The European Union summons auto industry leaders as BMW and Tesla join Chinese automakers in resisting EU tariffs on electric vehicles.
An opinion pool shows 85 % of green lenders do not want to be part of the United States.
And, after opening up to global investors, how attractive is China to foreign -fan -did hospitals?
Welcome to Road Today, the Spring Festival edition.
I'm Gheanna in Beijing.
To listen to this episode again, or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today.
The European Commission has convened a meeting of auto industry leaders to discuss competition from China and the United States.
This follows BMW and Tesla's decision to seal the EU over tariffs on electric cars from China.
The two companies are the latest to join a growing number of Chinese car makers, including Geely and BYD, who are also against these tariffs.
Last year, the EU imposed tariffs on EVs manufactured by these brands, ranging from 8 percent to 36 percent.
These are in addition to the standard 10 percent tariff on all car imports to the block.
To delve into this, joining us on the line is Professor Chu Chiang, fellow of Belt and Road Research Center at Minzou University of China.
Thanks for joining us.
Thank you. Professor Tesla and BMW have now joined several Chinese automakers in seeing the European Commission over these additional tariffs.
What do you think is the primary business consideration behind their decision?
So, I think most importantly is to secure the global supply chain.
Well, BMW, Tesla, Volkswagen, well, they are international operation, basically, they have a huge investment in the presence in China as well as in Europe.
So, which means every Mercedes, every BMW, every Tesla you drive, probably they will have many of the parts has been made in many different locations of the whole world for example ECU in China, the tires in ASEAN nations and also for the chances in the European Union so if you are trying to block the whole value chain, the whole supply chain means a very high extra cost and also many unnecessary you know charging for those companies and also you will destabilize the whole operation for this company and I think secondly because there are extra cost and also the instabilities of the supply chain so it
will actually debuff the competitiveness of those European companies I think that's also the reason considered by BMW by you know Volkswagen by Tesla and those European Giants and also I think for them there's a third consideration is that how they can avoid the escalation of the trade conflicts because if the European Union continues to enforce those tariffs and other punishments on China, while China will for sure retaliate on European Union.
So who is in between will actually suffer the most, which means the one we invested in the European Union as well as in China, those big automobile companies as well as for the mechanic companies.
So actually they're gonna suffer the most and they're gonna be the largest victim and loser of the trade war.
So I think they want to stand out and try to stop the things from being escalated further.
I think that's their very clear consideration.
Indeed, these lawsuits underscore the growing tensions in the global EV industry.
Then -professor, previously Chinese firms have already filed a lawsuit in the EU general court.
Now, with Tesla and BMW joining the legal battle, do you think this will somehow influence the lawsuit's progress and final outcome?
Oh yes, it will definitely do so because BMW, Tesla, is still the largest traditional vehicle as well as the EV vehicle companies in the European Union.
And they're contributing huge job supplies as well for taxation for the European Union.
I think their opinion actually matters.
If this pair of four will actually, you know, hurt the stake that I've been holding by Tesla and BMW and other Giants And I think those companies will actually consider about how they can Relocate their factories to relocate their jobs to some other places.
That means Ex sanguinating of the profit and taxation and jobs in European Union So, I think they will consider that.
Also, I think if their opinion cannot be listened by the European Union, I think the whole uncertainty on the market, especially on the automobile market, will be amplified.
Also, I think the whole competition and supply chain scenario will also be changed.
As I just mentioned, those relocations, this redundant arrangement of human resources, the supply chain, and also change on the orders on the all kinds of the raw material and also on the parts supplies and all this change on the orders will also add into lots of instability in the global supply chain of automobile companies so I think nobody would like to see that.
As we mentioned in recent years the European TV industry has faced intense competition from China in the United States, yes, external competition is a key factor, but internal industry dynamics also play a crucial role right?
Then in European Union, what are the internal factors contributing to the struggles of the EU's EV industry?
Well, I think in just one simple word, the EU is getting old and it's more and more have an inappropriate structure towards manufacturing.
Look, European Union used to be probably the most important manufacturing center, the high -tech manufacturing center of the whole world, France, Germany, Italy and the Nordic countries.
