La cuina de l'opinió ciutadana

 Enquesta de valoració del Govern i de les polítiques públiques. 2023

L'enquesta del CEO ofereix molt material que sovint passa desapercebut. Miro la darrera i selecciono aquests gràfics. 

Em pregunto si els enquestats han entès la pregunta, si saben que hi pot haver gestió concertada de la sanitat finançada públicament o si gestió privada vol dir només finançament privat. Algú és conscient que el pressupost 2023 diu que la conselleria contractarà prestació de serveis per import 5.900 m€ dels 11.300 m€ de pressupost total, un 52%? i que només 335 milions€ aniran a parar a societats mercantils, un 3%?   

O potser la pregunta s'ha fet amb l'objectiu de tenir la resposta que s'ha obtingut?. A nivell agregat: 45% a favor de gestió pública, 31% gestió privada, i 22% indiferents. 

La cuina prepara els plats a servir. Els comensals s'ho mengen. Tots els ciutadans paguem el plat, mentre alguns en treuen més profit que altres.

Aprofito també per mirar l'estadística que no publica el CEO sinó el CIS i escullo aquesta taula:

I el resultat és concloent (p1) després de preguntar a una mostra de 1.255 ciutadans catalans: la valoració del sistema sanitari català és 6,27 sobre 10. Només faré referència als que no arriben ni a aquesta xifra: andalusos, extremenys, canaris, i gallecs. I no dic res més. A mi m'agradaria tenir el Health Index Score per a Catalunya que permetés la comparació internacional, però no hi sortim al ranking. 

Miro quanta gent vota amb els peus (Hirschman) i veig un número que creix. La taula que mostra l'assegurança voluntària és aquesta:

Per a Catalunya, la taula diu que l'assegurança sanitària privada individual és el  29,4%  de la població+ assegurança col·lectiva d'empresa 10,3%=39,7%. Aquesta xifra supera moltes de les publicades, són les dades més recents. Potser hi ha biaix mostral, no ho sé, convé revisar-ho. 

Un 40% de ciutadans valoren i necessiten assegurança duplicada, això és molt. És un senyal més que la cobertura obligatòria no ha resolt les necessitats i cerquen una solució alternativa. Aquest èxode va acompanyat d'una febre inversora per augmentar l'oferta de serveis assistencials privats. Tot plegat hauria de ser motiu per a una profunda reflexió. 

PS. Avís: aquestes dades no les trobareu als mitjans de comunicació convencional. És de rucs mossegar la mà de qui et dona menjar.

PS. L'antiga cuina va deixar de servir plats el 2021. No es publica des d'aleshores el baròmetre sanitari català, i s'ha convertit en un conjunt d'enquestes sense visió global. I com que no hi ha opinió global, no cal reforma global.

PS. Em guardo alguns altres gràfics d'interès.

Times of resistance

When All Else Fails: THE ETHICS OF RESISTANCE TO STATE INJUSTICE

The economist Albert O. Hirschman famously argued that citizens of democracies have only three possible responses to injustice or wrongdoing by their governments: we may leave, complain, or comply. But in When All Else Fails, Jason Brennan argues that there is a fourth option. When governments violate our rights, we may resist. We may even have a moral duty to do so.
For centuries, almost everyone has believed that we must allow the government and its representatives to act without interference, no matter how they behave. We may complain, protest, sue, or vote officials out, but we can’t fight back. But Brennan makes the case that we have no duty to allow the state or its agents to commit injustice. We have every right to react with acts of “uncivil disobedience.” We may resist arrest for violation of unjust laws. We may disobey orders, sabotage government property, or reveal classified information. We may deceive ignorant, irrational, or malicious voters. We may even use force in self-defense or to defend others.
The result is a provocative challenge to long-held beliefs about how citizens may respond when government officials behave unjustly or abuse their power.

Food for thought.

Docuncert Txarango 

Compensating behaviour after nudging

Nudges that fail

Cass Sunstein shows in his las published article that nudging may fail, and explains the reasons and what to do. Great, I was waiting for that, because we need to disentangle the current approaches to nudging. the article tries to shed light, but in the end, uncertainties remain.

The general point is that any form of choice architecture, including the use of default rules, may have little or no net effect if people are able to find otherdomains in which to counteract it. The idea of compensating behavior can be seen as a subset of the general category of strong antecedent references, but it points to a more specifi c case, in which the apparent success of the nudge is an illusion in terms of what choice architects actually care about (Hirschman,1991).
What matters is welfare, not effectiveness (Sunstein,2016). A largely ineffective nudge may have positive welfare effects; an effective nudge might turn out to reduce welfare. A strong reason for nudges, as distinguished from more aggressive tools, is that they preserve freedom of choice and thus allow people to go their own way. In many contexts, that is indeed a virtue, and the ineffectiveness of nudges, for some or many, is nothing to lament. But when choosers are making clear errors, and when third-party effects are involved, the ineffectiveness of nudges provides a good reason to consider stronger measures on welfare grounds.

 Therefore with this text Sunstein is landing to the practical difficulties on nudging. Highly recommended.

PS. Congratulations to Adam Oliver, C. Sunstein and G. Akerloff for the new journal.

