BGU | MY PATH, Haim Doron, MD

were in favor of national health insurance through the existing sick funds, but the two were definitely against including a Federation-tied sick fund.

I had a discussion related to the financial crisis in health care with Shimon Peres at one point during his tenure as prime minister (1984-1986). He told me: “You have 40 million doctor visits a year; charge a co-payment for them.” But he knew well that the Federation didn’t allow me to charge patients. I also had a very amicable talk with Yitzhak Rabin about the budget problems, but that didn’t lead to a solution either. In one of the annual budgets that Peres formulated, I learned that Clalit was completely absent. There was no allocation whatsoever for the sick fund. Moreover, there had been a cut in all the health expenditures for the services that the Ministry of Health was entrusted with providing. Minister of Health Motta Gur suggested we go together to Mapai ’s secretariat, where both the heads of Mapai and the heads of the Federation sat, and seek a solution. We got there and told them about the situation. Peres took this personally: Once, previously, when Clalit needed a very large loan from Bank Hapoalim and the bank hesitated, Peres had weighed-in as prime minister, recommending the bank approve the loan. He had also recommended a donation to the sick fund. Therefore, at this juncture he expected me to back him, and he saw my objections to his budget as a personal betrayal. But I had to stick to my guns and side with the best interests of Clalit, without room for personal accounts. I was never in anyone’s corner and my actions were always based on what I saw as the best interests of the issue or project at hand. I admit that I wasn’t very good at politics. Finally, I believe my resignation as director-general of Clalit also contributed in some form to the decision to take such a step. I don’t think I’m exaggerating in saying so, since my resignation expressed the severity of the crisis that Clalit and the Federation were facing. Composition of the Netanyahu Commission In addition to the chairperson, Supreme Court Justice, Shoshana Netanyahu, members of the Commission were Prof. Mordechai Shani, Prof. Shmuel Pinchas, Prof. Arieh Shirom, and Prof. Dov Chernichovsky. Prof. Shirom was at Tel Aviv University, and Prof. Chernichovsky, an economist, was at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. At the time (1988), there were three streams in the Israeli hospitalization system: the government one -- reflected in the appointment of Prof. Mordechai Shani to the Commission; the public hospitalization system that included Hadassah and Shaare Zedek hospitals -- reflected in the appointment of Prof. Shmuel Pinchas, director of Hadassah; and a stream that included hospitals of the country’s sick funds, particularly those of Clalit with its 14 general hospitals throughout the country. While I had resigned and left Clalit, I was pained by the fact that there was no representation of Clalit’s hospitals on the Commission. Recommendations of the Netanyahu Commission Just before leaving on a sabbatical, I appeared before the Netanyahu Commission in testimony spread over several days – hours and hours of testimony. I think my testimony did influence the conclusions of the Commission.

What do I think about the conclusions in the majority report of the Netanyahu Commission?

The Commission recommended universal insurance for the entire population, and one should view this in perspective: Prior to this enlightened proposal, there was already health insurance in a non-governmental framework, with Clalit at the hub. This led to 86.4 percent of the population in the country being insured. In my years in Clalit, I sought to expand the sick fund’s membership without requesting the Federation’s approval. For example, through various

76