They used to represent the highest level of the modernised manufacturing industry of the whole world.
Take a look at their aviation industry, electric industry, power industry, automobile industry and the shipbuilding industry.
And all those things that crown jewelers are long gone.
That's right. Well, they are suffering from the aging problems, for sure.
We're seeing the aging problems in the European Union are getting worse and worse.
Everybody knows that.
Well, no excuse. Well, I think China, Japan, South Korea, those manufacturing centers, are all having aging problems.
But the thing is, there are competitive engine technologies losing as well.
Now, China and Japan and South Korea chose another way to supplement those aging problems, a disadvantage.
For example, we're using robot.
We're using higher technology, or more efficient power supplies to mend up for this aging province, a lack of manual labor.
But in the European Union, they chose another way which is just switch the real economy, the real deal manufacturing, into the virtual economy.
For example, in the past 10 years to 20 years, the European Union are focusing more on switching their economy towards the finance as well as towards the service industries, for example, like tourism.
For example, like other cultural industries, which is good, though.
But they are getting rid of their strongest long suit, which is modernized manufacturing.
And also, I think, secondly, is their cost disadvantaged.
While China, Japan, even though have aging problem.
But still, as I mentioned, they use all kinds of ways to promote their efficiency and lower the cost.
For example, by largely using the robot technology in green electricies.
But in European Union right now, they try to remove the nuclear power and adopt the green power, but they are manufacturing the green power, still have a very high cost against China.
And they do not have advantage in this area.
And also for their population and demographic structures, their manual labor are very expensive and they do not, you know, take advantage of the immigrants very well.
So the immigrants have now become the burden of their manufacturing industry rather than being the very good support for the manufacturing industries.
They're not training this immigrant with, you know, scale school with all kinds of engineering.
They're not turning them into the good engineers, but more like a burden on the social benefit systems.
That can be a problem.
And thirdly, in China we have a saying.
It's called, wax and a wane always forms a circle.
In a previous industry of revolution, European mechanics, European engineering technology are the best of the whole world, which means the BMW, which means the Mercedes have the best car of the whole world, even acknowledged by Japan, by China, by United States.
But also it means they will have a very slow adaptation toward the newer technology.
For example, in this round of electrification vehicles, the green vehicles, the European Union lagging behind.
Just take a look, how many good brands of EV are leading by the European companies?
None. Stylandis are using Chinese technology and Tesla technology.
And BMW right now are cooperating with China as well as for Volkswagen and Mercedes.
Which means they are lagging behind.
They can not adapt to the latest technology, they have a higher cost and they cannot fit in the world market like before.
So I think all those internal factors are actually making European Union to be drained in a swamp recently.
But, as you said, the European Union is seeking a solution by imposing tariffs on Chinese -made EVs in an attempt to protect the domestic manufacturers and promote local industry growth.
So, the question is, can rising tariffs truly address the fundamental problems within the EU's EV sectors?
Well, absolutely no.
Everybody knows tariffs is just a temporary tool to count down the public opinion.
Not a economic solution.
solution, just take a look at what China has done in the past 20 years.
China does not have a very mature automobile industry in the first place, and what China has been ready to do to catch up with is the corporate with European companies.
We have Baik, we have Sayika.
We have the first automobile company in China, and they are all joined venture between Chinese local companies with European companies.
For example, the Shanghai automobile of your company has been joined handle with Fox Login, joined handle with BMW, Beijing has been joined handle with the BMW and we try to catch up not by bashing our competitors not by closing up the doors, but by reaching out the arms and welcome them to join us because we believe cooperating was our competitors which are very good competitors.
We can learn from them and train our own human resources and learn technologies The Chinese That's the reason why China has laid such a good foundation in the last round of the Industrial Revolution and laid a foundation for current round of the EV, a ranch in China, anime China, the best EV manufacturers in the whole world.
So I think BMW understand that.
Volkswagen, Mercedes, they all understand that.
They are the first companies to stand out and oppose European Commission's decision to put tariff on China, Because they know if they want to catch up in this round, they need to work with the best player, which is Chinese company BYD, CATL and the others, so that they can catch up with the latest trend.
