Like every Tuesday for the past 15 years, last week I made my way to the offices of "Ezra Lamarfa," founded and run by Rabbi Elimelech Pirer, an Israel Prize laureate. There I do my "national service," as a regular volunteer for this special man. The day passed, and in the evening, when I returned home, I read in "Globus" about the launch of a new website by the Ministry of Health, which compares supplementary insurance, and which aims to create transparency in the insurance prices of health funds. A welcome initiative.
But it seems that without populism, it doesn't work. Health Minister Yael German made it clear that the next time someone tells you that if, God forbid, you need a transplant, you must have private insurance, go to the website and see that you are entitled to it under the state basket, and that if the surgery cannot be performed in Israel, the state will finance a transplant abroad and even accompaniment. Really? Very exciting. Soon German will also offer us flowers and roses.
So before we buy German's statements, here's a piece of advice: Take things with a grain of salt. Because in reality and in practice, it doesn't work that way. If you have the option, get supplementary insurance, and additional insurance. Because in times of need, the system won't always be there for you.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
I know this from experience. Over the years, I have referred thousands of sick people to Rabbi Firr, some of them extremely difficult cases. It turned out that on a given day, the difference between those who have additional insurance and those who do not is night and day.
True, according to the law, if it is not possible to perform surgery in Israel, the fund must finance surgery abroad. But who determines that "it is not possible"? Who determines whether there is enough experience in the field of the problem? German? The leaders of the Ministry of Health? No. Usually it is the doctor that the fund works with. And in practice, the debates on the subject are often fundamental and critical to saving the patient's life. Without a doubt, life is much easier when you have additional insurance, not to mention the nerve-wracking waiting times.
And we haven't even mentioned the drugs and technologies that are not included in the basket, and that have not yet passed the approvals and bureaucracy in Israel, even though they are already widely used in the US - after passing all the approvals there by the US Food and Drug Administration. Patients who do not have supplementary insurance are forced to pay thousands of shekels a month, or receive less good medicine. Is Minister German aware of these details? Is she simultaneously offering a solution? Or is she, due to a lack of knowledge and understanding, trying to convince us to accept less good health at the expense of a newspaper headline?
If German believes what she's trying to sell us, she should stand up and declare that she's giving up her supplementary insurance. Private and the supplementary one in the fund. After all, the state provides everything, including flights and escorts. Sounds promising. So why does Sarah have additional insurance and not give it up? And if she doesn't give it up, why should we? Maybe because she wants to be a kind of Moshe Kahlon? But what can we do, when health is much more important than cell phone calls.
German may talk about reforms and have good intentions, but she unintentionally causes harm to many patients, their families, and even doctors. The "German Committee," which worked for a year and a half on health reform, was made up of economists. It did not include senior members of the health system, senior doctors, fund and hospital managers, retired general managers of the Ministry of Health, or public representatives, except for her assistant from the Herzliya Municipality, who became a public representative. In other words, the minister, her assistant, and committee members are trying to lead decisions on crucial matters, without involving the senior officials and professionals of the system, which is truly absurd. It is true that all the relevant parties came to the committee's hearing, but they were not partners in either the process or the decisions.
Attacking those who take our money is sometimes a populist move. It's tempting to present yourself as the public's defender, but it's dangerous to do so on substantive and critical matters. Encouraging transparency is welcome; increasing competition is excellent. To throw sand in the public's eyes, to throw out the baby with the bathwater, is a tragic mistake.
