SC Seeks Centre’s Response on Plea Concerning Hospital Rate Determination
The Supreme Court has called for a response from the Centre regarding a plea that tackles the issue of determining the rates charged to patients by hospitals. At the heart of the discussion is Rule 9 of the Clinical Establishments (Central government) Rules 2012, which has sparked debates on its feasibility and implementation.
Rule 9 mandates that clinical establishments must adhere to a pricing range predicated by the Central government for various procedures and services. This determination comes through a collaborative process with state governments, aiming to standardize medical costs. However, the application of this rule has stirred concerns among stakeholders, prompting a legal examination by India’s apex judicial authority.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta shared insights on the complexities of imposing fixed fees within the healthcare sector. Highlighting the variable nature of medical charges, the justices remarked, “It all depends upon market forces. A particular doctor may charge Rs 10,000, another may charge Rs 1,000,” suggesting that rigid pricing might inadvertently foster unethical practices.
The court has agreed to delve deeper into this contentious matter, signaling its intent to issue a notice for further deliberations. This plea is set to be examined alongside a related petition that has been seeking a directive for the Centre to establish a definitive rate for patient fees in accordance with Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules.
The upcoming hearing, scheduled for September 10, is expected to bring pivotal discussions to the forefront. Previous sessions have seen proposals for interim solutions, such as adopting CGHS (Central Government Health Scheme) empaneled hospital rates, until a more permanent resolution is achieved. However, the central government has pointed out regulatory hurdles, especially the necessity of obtaining consensus from state governments and Union Territories before proceeding with any rate determination under Rule 9.
In an effort to bridge gaps between differing viewpoints and regulatory requirements, the Supreme Court, in its February hearing, encouraged a collaborative approach. It directed the Secretary, Department of Health, Union of India, to convene with state counterparts to formulate a tangible proposal that addresses the matter comprehensively.
This ongoing case reflects the broader challenge of balancing healthcare affordability with the economic realities of running medical establishments in India. As the Supreme Court continues its review, stakeholders from across the healthcare and legal spectrums are eagerly awaiting outcomes that could shape the future of medical billing and patient care regulations in the country.
