Reproduced from: http://www.indialegallive.com/health/indian-medical-council-amendment-bill-2019-lure-of-the-lucre-68347,
published July 7, 2019
Even
as the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2019 seeks to ensure
transparency in medical education, the fact is that private hospitals are
increasingly getting commercialised even as patient-doctor trust gets eroded
By
Dr KK Aggarwal
In
a move to ensure transparency, accountability and quality in the governance of
medical education, a new bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament—the
Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2019. It seeks to replace the Indian
Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance issued by the previous government.
The Bill will supersede the Indian Medical Council (MCI) for a period of two
years, during which a 12-member board of governors, instead of the earlier
seven, will run the regulatory body for medical education. During this period,
the board of governors shall exercise powers and functions of the MCI as
assigned under the IMC Act, 1956.
It
is a moot question as to why there is so much turmoil in taking control of
medical education. Public health has two components—providing healthcare
services and providing training and producing medical doctors. As per the
Constitution, while the first is a state subject, the second is a central
subject.
Even
though it is a central subject, the MCI has autonomous control and is an
elected body. Politicians and industrialists want to take control of medical
education in India as it is an over Rs 1 lakh crore market. Till 2009, only
non-profit trusts and societies could own medical colleges. But if one wanted
to privatise them, the only answer was to take control of the autonomous MCI by
politicians in the name of the central government.
The
first step in this regard was taken in February 2010 when “firms under the
Company Act” could enter the field, though without commercialising it. This was
by way of non-profit companies. By this time, the MCI was dissolved and taken
up by a board of governors to run it under the control of the government for
the next four years.
In
August 2016, there was a paradigm shift as the government allowed private
for-profit companies to run medical colleges. This opened a new business
opportunity for big private hospitals. In January 2017, another change took
place. Now, existing non-profit trusts and societies already running medical
colleges could convert them to profit-making ventures. This means that all
non-government medical colleges had the chance to convert themselves into
commercial ventures. But still the problem was the controlled fee instituted by
state governments under a Supreme Court decision. In 2018, the MCI was again
taken over by a board of governors.
This
was supposed to continue for the next two years. Then, in May 2019, the
government allowed two to four entities, including trusts, societies, companies
or universities, to set up medical colleges. And thus started the
commercialisation of medical colleges under private-public partnerships.
Still,
this was not enough, and the government mooted an idea through the recent new
educational policy for “fee regulation” to be done away with in professional
courses. This will leave non-governmental medical education open to being
totally commercialised.
Even
if the original MCI is restored or the proposed National Medical Commission
takes over, the damage is already done. Private medical education and
healthcare services will remain commercialised. The current patient-doctor or
hospital-doctor mistrust is also basically over the costly, unaffordable
healthcare services in the private sector and non-availability of the same in
the government sector.
The
basic purpose of becoming a doctor is and will remain to alleviate the
sufferings and pain of the patient. That means that emergent care cannot and
should not be commercialised. But now with medical education being privatised
and run for profit, the basic purpose of becoming a doctor does not remain
intact unless he provides affordable emergent care.
There
are enough opportunities for the health sector to earn from non-emergent care.
This will give enough time to patients to arrange money for their treatment
even when they are not covered by insurance.
But
the “no admission unwritten policy” by most government hospitals for patients
on ventilators, non-booked delivery cases, out of hospital patients on dialysis
and patients requiring acute terminal care or long-term terminal care has
encouraged commercial private hospitals to exploit the situation and charge
exorbitantly for emergent care.
Commercialisation
of medical education and private healthcare is acceptable as long as emergent
care is left affordable, free or subsidised. Under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, central and state governments have enough powers to take over
emergent care and introduce a national list of essential drugs, devices,
investigations and reagents needed for emergent care.
Under
Article 21 read with Article 47, the central and state governments must provide
free emergency care to all and reimburse those who are referred to the
empanelled private sector due to non-availability of beds and under pre-agreed
charges. Once the trust sets in, healthcare can go on smoothly. For example, in
Delhi, there are two big trauma centres which can cater to all emergencies in
the capital. Ever since this took off, we do not find patient-doctor mistrust
in trauma cases.
Medical
education is also dependent on allowing trainee doctors to see patients,
especially those who are in an emergency situation. However, commercialising
emergent care would mean that these young doctors won’t have enough to learn as
the patient numbers will be fewer due to the costs involved.
Also,
converting the MCI to a National Medical Commission (NMC) will be a move
towards a non-federal structure. Today, all state governments, councils and
universities have representation in the MCI. However, once the new Commission
starts, these bodies will have practically no representation.
A
non-autonomous, government-controlled NMC will tend to move towards
commercialisation of medical education. If that happens, a student in any
private medical institution will be brainwashed into thinking that his primary
objective is to make money. But the medical profession is meant to alleviate pain
and suffering and earning money should be the secondary aim.
The
issue of geographic location of medical colleges can be tackled very
effectively in case a national perspective development plan of five years is
computed by the competent authorities. This should be strictly based on
parameters of socio-economic backwardness and need-based analysis in the
context of the mandate included in Article 371 sub-clause 2 of the
Constitution.
Dr KK Aggarwal
Padma Shri Awardee
President Elect Confederation of Medical
Associations in Asia and Oceania
(CMAAO)
Group Editor-in-Chief IJCP Publications
President Heart Care Foundation of
India
Past National President
IMA
No comments:
Post a Comment