What do you think of Dr. Tao Yong's view that "even if it is not within the scope of claims, the hospital seeking medical emergency treatment should pay compensation"? What is the significance of this to the development of domestic insurance? I agree with Dr. Tao Yong. After all, "life is above all rules", as long as it conforms to the principle of emergency medical care, both public hospitals and private hospitals should get claims.

First, from the perspective of "life first".

Patients buy insurance in order to get economic security in an emergency, so as to get necessary medical treatment. Therefore, in order to save patients' lives, whether they are treated in public hospitals or private hospitals, they should conform to the principle of insurance claims.

Second, in this case, the insurance company also considered that in the case of emergency medical treatment, even if it went to the wrong hospital, it would accommodate compensation, but because of the lack of a clear definition of "emergency medical treatment", it often caused controversy.

For those who need emergency medical treatment, they should seek medical treatment nearby according to the actual situation. At the same time, the industry should clarify the definition of "emergency medical care" as soon as possible. Life has no order. If life is gone, everything else is blank. Personally, I feel that the ideas of some insurance institutions should keep pace with the times, constantly optimize the claims experience and truly serve consumers.

Third, when life is paramount, all rules need to make way for life. However, this does not mean that we can ignore the rules and abuse compassion.

We must be clear that the accurate definition and grasp of fuzzy zone is the best balance between rules and human feelings. This requires us to carry out in-depth research and reform on the insurance system, and work out a reasonable scheme that respects the insurance principle and fully guarantees the life safety of patients.

Fourthly, finally, I think this case should be considered and improved from the following aspects:

1, improve the insurance system.

Insurance companies should re-examine this case and reconsider the definition of "public hospitals above the second level". Considering that private hospitals may also provide necessary treatment services in an emergency, insurance companies should improve their systems and allow claims to be made in this case.

2. Raise public awareness.

For the public, it is necessary to improve their insurance knowledge and understand the detailed terms and regulations of insurance contracts. When buying insurance, you can't just pay attention to the "scope of claims" and ignore other important terms.

3. Advocate humanistic care.

While respecting the rules, we should also advocate humanistic care. In the face of emergencies, patients and their families should be given support and help as much as possible. This includes not only medical care, but also economic assistance and psychological support.

4. Strengthen supervision.

For the possible "insurance fraud" behavior, regulators should strengthen supervision and crack down on illegal acts. Protect the fairness and justice of the insurance system.

Summary:

In short, the rules of insurance claims are not incompatible with human feelings. In the face of similar cases, we need to discuss and study in depth to find the best solution. This requires us not only to improve the insurance system, but also to raise public awareness, advocate humanistic care and strengthen supervision. Only in this way can we find a balance between respecting rules and protecting human rights and realize a fair and just insurance claim settlement system.