Summary of the Article: Critique of Choice Medicine and the role of Health Insurers
This article from WyniaS Week strongly criticizes the popularity and legitimization of alternative medicine in the Netherlands, particularly focusing on the role health insurers play in perpetuating its use. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
1. Popularity & Patient Satisfaction:
* Alternative medicine is popular, with a quarter of Dutch people valuing it as much as regular healthcare.
* It’s particularly favored by women and those aged 15-65.
* High patient satisfaction is attributed to longer consultations, attentive listening, and the creation of positive expectations by practitioners.
* Surprisingly,a relatively small percentage of those not using alternative medicine cite greater confidence in conventional healthcare or disbelief in alternative medicine’s effectiveness as their reason. This suggests a lack of strong opposition, rather then informed choice.
2. Concerns about Effectiveness & Safety:
* The article asserts that alternative medicine “almost never works” and can be perilous, even fatal.
* It criticizes practitioners for relying on “dubious and pseudoscientific research” and misleading marketing tactics (like “health claim pending European approval”).
* A core argument is that a significant lack of knowledge fuels the acceptance of these practices.
3. Health Insurers’ Complicity:
* The article heavily criticizes health insurers for offering supplementary insurance that covers alternative medicine.
* This coverage provides legitimacy to ineffective and potentially harmful treatments. Policyholders assume insurer reimbursement equates to effectiveness.
* Insurers are accused of prioritizing profit (from selling supplementary insurance) over the well-being of their customers.
* Offering these policies encourages use, leading to higher costs for regular healthcare and unnecessarily high premiums for basic insurance.
4. Call to Action:
* The author urges health insurers to be honest about the lack of evidence supporting alternative medicine.
* They advocate for a collective decision by insurers to stop offering supplementary insurance for alternative treatments.
* The article frames this as a social duty to protect policyholders from harmful and ineffective care, and to control healthcare costs.
In essence, the article argues that health insurers are actively contributing to a dangerous and costly problem by legitimizing and encouraging the use of alternative medicine. It’s a strong condemnation of the industry’s practices and a plea for greater responsibility and transparency.
