Only 15.2 per cent give the public healthcare system in Poland a positive rating, while 31.5 per cent view it neutrally. Access to medical specialists fares even worse: just 12.3 per cent rate it positively, compared to 63.9 per cent who rate it negatively (including 29.6 per cent who rate it very poorly). These findings come from the report ‘The Social Significance of Health Capital: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Expectations of Poles Towards the Healthcare System’, prepared by the Centre for Sociomedical Research and the Institute for Patients’ Rights and Health Education. The survey was conducted by SW Research in May 2026 across a representative sample of 1,000 adult Poles. The study’s findings will be discussed during the panel debate ‘How healthy citizens can drive the Polish economy’, taking place on Wednesday, 9 September, from 14:50 to 15:50 in the Rzeczpospolita lounge.
Who do patients trust?
Responses regarding how public healthcare funds are managed are even more definitive. A striking 65.5 per cent of respondents believe the money is not being spent wisely, while 16.5 per cent disagree and 18 per cent express no opinion. Crucially, a critical overall assessment of the system does not signal a total breakdown of trust across all its constituent parts.
Pharmacies command the highest level of trust, cited by 65.6 per cent of respondents. Private medical facilities are trusted by 57.6 per cent, family doctors and primary care providers by 54.5 per cent, and public sector specialists by 47.7 per cent. Central administrative bodies fare significantly worse: the National Health Fund is trusted by just 26.1 per cent of respondents, and the Ministry of Health by 25.1 per cent.
The report’s authors highlight that patients draw a clear distinction between the professionals with whom they have direct contact and the institutions administering the system. Consequently, a patient may trust their doctor or pharmacist while simultaneously holding a negative view of how the overall healthcare system is organised and funded.
Reduced waiting time in the private sector
Despite widespread criticism of the system, public healthcare remains the primary source of medical treatment for Poles. Over the past 24 months, 84.7 per cent of respondents made use of public services, while 65.9 per cent engaged with private facilities. The report’s authors note that a hybrid model operates in practice: rather than opting exclusively for one sector, Polish patients routinely navigate both.
The primary driver behind choosing private treatment is waiting times. Indeed, 49.8 per cent of private healthcare users did so specifically to secure shorter wait times. A further 20.2 per cent turned to private care because the required service was unavailable through the public system. In total, immediate service availability was the decisive factor for roughly seven out of ten private patients. Superior quality was a far less prominent motive, cited as the main reason by just 15.3 per cent of respondents, while 13.7 per cent opted for private care because they held a health subscription or insurance policy.
Access to private healthcare is strongly correlated with income and education level; as both rise, reliance on private providers increases accordingly. In contrast, the National Health Fund (NFZ) serves a broad demographic, drawing patients across all income brackets and from major cities to smaller towns alike.
Where do premiums go?
The survey also evaluated how well Poles understand how their healthcare system is financed. While 77.8 per cent correctly identified health insurance premiums as a core funding source for public healthcare, 53.9 per cent cited the state budget. Supplementary private insurance was mentioned far less frequently (11.5 per cent), as were European Union funds (10.1 per cent). When asked which body funds the majority of healthcare services, 67.7 per cent correctly identified the National Health Fund.
Understanding of the health insurance premium itself proved significantly poorer. Although 70.5 per cent of respondents believe that every working Pole pays it, only 46.4 per cent accurately identified the rate as 9 per cent of income. Over a third (36.3 per cent) admitted they had no idea of the figure, while 10.9 per cent thought it was 5 per cent and 6.4 per cent believed it to be 15 per cent. Nevertheless, 65.3 per cent of respondents recognise that mandatory premiums fail to cover total medical expenditure in Poland.
Who owns the hospitals?
The report’s authors also probed public awareness surrounding a number of underlying principles of the system. The single greatest misconception concerned hospital ownership: 43.1 per cent of respondents believed that the National Health Fund (NFZ) owns the majority of hospitals in Poland. Just 32.1 per cent correctly identified the claim as false, with 24.8 per cent undecided. This was the only misconception among four tested where incorrect responses outnumbered correct answers.