If you use tariff to block them away, you will only have one effect, that is, to block yourself from the international standard, the best technology and the international market.
So that will make themselves worse and worse, and legging behind and behind.
So I think that's a reason why those giants themselves are actually opposing the tariffs the most.
But I don't think European Commission and their bureaucratic officials can actually understand that.
As you mentioned, BMW is an industry battery.
And some believe as the European company, its lawsuits suggest view these tariffs as harmful to its business.
What does this tell us about the global nature of today's auto industry?
Well, I think today the whole global auto built industry has become very, very intertwined and globalized.
If you want to catch up, if you want to really champion this whole market, well the number thing, the number one thing you need to do is to open up you need to have international cooperation.
Tesla is not an American company.
They're largest a company, they are not largest a workshop as in China and also their largest supplier for the battery is The CATL is a Chinese company and their ECU supplier, many of them are actually coming from China, coming from Malaysia, coming from Japan, coming from South Korea and some coming from European Union.
So actually that's the reason why Tesla are doing so well in the Western market.
The same story happened with the BYD, same story happened with the CATL.
CATL are making so good.
is not only because they're supplying with Chinese market but also they're helping the global partners so they can benefit from the global market and also learn the latest know how and knowledge from the international market and also these profits, this knowledge helps them to have a stronger R &D investment in human resources and technology and everything to make them better and better and because this is kind of what we call the denial circle, So the local market, well see, okay CATL going abroad and become very internationalized that BYD has been going global.
They've been doing very well so we need to support them.
So the policy from the local government also started to support them and people well see okay, this company is providing us lots of taxation.
We need to support the government.
We need to support this company to go global and cooperate with each other, with other competitors even.
It forms a very good circle, and makes the spiral go up.
But if you try to reverse the strain and doing the thing in the wrong direction, you will see what happens right now in the European Union.
People are thinking, OK, the other countries are taking away our jobs, are taking away our taxation, so let's shut down those factories.
Let's put tariffs on them, let's stop international cooperation.
And the whole thing will form what we call the bad circle.
Overall, everything is just a spiral down worse and worse.
So I think that is something we really need to remind those policymakers and also they need to talk to people to tell them what the truth is and then to find the right way and solution to solve this problem.
Thanks for your insightful analysis.
That was Professor Chu Chiang, the Fellow of Belt and Road Research Center at Minzil University of China.
This is World Today, stay with us.
You've been listening to Road Today with Mi 'ke Anna in Beijing.
Most Greenland residents do not want their island, a semi -autonomous Danish territory, to become part of the United States.
According to a survey by Varyon for the Danish Daily Berlink, 85 percent of Greenlanders opposed U .S.
President Donald Trump's vision for the island.
Only 6 percent favored the idea, with 9 percent undecided.
Earlier this month, President Trump declared Greenland vital to American security, and insisted Denmark give up control of the strategically important island.
Since then, he has repeatedly pushed for Washington to acquire Greenland and has not rule out the possibility of using military force.
So for more on this, let's bring in Dr. George Zhugoplas, director of EU -China programs and Senior Research Fellow at European Institute of Nice.
Great to have you on the show, Professor.
Thank you for having me.
Professor, the poll shows that 85 % of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the U .S.
What do you think are the key reasons behind this overwhelming rejection?
Yes, I also looked at this poll result with high interest.
I believe that the dominant majority of Greenlanders is quite satisfied and happy with their current and living conditions and they are concerned about changes which could affect the status quo.
So on these grounds, I could explain the poll results by suggesting that they would rather favor continuity than to see Greenland entering an unknown adventure that will affect not only Greenland itself, but also themselves, their families and their work conditions on Greenland.
But, Professor, U .S.
President Donald Trump said earlier that Greenland was vital to U .S.
security, and he refused to rule out military force to acquire this island.
How serious should Greenland, Denmark, and the international community take such a threat?
Well, to start with, President Trump had already started to talk about such a possibility during his first administration.
and now he seems more adamant on his position.
It is not very easy to predict or anticipate how President Trump will practically act as his presidency, as his second president just started.
