Equal access to publicly funded health care services: The legal experiences of Finland and Kazakhstan

Mariya Riekkinen , Pekka Riekkinen , Kanat Kozhabek , Aizhan Zhatkanbayeva , Gennady Chebotarev
{"title":"Equal access to publicly funded health care services: The legal experiences of Finland and Kazakhstan","authors":"Mariya Riekkinen ,&nbsp;Pekka Riekkinen ,&nbsp;Kanat Kozhabek ,&nbsp;Aizhan Zhatkanbayeva ,&nbsp;Gennady Chebotarev","doi":"10.1016/j.icj.2015.12.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article deals with the issue of equality in access to publicly funded health care based on the example of two jurisdictions, Finland and Kazakhstan. Legislative provisions of such access differ significantly in these two states. These differences culminate in the notion of citizenship. If Finland guarantees the right to publicly funded health care to everyone who is legally residing within its territory, Kazakhstan departs from that premise in that only its citizens are entitled with such a right. These and other differences led us to enquire into the fundaments of patient rights in both jurisdictions. We find that both states are facing inequalities of disadvantage regarding access to health care by vulnerable population groups. Both jurisdictions strive towards reducing inequalities in factual distribution of health care services, experiencing the phenomenon of gradual deterioration of public health care. In Finland this deterioration is mostly due to the growth of private actors providing health care services, subsidised partly by the state. In Kazakhstan it is due to the inefficient system of funding medical institutions based on the number of citizens registered within a certain institution.</p><p>In our opinion, legal solutions against inequalities in access to publicly funded health care regard, firstly, reconsideration of the status of non-citizens in situations of urgent medical interventions. Secondly, they encourage a shift in official legal doctrine towards fuller recognition of individual patient rights, and the introduction of instances dealing with these rights such as, e.g. a patient ombudsman and independent national authority supervising health care services.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":32140,"journal":{"name":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","volume":"1 2","pages":"Pages 121-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.icj.2015.12.006","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Comparative Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351667415000153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article deals with the issue of equality in access to publicly funded health care based on the example of two jurisdictions, Finland and Kazakhstan. Legislative provisions of such access differ significantly in these two states. These differences culminate in the notion of citizenship. If Finland guarantees the right to publicly funded health care to everyone who is legally residing within its territory, Kazakhstan departs from that premise in that only its citizens are entitled with such a right. These and other differences led us to enquire into the fundaments of patient rights in both jurisdictions. We find that both states are facing inequalities of disadvantage regarding access to health care by vulnerable population groups. Both jurisdictions strive towards reducing inequalities in factual distribution of health care services, experiencing the phenomenon of gradual deterioration of public health care. In Finland this deterioration is mostly due to the growth of private actors providing health care services, subsidised partly by the state. In Kazakhstan it is due to the inefficient system of funding medical institutions based on the number of citizens registered within a certain institution.

In our opinion, legal solutions against inequalities in access to publicly funded health care regard, firstly, reconsideration of the status of non-citizens in situations of urgent medical interventions. Secondly, they encourage a shift in official legal doctrine towards fuller recognition of individual patient rights, and the introduction of instances dealing with these rights such as, e.g. a patient ombudsman and independent national authority supervising health care services.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
平等享有公费保健服务:芬兰和哈萨克斯坦的法律经验
本文以芬兰和哈萨克斯坦两个司法管辖区为例,讨论平等获得公费保健服务的问题。在这两个州,这种获取的立法规定有很大的不同。这些差异在公民身份的概念上达到顶峰。如果芬兰保证在其领土内合法居住的每个人都有权享受公费保健,哈萨克斯坦则背离了这一前提,因为只有其公民才有权享有这一权利。这些和其他差异使我们对两个司法管辖区患者权利的基础进行了调查。我们发现,这两个国家在弱势群体获得医疗保健方面都面临着不平等的劣势。两个司法管辖区都在努力减少保健服务实际分配方面的不平等,经历了公共保健逐渐恶化的现象。在芬兰,这种恶化主要是由于提供医疗保健服务的私人行为者的增长,这些行为者部分由国家补贴。在哈萨克斯坦,这是由于根据在某一机构登记的公民人数为医疗机构提供资金的制度效率低下。我们认为,消除在获得公费保健服务方面的不平等现象的法律解决办法首先要考虑到在紧急医疗干预情况下重新考虑非公民的地位。第二,它们鼓励官方法律原则转向更充分地承认患者个人权利,并引入处理这些权利的实例,例如患者监察员和监督保健服务的独立国家机构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DOMESTIC REFORMS TOWARDS STRENGTHENING THE RULE OF LAW, IN GEORGIA, MOLDOVA, AND UKRAINE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE: WESTERN AND ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES SHOULD THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DEVELOP A POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE CONDITIONS FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF NATURAL PERSONS: WHICH BALTIC STATE IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE FOR BANKRUPTCY? WHAT CAN FRANCE LEARN FROM THE CZECH REPUBLIC’S APPROACH TO THE ISSUE OF WEARING (ISLAMIC) RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1