Pissarro à Eragny - La nature retrouvée

Au Musée de Luxembourg maintenant

Taxing the rich to feed the leviathan (2)

Once upon a time there was a country that 2% of the population  (143.092 citizens) earned 25% of total income of the country and paid 36%% of total income tax collected by the government. More than one third of government funding coming from income tax depends on 2% of population.
Do you think is this fair?. Right now some populist and comunist parties consider that the amount collected from this 2% of population (those that earn more than 60.000€) is not enough and should be increased. Well, this is only an option. I mean, the option to increase is only one, the consequence according to Hirschman may be voting with their feed, the exit, to leave the country.
If you are really concerned about inequality, now is the time to forget any income tax increase and read Branko Milanovic or this previous post.You'll reach exactly the right conclusion, far from nowadays populism and comunism.

Being loyal to your health system

Entitats d’assegurança sanitària lliure de Catalunya 2014

Your country may have decided that publicly funded health coverage is mandatory for all citizens. Therefore, there is no opt-out posible. Your taxes or contributions will fund the system. What happens if you are not satisfied with the access or quality of services? You may complain, but unfortunately its impact will be negligible most of the times. This is the voice option in Hirschman terms. Voice is really a political and confrontational perspective, while  Exit is the alternative option.

While both exit and voice can be used to measure a decline in an organization, voice is by nature more informative in that it also provides reasons for the decline. Exit, taken alone, only provides the warning sign of decline. Exit and voice also interact in unique and sometimes unexpected ways; by providing greater opportunity for feedback and criticism, exit can be reduced; conversely, stifling of dissent leads to increased pressure for members of the organization to use the only other means available to express discontent, departure. The general principle, therefore, is that the greater the availability of exit, the less likely voice will be used.

Hirschman provides light to what is going on in our health system. Right now one fourth (24,9%, p.29) of the population has decided to "exit" the publicly funded health system. Well, really they can't exit, they pay twice, and this is the reason why it is said they have duplicate health insurance, the same services covered twice.
Hirschman  says that loyalty could reduce exit, however current health policy trends are exactly producing the opposite, reducing loyalty to the public system. And this could be the reason why every year there is an increase of departures. Well, really there are communication vessels and people switch between the systems according the services needed.
This is exactly what's going on, and somebody should ask: is this efficient in social terms?. My answer is absolutely not, you'll never pay twice if you want to buy a loaf of bread, why should be this the case for health insurance for 66% of Sarria district citizens, one third (37,5%) of Barcelona citizens or one fourth of catalan citizens?.
Beware of the warning sign of decline while health policy is encouraging hospital nationalization.

PS. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for a formal opt-out system. It is unacceptable and outdated. I'm just asking for an efficient system that members engage in long-term loyalty relationships.

Healthcare satisfaction guaranteed

La veu de la ciutadania: Com la percepció de la ciutadania es vincula a la millora dels serveis sanitaris i el sistema de salut de Catalunya

In Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970), the book written by Albert O. Hirschman, you finally understand that the ultimatum that confronts consumers in the face of deteriorating quality of goods is either “exit” or “voice”. Exit is equivalent to the invisible hand of markets in Adam Smith. The greater the availability of exit, the less likely voice will be used. However, loyalty may modulate the final impact. Loyal members become especially devoted to the organization's success when their voice will be heard and that they can reform it.
Under mandatory publicly funded health insurance, the role of voice is specially relevant to fulfill citizens expectations. The efforts to measure patient satisfaction provide precise information on this issue. Now you can find an excellent report that summarises recent trends under a strict methodology.
The results (from p.65) are clear: currently the levels of satisfaction with public health services are higher than at the begining of the crisis. I have already posted about the same before, however what you'll find today as headlines in the newspapers is exactly the opposite. Journalism ethics is not currently in its best days. As citizens we deserve better consideration.
Fortunately, internet allows to bypass journalists ("exit" in Hirshman words), though it requires a dose of extra effort and only a minor part of the population is prone to assume it.
If healthcare satisfaction is rising, as it is, then no need for exit, citizens will remain loyal.

PS. In case of severe disease, voluntary health insured members would use private services in 32% of cases, while public sevices in 39% of cases. P.9 of the barometer.

PS. Journalism ethics: Seek Truth and Report It

Exit, voice and loyalty

Toca rellegir Hirshman aquests dies. Han passat més de 40 anys però encara hi ha molt per aprendre d'allò que ell proposava a "Exit, Voice and Loyalty". Quan la sortida no és possible, aleshores només cal escoltar la veu. Diu:

The voice option is the only way in which dissatisfied customers or members can react whenever the exit option is unavailable. This is very nearly the situation in such basic social organizations as the family, tIle state, or the church

Ara bé, em poso a pensar un moment i en el fons potser convindria trobar espais on la "sortida", en termes de Hirschman, fos possible dins els sistemes d'assegurança sanitària universal. Un situació per exemple és afavorir la capacitat d'elecció de centre i de metge. En ple segle XXI mantenim un règim de planificació soviètica poc sensible a la realitat dels nostres dies. Un ciutadà hauria de poder ser capaç d'accedir de forma organitzada a aquells serveis que necessita allà on prefereix del sistema públic, i aquests serveis haurien de ser compensats pels seus costos incorreguts.

PS. Lectura comptable del pressupost 2011. Una organització pot defensar legítimament determinades posicions, però l'oblit intencionat de qui ha provocat els desviaments pressupostaris dels darrers anys fa que la seva veu se l'emporti el vent.

PS. Miro el blog de LSE, hi trobo un comentari d'un llibre sobre Foucault, interessant.