Clin­i­cal Es­tab­lish­ment Act, 2010 has taken ef­fect in only four states

The Sunday Guardian - - Nation -

The Clin­i­cal Es­tab­lish­ment (Regis­tra­tion and Reg­u­la­tion) Act, 2010, which was en­acted by the Cen­tre for reg­u­lat­ing all clin­i­cal es­tab­lish­ments in the coun­try, has come into ef­fect in only four states and all Union Ter­ri­to­ries, ex­cept NCT of Delhi.

The is­sue has come to light fol­low­ing the re­cent in­ci­dent of al­leged over­charg­ing by Gu­ru­gram’s For­tis Hospi­tal, Haryana. The Cen­tre be­lieves that such an in­ci­dent could have been pre­vented had the Act been im­ple­mented in the state. The Act, which was passed by Parliament in 2012, pro­vides for regis­tra­tion and reg­u­la­tion of all clin­i­cal es­tab­lish­ments in the coun­try with a view to pre­scribe the min­i­mum stan­dards of fa­cil­i­ties and ser­vices pro­vided by them. How­ever, even after five years, it has be­come ef­fec­tive in only four states—Arunachal Pradesh, Hi­machal Pradesh, Mi­zo­ram and Sikkim. The Act is ap­pli­ca­ble to all types (both ther­a­peu­tic and di­ag­nos­tic types) of clin­i­cal es­tab­lish­ments from the pub­lic and pri­vate sec­tors, be­long­ing to all recog­nised sys­tems of medicine, in­clud­ing sin­gle doc­tor clin­ics. The only ex­cep­tion is clin­i­cal es­tab­lish­ments run by the Armed Forces.

The main fea­tures of the Act in­clude trans­parency in the process of regis­tra­tion, which would lead to bet­ter reg­u­la­tion. All hos­pi­tals and clin­ics are sup­posed to keep all the data in pub­lic do­main and promi­nently dis­play de­tails of charges and fa­cil­i­ties, in lo­cal as well as English lan­guage. The Act also stip­u­lates that these in­sti­tu­tions main­tain and pro­vide elec­tronic med­i­cal records of ev­ery pa­tient as may be de­ter­mined and is­sued by the Cen­tral or state gov­ern­ment. The Act was en­acted as the gov­ern­ment felt that “health­care in In­dia suf­fers from un­der reg­ula- tion sub­ject­ing the pop­u­lace to poor qual­ity of treat­ment, quack­ery menace and high costs”. “The pri­vate sec­tor has a vast range of ser­vice providers from the highly com­pe­tent to quacks. Pa­tients’ safety is com­pro­mised and fi­nanc­ing and ser­vice de­liv­ery are not trans­par­ent and ac­count­able, mak­ing de­liv­ery of health­care prej­u­diced against the poor. High cost of health­care in pri­vate sec­tor raises the is­sue of af­ford­abil­ity and eq­uity,” says the Act. Tak­ing note of the is­sue after the Gu­ru­gram in­ci­dent, the Union Min­istry of Health has di­rected all states and UTs to adopt and im­ple­ment the Act. Union Health Sec­re­tary Preeti Su­dan has writ­ten a let­ter to all chief sec­re­taries, say­ing it is time to learn lessons from such in­ci­dents (like Gu­ru­gram’s).

“I ad­vise that a meet­ing with all im­por­tant health­care es­tab­lish­ments (in­clud­ing pri­vate hos­pi­tals) of your state be taken and they be clearly sounded not to in­dulge in such prac­tices fol­low­ing which strict ac­tion will be taken. I re­quest you to kindly get the Clin­i­cal Es­tab­lish­ment Act adopted and im­ple­mented by your state also,” Su­dan has writ­ten in her let­ter.

A seven-year-old girl died at Gu­ru­gram’s For­tis Hospi­tal after un­der­go­ing treat­ment for dengue on 14 Septem­ber. The par­ents al­leged that the hospi­tal al­lowed them to take the body after pay­ing Rs 18 lakh, which ac­cord­ing to them was “over-charge”. The Health Min­istry has di­rected the Haryana Health De­part­ment to look into the case and go for ex­em­plary pun­ish­ment if the hospi­tal was found over­charg­ing. Su­dan said: “It has been al­leged that the pa­tient was grossly over­charged and stan­dard treat­ment pro­to­cols were not fol­lowed.” “Such in­ci­dents have an ex­tremely dele­te­ri­ous im­pact on the faith of the gen­eral pub­lic in the health care sys­tem in the coun­try,” she has said in the let­ter.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.