Furthermore, 58.9 per cent of respondents believed that primary care is funded entirely through health insurance premiums. Conversely, 64.6 per cent rightly rejected the assertion that receiving private treatment precludes a patient from accessing services covered by the NFZ.
The authors conclude that while Poles’ understanding of healthcare financing is not entirely lacking, it remains incomplete. Respondents show reasonable familiarity with the system's most prominent facets, but lack awareness of its underlying mechanics.
How much does treatment cost?
While showing insufficient understanding of how the system is funded, Poles demand greater transparency. A resounding 76.6 per cent of respondents want access to detailed cost breakdowns for the healthcare services they receive, compared to 11.3 per cent who disagree and 12.1 per cent who hold no view. The authors note that while patients can already inspect treatment costs via their individual online patient account (Internetowe Konto Pacjenta), this feature remains widely overlooked and underutilised.
Respondents were also asked whether participating in preventive health screening programmes and maintaining a healthy lifestyle should influence the amount of health insurance premiums. 43 per cent supported linking premium rates to health behaviours, 24.9 per cent opposed the idea, and 32.1 per cent expressed no definitive opinion.
Support for variable premiums scaled upward alongside income and educational attainment. However, the report’s authors caution that adopting a healthy lifestyle is rarely a matter of pure personal choice, highlighting the heavy influence of income, working conditions, geographic location, and local access to care.
State budget contributions
Respondents left no doubt that the healthcare system requires an injection of funds, though opinion split sharply over the funding source. Direct state budget subsidies topped the list at 42.8 per cent, closely followed by targeted taxes on substances—namely alcohol, cigarettes, and e-cigarettes (39.2 per cent). Meanwhile, 35.3 per cent favoured standardising health premium rules across occupational groups, including farmers, uniformed services, and the self-employed. Additionally, 27.4 per cent backed levies on sugary drinks and unhealthy foods, while 22 per cent favoured voluntary top-up insurance. Broad-based premium increases for all citizens garnered minimal support, endorsed by just 13 per cent.
Higher premiums for shorter wait times?
The outlook shifts noticeably when higher premiums are tied directly to tangible improvements in care quality and access. 36 per cent of respondents expressed a willingness to pay higher premiums in exchange for superior healthcare, virtually balanced by 35.3 per cent who objected. A further 16.9 per cent remained neutral, while 11.8 per cent expressed no view.
According to the report’s authors, these figures must be interpreted alongside the assessment of how public funds are managed. While patients recognise the system's financial plight, many remain unconvinced that increased funding will translate into shorter waiting lists and better treatment. Ultimately, willingness to shoulder higher costs hinges on trust in the governing institutions.
Wages under scrutiny
The survey also examined public attitudes towards pay in public healthcare. 64.9 per cent believe that sector wages should be subject to stricter state regulation, compared to 14.8 per cent who disagree.
The authors interpret this demand as part of a wider public call for rigorous fiscal oversight. The government is viewed not merely as a funding provider, but as the primary guarantor of transparency and accountability in public spending.
The study also investigated patient accountability. Over the past two years, 14.2 per cent of respondents admitted to missing a scheduled medical appointment without cancelling, while 19.8 per cent failed to take prescribed or purchased subsidised medications. Non-compliance was higher still for free preventive care, with 34.2 per cent declining free vaccinations such as the seasonal flu jab. Nevertheless, failing to cancel unneeded appointments was identified by Poles as the single most detrimental patient behaviour, cited by 63.2 per cent of respondents.
Greater transparency is needed
Ultimately, the survey paints a critical portrait of public healthcare. While Poles rely heavily on public provision, millions simultaneously pay out of pocket for private care, primarily to bypass long queues. Dissatisfaction with specialist access and financial mismanagement runs high, yet public trust in doctors and pharmacists remains resilient in contrast to institutional distrust. Furthermore, while citizens agree that funding must rise, they broadly reject blanket premium hikes.
As the report’s authors stress, securing lasting public endorsement for changes in healthcare requires more than capital investment—it demands operational transparency that clearly demonstrates to patients where additional funds are being directed.
