Consumerism in Social Policy - Essay Example

Consumerism has become part and parcel of the very basics of the modern way of living. Areas of Social life, which were previously free from the demand of the marketplace (including healthcare), have had to adapt to a world where the wants and wishes of the consumer are supreme. How people consume, why they consume and the parameters within which they consume have become increasingly significant and influences how people construct everyday life (Henderson & Peterson, 2002 p. 8). Every day, people visit places like supermarkets, boutiques, and shopping malls in order to make choices and selection from thousands of products. For some, the selection involves bustling around looking for necessities for self and family as they look for the best value of their money and simply the cheapest; for others, it is a pleasure to look for the favorites. This choice and benefits pervade people’s lives in other areas such as education and healthcare. However, it is only the rich who have the choice (Fatchett 2012, p.143).

The concept of consumerism has continued to permeate the developing healthcare agenda. It is debatable whether or not the users of the health services over the past few decades have become active consumers in reality or even empowered. Some have argued that the internal healthcare market of the 1990s has greatly resulted in an increased consumer perspective. It is also debatable whether the ‘supermarket’ model of consumerism is appropriate or even applicable to healthcare delivery to patients and users of the health care system. The potential user of health service should play the role of an active consumer and in effect go shopping to ‘buy’ healthcare as and when the need arises (Fatchett 2012, p.143

The use of the term ‘consumer’ in relation to healthcare delivery faces strong criticism. Critics have argued that in the field of health provision the consumer is ill-equipped to exercise his theoretical sovereignty. In a free-market model, a true consumer need includes adequate information; a practical range of alternative services and interventions; the ability to make the rational choice; the opportunity to select from a variety of options; legal protection; ability to obtain a refund; ability and knowledge to compare the quality of one service and another and finally the ability to take action, seek redress or compensation if a product, treatment or intervention fail to work, was inappropriate or did not reach the quality or standard offered, promised or expected (Hann 2007, p.42).

These requirements would be problematic to many less fortunate individuals and are only relevant, appropriate, and possible to the financially endowed people. According to Fatchett where healthcare is bought and sold as a commodity, it fails on several counts. He asserts that healthcare should be given to those in need and some equitable approach should apply in its delivery. The free market is poor in allocating resources in a fair way to those who are less able and perhaps with more need of healthcare services (Hann 2007, p.42).

On the contrary, it allocates more resources to those who are better educated and have both the finance and skills to pursue the necessary health and lifestyle objectives and services. Those who need the most help to be healthy are often the poorest in society. This is because illness and poor healthcare correlate with low economic status and poverty. However, this category of people appears to gain the least from the healthcare services that are available. Those who suffer ill health and fall in this category may be unable to afford the many needed services and help even though they are available in the market (Newman & Vidler, 2006 p 251).

In the converse, the better off in the society are able to access a highly broad remit of health-promoting activities and services. Consequently, they achieve and maintain better health status and longevity than those who lack such opportunities. In addition, those who insure against ill health and those who fund private healthcare, because of their commercial thinking, charge high-risk groups much higher premiums than low-risk groups. To some extent, they deny them the insurance cover altogether because of the possibility of them developing very costly illnesses in either the short or the long term (Greener 2009, p 275)

Another significant point of consideration is that a free market in healthcare care services and does not aspire to meet the healthcare aspirations of the total population, or the community's rich and poor alike. There is a tendency to offer care to meet certain healthcare needs only and to provide these services within areas of appropriate consumer prosperity. Poorer areas of the population are less likely to offer commercially attractive sources of potential income; As a result, many of the poor consumers in these and more affluent areas may have little or no choice of healthcare provision. The required services may not exist in these areas or maybe irrelevant because of their inability to afford the services whenever they are available (Greener 2009, p 275).

While this situation may be broadly satisfactory or acceptable in relation to doing shopping in a supermarket, a shopping mall, or a boutique buying a designer cloth, in healthcare it may be a different situation. It may mean the difference between long life and early death, or long-term disability and discomfort depending on the individual financial or social situation. For this reason, many will argue that healthcare is a special good or commodity and hence should be made when needed, not when one can pay.