6 highlights
-
For good measure, suppliers are also allowed to set different prices for different buyers (the Centre, states and private hospitals), enabling them to charge what different segments of the market can bear. This is the polar opposite of the “single-payer model” in healthcare, where the government tries to get the best possible deal from drug manufacturers by acting as the single buyer.
-
And if suppliers can get a higher price from private hospitals, why would they take interest in selling to the states?
-
The danger of states being squeezed out was made worse by another aspect of the Centre’s new policy: It allows private hospitals to set their own prices for vaccination.
-
The central government’s policy note makes a virtue of “liberalised” pricing on the grounds that it will incentivise vaccine production. But production can equally be incentivised in the single-payer system by paying an adequate price — it’s just that the central government would have to foot the bill. So, the real function of this pricing policy is to save the central government some money.
-
Why not tax the rich instead and foot the vaccine bill? It’s not a lot
-
If it were the case that expanded vaccination is held up by the government’s lack of capacity to vaccinate, rather than by a shortage of vaccines, there might still be an argument for promoting private provision: It would augment vaccination capacity. But the main constraint today is a shortage of vaccines.