A tale of two health systems

Aug 26, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Peeping tom…

Kaieteur News – Within a country’s health care system lies the truth of its progress, the measure of its humanity, and the extent of its inequity. When a young lady from Mon Repos pleads for prayers and financial assistance to undergo a life-saving brain surgery, the state of our healthcare system is not only questioned but exposed.

Her surgery is estimated to cost G$7 million at a local private hospital—a figure that places her hopes, her future, at the mercy of the public’s charity. She claimed she had sought treatment at the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) only to be told, according to her, that such a procedure could not be performed there. If this assertion is true, we are faced with a grave indictment of our public health system, one that challenges the government’s narrative of progress and equity in public healthcare.

The GPHC is the country’s main tertiary healthcare provider. Instead of wasting billions building new hospitals, this institution should have been upgraded to perform those specialized tertiary health care services that it presently does not provide.

The GPHC was recently in the limelight for its accomplishment of performing a laparoscopic liver resection, a complex operation requiring precision, skill, and advanced technology. This triumph left the public with the impression that this was a sign of modernization and suggested that our public hospitals are no longer the poor cousin of their private counterparts. But the young lady’s plight paints a different picture—a glaring contrast that suggests a two-tier health system, one where life and death hinge on the ability to pay.

In the narrative of modern medicine, brain surgery is a formidable feat, but it is by no means an impossible one. The fact that a private hospital can perform the surgery indicates that the expertise, equipment, and facilities exist within our borders. It is not a question of capability but one of accessibility and priority. Why, then, can this procedure not be done at the GPHC?

If GPHC, the flagship of our public health system, cannot accommodate such critical care, then what are we to make of the so-called progress in public health? What remains of the claims of advancements and improvements when faced with the harsh reality that a young woman’s life may depend not on the skill of our surgeons but on the generosity of strangers? The gap between what is possible and what is available in our public hospitals speaks volumes about the priorities of our healthcare system and the structural inequalities that persist.

Public health care is often depicted as a great equalizer, a system where the poor and the wealthy receive the same care, and where the quality of one’s treatment is not determined by the weight of one’s wallet. However, when public hospitals lack the resources or will to perform life-saving surgeries, it is the vulnerable who bear the brunt. They are forced to rely on the mercy of private institutions, which, while undoubtedly competent, operate on a principle of profit. For the poor, this profit-driven model turns hope into a commodity—a price-tagged prospect that many cannot afford.

The reliance on private hospitals for specialized treatments creates a dangerous precedent, one where public health care becomes a façade—a mere safety net that cannot catch those who fall hardest. It turns public health into a paradox: a right enshrined in principle but denied in practice.

It is imperative for the GPHC to clarify its position. The absence of a response would be tantamount to an admission, one that could undermine public trust in the health care system. If the GPHC indeed lacks the capacity to perform such surgeries, the government must confront this reality and take immediate steps to bridge the gap. Investments must be made not only in infrastructure and equipment but also in training and retaining skilled medical professionals. The disparity between public and private health care is not just a reflection of economic inequality but a moral failing, a reminder that the measure of a society is found in how it cares for its most vulnerable.

There is hope that the GPHC does have the capability to perform the surgery and that the young lady’s appeal for help was born out of miscommunication rather than a systemic failure. If so, this incident should serve as a catalyst for improving the transparency and communication within our healthcare system.

Patients must be informed of their options, and public hospitals must be proactive in showcasing their capabilities. The narrative of public health care must not be one of limitations but of possibilities, where the rights to life and health are not contingent on economic status.

If the GPHC cannot perform this surgery, then the government must intervene and foot the bill. It costs more for some of those ribbon-cutting ceremonies that are held so regularly.

But there is a much wider implication if indeed the GPHC does not have the capability to perform this surgery. If there exists a divide locally between what is possible and what is provided in our public health system, we are courting a system in which life and death may depend on the ability to pay.