But certainly from the moment the American president is making such a call and he's threatening, this should be taken seriously by the international community.
I would personally not expect the United States to use military force.
I would rather see it as a bargaining tactic of President Trump, but certainly it is an issue that should be on the agenda of the international community." Denmark said it would spend about $2 .04 billion on boosting its military presence in the Arctic and rallying European support.
Do you think this will be enough to deter further U .S.
pressure? Greenland, as it is part of the Danish territory, is a territory which is quite quite significantly, NATO.
And within this context, Denmark is deploying more military forces there, and it has been prepared also to spend more defense on this territory.
I would say that this is significant in terms of NATO's policies, which are focusing on the Arctic, but at the same time, obviously it wouldn't be enough in order to restrain a potential American military lead for to take the island.
Speaking of that, according to reports, Greenland's prime minister has been pushing for independence while also seeking a meeting with President Trump.
What key demands do you think he would bring to the table?
How would this meeting shape Greenland's future trajectory?
Well, independence is a key word because also the poll that you mentioned before suggests that the majority of Greenlanders do not want Greenland to be part of the US territory.
The same time they could favor independence, but the American concern is that an independent Greenland would perhaps be more autonomous in reaching different types of deals with several countries in the Arctic.
Therefore, I would expect that the bargain will be placed in this context and that Greenland will attempt, as much as possible, to show to the other side it is not prepared to enter talks concerning potential membership or a potential acceptance of President Trump's terms.
Professor, we know Greenland is rich in natural resources from rare earth minerals to fisheries.
Could this situation lead to greater international investment in Greenland, or even economic pressure from external powers like the United States?
Well, the geographical position of Greenland itself is the one which is currently igniting this debate about the future of the territory for security and economic reasons.
So I would see a combination of these two interests, which are currently bringing Greenland into the epicenter of the United States and also of the international community.
Obviously, different types of investments, especially in extracting minerals, will be on the agenda, but of course, this will depend on how Greenland itself will make decisions and how also the relationship between Greenland and Denmark will evolve in the medium and long -term, because it's also a key feature that needs to be taken into account irrespective of what President Trump attempts to do.
Professor, if Trump were to pressure a sovereign country like Denmark to cede Greenland through threats of increased tariffs or even by not ruling out military force, what kind of impact would this have on the existing international legal system?
Well, I would say that this is a standard policy of President Trump to threaten either with economic coercion or with the use of military force.
The question is up to what extent this can bring results according to his political agenda?
I would say that it largely depends on his interlocutors because it is certainly different to talk to different countries in order to implement And on the level of great power competition, how might this move reshape U .S.
relations with its European allies as well as major powers like Russia?
Well, as far as transatlantic relations are concerned, they have already started to enter a new phase of tensions.
The European Commission is certainly expecting that, but the question is, up to what extent it is prepared to deal with the new policies of President Donald Trump.
So I would expect that transatlantic relations to further enter this trajectory of disagreements, humans, not only about Greenland, but also about other issues.
As far as Russia is concerned President Trump has connoted that he's prepared to talk to President Vladimir Putin, so it will depend on a potential meeting or on the future course of American foreign policy vis -a -vis Russia, also to deal with the issue of Greenland, because Russia is an active player in the Arctic.
That was Dr. George Zugoplas, Director of EU -China programs and Senior Research Fellow at European Institute of Knees.
You've been listening to Road Today, we'll be back after a short break.
Welcome back to Road Today, the spring festival edition.
I'm Gu Anh in Beijing.
China's decision to broaden access for foreign investors in hospitals has sparked considerable interest among global healthcare providers.
While this increased openness is welcomed, there are also some concerns that need to be addressed.
What factors contribute to a cautious approach among investors as they consider committing their resources to the Chinese market?
And how can China establish a strong presence in the global medical tourism sector?
To explore these questions, further, my colleague Tu Yun engaged in a conversation with Professor John Tsai, director of the Center for Healthcare Management and Policy China–Europe International Business School, Shanghai, Ayn -Yor Tengen, a senior fellow at Taihe Institute, and Professor Liu Baochong, the director of the Center for International Business Ethics, University of International Business and Economics.
