The prevention and control of the COVID-19 epidemic has entered a new stage. Overseas import has become the focus of prevention and control, and new problems have also emerged. The question of who will bear the cost of visiting COVID-19 diagnosed patients abroad has become the focus of public attention. Both Beijing and Shanghai have responded to this issue.
In fact, regarding the treatment costs of COVID-19 patients who are Chinese citizens, a number of policies have been introduced in succession since the end of January, and they are clearly financed completely. On January 21, the National Medical Insurance Bureau issued an announcement to adopt a special reimbursement policy for confirmed COVID-19 patients, and all drugs and medical service items covered by the COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment plan were temporarily included in the medical insurance payment scope.
As of February 6, the Ministry of Finance has issued more than a dozen fiscal and tax support measures, which have clearly defined the personal burden of the treatment costs of patients diagnosed to achieve financial bottoms, and the central financial subsidy is 60%. The central and local payment rates for suspected patients have not been determined. Situation subsidy. As for the patients who stay in the hot clinics, the outpatient fees are also paid by the finances. In other words, according to the current regulations and policies, from outpatient observation to inpatient treatment, regardless of the suspected or confirmed patients, COVID-19 patients are “zero pay”.
The cost of treating legal infectious diseases will vary according to the load of the medical system in each country when the epidemic enters a global outbreak. At present, some developed countries treat COVID-19 patients at public expense regardless of nationality. While imported cases, which dominated the new cases, Singapore, announced on March 10 that it would adjust its policy to charge treatment fees for foreign tourists diagnosed with COVID-19.
Back to China’s situation, the aforementioned regulations and policies were formulated on the premise that patients are “Chinese citizens who have been living in the country for a long time.” Now that the focus of prevention and control has changed, overseas imported cases have become the focus of prevention and control. It is advisable to introduce a new plan in time , To clarify the treatment of medical expenses, to unify the decree. For example, for returnees traveling abroad, returnees staying abroad on short-term visas, Chinese nationals holding permanent foreign residency, and foreigners, the specific treatment fees and how to divide the groups of people should be clearly defined. .
Because there is no clear statement for the time being, and Beijing and Shanghai, where the flow of immigrants is particularly high, and the pressure for the investigation of imported cases is also greater, both have made clear their local practices. For imported cases abroad, Beijing and Shanghai are all “zero-pay” with medical insurance. Individuals who do not have medical insurance pay for themselves, and they provide assistance to those in need.
The starting point of this regulation is obviously to reduce the pressure on the local medical system, but it is relatively rough, and there are still some details to be discussed and supplemented. For example, it was mentioned that international students under the age of 18 may not have medical insurance, but should also be included in the publicly funded treatment.
As for some places that require patients to conceal their symptoms and travel history to pay for themselves, although they have received a lot of public opinion support, it is not reasonable and violates relevant policies. The public opinion’s anger towards malicious concealers comes from a simple sense of justice, but it is not difficult to understand, but the malicious concealers can be investigated for legal responsibility according to law, they may also encounter civil claims, and the punishment measures have been relatively mature.
Turning out-of-pocket treatment into a punishment measure not only violates regulations and policies, but also creates other problems. For example, because the definition of concealment is not clear, if there is a local government that excessively relaxes the concealment standard due to financial considerations , Some patients may be aggrieved, and it also increases the possibility of those who are not rich enough to hide further.
The epidemic situation is developing, and the relevant regulations and policies for the cost of visiting patients with COVID-19 should also be updated in a timely manner. Defining standards for fee handling, charging fees in accordance with laws and regulations, and unifying government orders can eliminate public doubts and achieve better results in epidemic prevention and control.