministers and members of parliament to cover overseas care that could have been sourced here or elsewhere at cheaper cost. The other area of angst is that while the society is not opposed to government officials having access to overseas healthcare, the perception that such access allows for poor attention to the local public health services where the masses are forced to go to or have as their only choice, should not be ignored.
People are generally not opposed to any seeking care, preventative or curative, once needed. The opposition has been the perception, real or contrived, that such is only accessible by a chosen few. Moving to erase this perception, as in the instance where a private plan is being established, the society will expect that the cost of its maintenance will see the beneficiaries shouldering at least some financial responsibility. Plans of similar nature extended by governments in other countries could serve as guide and best practices.
Healthcare reimbursement for most Guyanese, who are not in private insurance plans, is had through the National Insurance Scheme (NIS), and overseas treatment is only approved where such is not provided locally. In the NIS instance, this creates a level of social equity, however, private insurance is guided by its own rules and standards. Recognising the dynamics in the insurance industry, consideration could be given to the idea that the insured could be able to be a member of the plan, even after changing employment, which would allow continuous access to its benefits.
As government moves to establish an insurance plan which would benefit an identified demographic, consideration could be seriously given to improving the services available to the wider public. Taking such an approach would improve public perception that elected officials are not only putting systems in place to address their health concerns, but are equally concerned about the health of every citizen. The announcement by the Minister of State, constructively analysed, can bring about bi-partisan support by the lawmakers/members of parliament which can morph into a national scheme that can be to the benefit of public officials, in and out of active service.
There was a time in the nation’s history when state agencies had group health plans for the workers, inclusive of NIS workers. With government presently examining this aspect of personal investment in one’s health, it may be feasible to examine the wisdom of resuscitating such benefit programme, which can well augment the benefits provided by the NIS, and expansion of workers and their beneficiaries’ social safety network in times of illness, regular check-ups, injuries, loss of lives, and so forth.