Do you use any health care services from a foreign -funded hospital?
And can you compare the services provided by public and foreign -funded hospitals?
John, so shall we begin with you?
Okay, so I haven't used a foreign investment hospital yet because I don't use hospital very often.
Okay, good for you.
Then maybe, Einer. Yes, I've both used the Japanese Friendship Hospital.
Right. I've used private clinics and also Beijing United they are all originally funded by – in part foreign obviously the Japanese, Sino -Japanese Chinese Friendship Hospital has been around for a long, longer.
Beijing United has been around for many years, it was founded by foreigners.
I know one of them.
And then these clinics, SOS clinic, and raffles and things like that, so I have been there.
Have you been to any public hospital, I mean, Chinese public hospital?
Never. Yes, I have.
I've been living in China since 2005 and I have sampled everything that Beijing has to offer, and unfortunately because of a situation very close to me, I spent a lot of time in hospitals for about five years, seven years ago, not related to my own health, but the health of somebody.
I understand that. But can you compare them to any extent?
Yeah, I mean it's an evolution.
When I first came to Beijing, every expat would tell me that I had to go to Beijing United or the Sino -Japanese Hospital who'd say oh you can't go to the local hospitals, but I did go to the local hospitals for some minor things like a sprained foot or something like that or stomach upset.
I really wanted to see.
It was interesting because I was not used to this idea that I would show up in the hospital.
It was fairly crowded, family members were there with the patients, and you would sign up, get a card, it's an identification, show your passport is a foreigner, and then they'd give you a slip of paper, and you'd stand in line, and you go to see somebody, and then they recommend a test, and you'd get in line again to pay for the test, and then you get the test, and you'd keep doing this.
It was kind of like a spoke and hub situation where you're always running back to pay it, and obviously Obviously things have changed fairly dramatically since then.
The foreign -funded hospitals tended to operate more like on the U .S.
model. You had to show some sort of insurance or put down some sort of deposit, show that you could pay, and then they would do a series of tests and you would just receive the treatment from doctors.
But I noticed that there was a massive differential in price between - That's true.
Local hospitals, as in yeah, it might cost me five to 20 yuan for the basic visit and then, you know, a few yuan here and there and then some medications.
The whole thing would cost less than 150 kuai and that included getting the card from the hospital.
If I went to Beijing United, I could expect minimum even if it was a short stay, 1500 kuai.
So I'm literally at 10 times difference.
So basically, crowd sickness and this price are the most distinct differences between these two kinds of hospitals.
Yeah. I mean, you fast forward to today and the situation has changed dramatically.
You still have to pay and things like this, but the things have been streamlined.
They've made things much more efficient.
The hospitals are much more modern.
They have the latest equipment.
And I'm always shocked to see what they've done.
I've been to a neonatal hospital in Xinjiang, which I could not believe.
I mean, it had just been built at that time.
It was over a year ago.
It had been built, it had just opened about three or four months before.
And it was better than any hospital that I'd ever seen in Beijing.
And quite frankly, I mean, the doctors there were in charge.
They wouldn't even allow it.
You're trying to do an interview with somebody who had just given birth.
And they insisted that we shoot it through the wired glass because we were not getting into anywhere near the patients.
So yeah, I mean, I've seen a lot of different parts of the health care system here.
And I can tell you, it's been an evolution.
I started coming here in 2000, I think I first time I went to a hospital was around 2005 or six.
And since then, it's just been a complete change.
Right. Quite impressive.
I only have the experience of a public hospital, so I can't say no more.
What about about Unfortunately, I knew, very seldom visit hospitals and I was never hospitalised.
Well, unless I had my teeth fixed, but seeing the Sano Japanese hospital, which is state owned, although the Japanese sponsorship, it's not really a drug venture or foreign hospital.
It's so much overcrowded, so scary, I'd rather spend my own money instead of going for reimbursement to go to a dentist nearby, run by private enterprises.
Because I work for the Chinese public institutions and they also have their own clinic or smaller hospitals over there.
