Introduction
The intervention of government into the market and the problems that this intrusion into the key market processes entails is often mentioned as one of the major issues of the 21st century; however, a closer look at the issue will show that the problem is quite overblown.
True, government does have a palpable impact on the financing and even provision processes taking place in local markets (Donaldson & Gerard 2005a, p. 29), yet this influence rarely goes beyond mere supervision; as far as the basic financial transactions are concerned, organizations are obviously free to choose the strategies that they seem the most appropriate.
Even though the presence of the governmental supervision of the key marketing processes may seem unreasonable and restricting for the companies, promoting complete market power will pose a tangible threat to the sustainability of the state economy, since the absence of any market regulations or restrictions to the operations of the entrepreneurships will inevitably lead to chaos within the market and, therefore, the untimely demise of most healthcare companies, as well as numerous breaches of healthcare ethics.
State Regulation as the Key Tool
The need to introduce state regulation into the healthcare market is obvious. Unlike any other fields, the specified area requires an especial caution in checking the quality of the product and, therefore, the design of the basic standards. Moreover, a transparent system of audits must be introduced into the healthcare market. Herein the need to reinforce the state supervision of healthcare market lies (Donaldson & Gerard 2005, p. 79).
State regulation of healthcare companies opens a plethora of opportunities for not only the target audience in terms of the quality of the services acquired, but also for the organizations in question; to be more exact, the issue of costs can be resolved with the inclusion of state regulation into the principles of healthcare market organization.
For example, it is possible to minimize the opportunity cost and maximize the benefits available. As a result, numerous healthcare services, which used to be unattainable to some of the target population, will be enjoying considerably wider popularity as soon as the principles of state regulation take their toll on the healthcare market (Donaldson & Gerard 2005, p. 74).
However, it should also be born in mind that the state regulation of healthcare markets is fraught with a range of problems, most of which can be related to the comparatively low responsiveness rates among most healthcare organizations.
More to the point, the lack of information concerning a specific health issue, as well as the measures that have been undertaken in far too hasty a manner, may trigger deplorable results once all healthcare companies are obliged to comply with the instructions delivered by the state authorities.
Indeed, it would be unreasonable to assume that state committees, even those that are identified as healthcare related ones, are aware of the key economic assets of the organizations, the business processes of which they are going to regulate. Hence, the instances similar to the one of the Standing Vaccination Committee vaccine issue (Haasa et al. 2009, p. 290) may become a threat to the health of the target audience.
Nevertheless, the problems that the lack of control over the existing healthcare companies is bound to cause outweigh the concerns that the lack of awareness among the state authorities may trigger (Donaldson & Gerard 2005b, p. 21).
There is no reason to claim that the introduction of stricter measures into the specified market will inevitably result in drops in the companies’ performance; after all, “sometimes, the end product is an essential creativity; sometimes, unruly disorder” (Althaus, Bridgeman & Davis 2013, p. 42).
Hence, it can be suggested that a reasonable compromise between the state regulation and the independence of healthcare companies must be found.
Conclusion
Despite the fact that healthcare facilities do need certain room for making decisions concerning their market related policies, the necessity for the state authorities to regulate the healthcare services consumption is obvious due to the necessity for a single regulatory framework to be established.
As long as there is a specific set of rules for the healthcare companies to comply with, it is possible to make sure that the services and products delivered by the aforementioned organizations are of high quality and cater to the patients’ needs.
True, it would be unreasonable to assume that a completely authoritative system should be established within the healthcare market – quite on the contrary, companies need some room for making financial and economic decisions, as well as choose the strategy that seems most appropriate based on the current market situation and the company’s assets.
The supervision of the state authorities, however, is imperative, since it provides a set of principles, in accordance with which companies can be evaluated and specific market issues can be addressed. The supervision of the government allows for having standards to hold up to, which is essential for the success of both SMEs and major corporations.
Reference List
Althaus, C, Bridgeman, P & Davis, G 2013 ‘A policy cycle,’ The Australian policy handbook, Allen & Unwin , Crow’s Nest, AU, pp. 32–42.
Donaldson, C & Gerard, K 2005, ‘Economic objectives of healthcare,’ Economics of health care financing, Palgrave McMillan, New York, NY, pp. 73–88.
Donaldson, C & Gerard, K 2005a, ‘Market failure in health care justifying the visible hand,’ Economics of health care financing, Palgrave McMillan, New York, NY, pp. 29–51.
Donaldson, C & Gerard, K 2005b, ‘Markets and health care: introducing the invisible hand,’ Economics of health care financing, Palgrave McMillan, New York, NY, pp. 15–28.
Haasa, M, Ashton, T, Kerstin Blum, K, Christiansen, T, Conis, E, Crivelli, L, Kin Lim, M, Lisac, M, MacAdam, M & Schlette, S 2009, ‘Drugs, sex, money and power: an HPV vaccine case study,’ Health Policy, vol. 92, pp. 288–295.