Entire medical expenses can be fully reimbursed, so therefore, virtually there's no need for me to visit any foreign hospitals here.
But you can see that there are a number of hospitals involving foreign investment here in Beijing, and they are more reserved for elites like Enof Tangon.
Thank you for that, good to have friends.
High -wares people, so honouring people it's very difficult to really to tap into their pocket for such sort of service.
They are pretty polite and there are many professionals and the environment is really clean so I paid some visit as a consultant for some companies in such industry, but I was not really a victim or beneficiary of foreign hospitals here.
That's totally fortunate.
And so, let's turn to the new policy of the law.
China's obviously opening its healthcare service market wider to the outside world, and green lighting, holy, foreign owned hospitals in eight key cities, and the island province of Hainan.
And some reports call it a policy shift.
So Bao Cheng, do you see it the same way?
I think it's a shift of orientation, because in 2014, there was already a public announcement allow foreign investment in the industry of healthcare and to build hospitals.
But of course you know that was primarily focusing on John ventures, but now this shift is fully wholly owned.
The foreign investment the hospitals can be permitted in eight cities, but at the moment I could see that there's not much enthusiasm from this particular industry, because the healthcare industry is highly regulated, and there are many hurdles that need to be helped before the investors can really plunge their money into China.
And now, the major issue lies in that policy alignment, because in 2014 we had that policy, and then in 2015 the NDRC, I mean the National Development and Reform Commission, issued a list of foreign investment in which they restrict the foreign investment into the Chinese hospital industries.
Therefore, different ministries have different attitudes towards that.
I hope this time China is getting more serious.
And we have, you know, the cross -cutting ministerial really policies that fully support such, because we do really need that for whatever reason for the Chinese consumers, for the Chinese market and also for the growing Chinese economy and bring China onto a more of a high -end service industry.
So these are really critical needs, but there are still a lot more homework for the regulators, particularly to techaways.
We'll tap into such kind of homework later on, but maybe it's not that China was not basically not serious last time when it introduced a similar policy, it's just maybe the conditions were not that ripe at that time.
John, what's your interpretation of that?
Right now, I'm thinking despite the policy, it seems a little more seriously, considering the international conflicts by the country and the country.
Also, considering the macroeconomic situation in China, so the government right now wants want to open the door, more widely to their foreignness.
Also, we see the last few years we already waived the Visa for many countries from the 15 days right now to the 30 days.
We are welcome more foreign visitors to China.
Also, I'm thinking this is in line with this general policies.
We want to attract more foreign investment, also we want to provide more better health care service to the foreigners in China, also to the more affluent, more rich Chinese people, because, especially before COVID -19, we see quite a lot more rich Chinese people seek better health care in the foreign countries if they have some kind of more serious problems.
So this is general intention government to try to open the door, try to attract foreign investments.
However, I'm thinking the general situation right now, Chinese health care market is still quite highly regulated.
Also public hospital right now still account for about 80 % of the health care services in China, so the situation right now is still quite tough for foreign investors to open the fully owned hospital in China.
The major problem is best doctors the experts right now it's most doctors they are really they stay in the public hospitals.
For the foreign hospital in China they have a good doctor, good expert in order to attract patients.
It will be quite difficult to let the foreign doctors to work in China for longer times.
Maybe you could have some a few foreign expert come to to China work maybe a few weeks or few months.
I'm thinking still if we have a better doctor for this kind of foreign invest the hospital if they could attract better doctors there will be make things much better but anyway this policy because hospital investment is taking a really longer time in the years so this policy at least to have a good intention have a good start maybe gradually when the situation it's better better, maybe that could be potentially, it could be a good movement.
It takes time to sort all those things out.
A talent issue aside and then there comes this question of how attractive is to foreign investors, right.
I know you know whether you want to go into a market one deciding factor is how big the market is China actually already got more than 60 jointly funded hospitals serving the high end healthcare market of like elites like you but how big of a gap is there in market demand that needs to be filled and you know how attractive is it for foreign investors to just throw their money into China's healthcare market.
So from a business model if I am looking at the United States where I can extract huge amounts of money, I mean 16 % of the world of the nation's GDP is devoted to health care but that's not going to happen in China because you have a national health care, you know, idea, there are about 13 ,000 hospitals that service that service 83 .5 % of the population those are government hospitals the rest of the hospitals are smaller to divide it up but what you're talking about here is about a market of about 300 million people.
Well let's put that in perspective, that's almost the entire population of the United States and these are people who have the funds to expand a lot of money.
So why is the Chinese government doing this now?
And have there been efforts in the past?
I've experienced it from a slightly different point of view.
I have a friend who has a medical facility on Hunching Island.
This is near Hong Kong, Macau.
It's kind of jointly put together, but it was allowed that they can actually have medical therapies there, that would not necessarily be approved in China, but that have regulatory approvals by either the EU or the US.
The FDA, Food and Drug Administration type organization said, Okay, this is So it's kind of an in -between and they've been trying this for a while.
Now, why would the Chinese government do this?
Well there's some concern about Chinese going abroad and getting therapies.
It's unregulated. You don't know what they're actually getting.
It would be much better to have it on shore, near shore where things can be in fact monitored because there's a genuine concern about Chinese getting medical care because they may not be...
They can easily be talked into things because they don't have the medical knowledge.
And so the government is acting to in essence protect them to make sure that nothing on toward is happening.
I mean, I had a situation where my wife was dying of cancer and people would come up and say it for a million dollars.
And money back guarantee I'll give you a magic pill and this pill will cure the cancer.
And if it doesn't cure the cancer, will give you your money back well obviously they're playing the law of averages they were not going to give anything that had any medical value or anything like that happen in China or other markets.
Yes it happened in China happening in China they were using intermediaries this was a Taiwanese group but it's not you know there are good groups coming in from Hong Kong everyone was you know just let's prey on this group of people who don't have the medical knowledge and tell them that we have magic and we can solve this or they'd say some long story about how this was secret research by an independent, a brilliant physician from Switzerland or something like that.
They always had some sort of story.
But when you're desperate, and we've seen this in America and throughout the world, when you're desperate, you'll do almost anything for those you love.
In China, medical situations involving something very serious.
The tendency is to send them to Beijing because Beijing has the best hospitals.
They're not really knowledgeable about the doctors and things like that.
But they say, well, if I've sent my relative to Beijing and paid whatever is necessary, I've done everything I can, and I've fulfilled my duty.
And this is very important.
I mean, for the Chinese in America, when you have a medical problem, you might have, depending on your situation with your relatives you might have a not a very welcome.
They might not even come and visit you.
In China I mean they literally bring you food every day and try to make sure that you're comfortable.
So there are different cultural aspects to this.
There's also you talked about the funding.
Yeah, Chinese firms are split on this.
There are insurance firms within China that provide additional care.
Even in America, there are a number of insurance programs who said that they would not cover Beijing United because they said the costs are so beyond anything, even in the United States.
And they wouldn't give any discounts and they wouldn't work with insurers, so some insurers said we won't cover it or we'll only cover up to a certain amount.
But there are a lot of insurance programs that are kind of sitting offshore.
For instance, most expats get insurance through Hong Kong or from their home countries and they this gives them access to these kind of international clinics and things like that.
So it's not, very few people are actually paying out of pocket for them.
In terms of the doctors, you have to understand, I think what China is trying to do is leverage their understanding of how they their approaches and protocols.
I mean, most people think that doctors are some sort of magic.
Doctors have good memories.
It's required. Every time you engage, you know, find a set of symptoms, what you have to do is go through the protocols that you were taught in medical school.
And what those mean is, say, Okay, this person has these six symptoms, protocol one for the six systems is do these things.
If that doesn't work, go to Protocol B.
And then you go down the line.
It's wasteful. AI can probably change some of that, but not all of it.
There still has to be some sort of diagnostic input by human beings.
And of course, the robots aren't doing the tests and things like that.
So China, I think, is trying to do what they did with the legal system.
China was in need of understanding international law.
But as a foreign lawyer, you cannot practice in China.
But you can be an advisor, an expert, and then a Chinese lawyer can actually execute whatever is necessary.
And for non -mistaken, I think this is what they're looking for.
They're looking for the transfer of understanding protocols, knowledge into the Chinese market, and they will pay for that, and I do not think that that is a huge thing because the doctors are not actually practicing.
They are consulting.
And there's a long history of this in China.
In fact, when I was Chairman of the State's International Trade Council for Wisconsin, I learned that many of our leading doctors in the United States were actually coming to China to learn microsurgery.
Because in Shanghai, they had the best microsurgery practicum there because these doctors were doing these microsurgeons about five or six times a day, whereas our doctors would do them five or six times a year.
The amount of knowledge that they were able to get from that was very useful.
This idea that it's just getting knowledge from everywhere else is not true, especially today.
I know people who are doing drug testing here, because we're to qualify for FDA or the EU, or even in China you have to put your pharmaceutical, your drugs, and your procedures through their paces.
This costs a lot of money.
It takes a lot of time.
A lot of it has shifted to China.
Now, because of regulatory issues, geopolitical issues basically.
A lot of these procedures have been reversed.
For instance, any procedure that had involved a military hospital in China, has now in said well that could be subject to being disqualified.
They don't really say why, they just say well you know and international intelligence and all the usual nonsense but at the end of the day this is going to create more work in China and China has become a kind of testbed for experimental procedures and things like that because of the huge data set that's involved.
Hmm, yeah there are several outstanding issues from the investors perspective one is that that because the state -owned hospitals are heavily subsidized by the Chinese government.
And so there is no expectation that they're going to receive the same preferential treatment from the Chinese government.
So therefore, you can hardly expect a level playing field of competition for investment here in China for hospitals.
Second is that existing Chinese hospitals their return on investment is pretty much dependent on setting drugs, the pharmacies within the hospital.
So the medical service does not really acquire a line share in the entire revenue portfolio.
So that's another consideration.
The third is that because of getting more and more stringent government procurement programs, whether those foreign hospitals will be able to enter into the government procurement program, or certain institutions like my university, we sign up with three hospitals.
And only, you know, the medical bills from these identified hospitals from our university procurement program can be reimbursed by all universities.
So all these issues are really some of the major considerations for investors to calculate before they are ready to put up their investment.
Like you all mentioned, maybe there are all kinds of reasons dampening their enthusiasm entering the Chinese market.
But what China now is doing is just trying to prepare itself, right?
That doesn't mean it's the same case in the future, right?
Preparing itself ...
It's a good beginning.
Right. put itself in a condition more in line with international practices.
Yes, not many of them are interested, but there are some, right?
Because I know there are some jointly funded hospitals under construction in Hainan and also there are 60 -plus jointly funded hospitals also running pretty well actually on the Chinese mainland like the United Family mentioned by you all and Sam and Chang Kong hospital invested by Taiwan tycoon.
So wondering maybe John you can explain a little bit um what do you see those hospitals doing right to succeed at least you know for the present in China and maybe they can be a good lesson for others who want to enter the Chinese market in the future.
These hospitals do bring some kind of a new hospital management.
Also, the service quality are much better, they have a better environment.
Also, the doctors they are more professional.
All these kind of things will bring some new things to China, the health care sectors.
So for the public funded hospital they do could learn something from these foreign funded hospitals.
Also for example, in Shanghai, the government start to open the door for the public insurance reimbursement for some up these kind of foreign -funded hospital.
So, even the money is not a lot, but still these kinds of new policies, they will attract more patients to these hospitals.
So, that's why these foreign -inforced hospitals, they really want to government, could allow them to the public, the insurance could reimbursement for the hospital.
I'm thinking this kind of policy could be a little bit more open for the other, for infant hospital.
So that's important for the reimbursement." That was Professor John Tsai, director of the Center for Healthcare Management and Policy China -Europe International Business School Shanghai.
Ainer Tengen, a senior fellow at the Taihe Institute.
And Professor Liu Baochung, the director of the Center for International Business Ethics, University of International Business and Economics." That's wrap up for this spring festival edition of World Today with Miku Anna.
Thank you so much for listening, bye for now.
