Clinical Establishments Act will take up treatment cost: IMA
- India hits back, says only issue in Kashmir is how to free PoK from Pakistan
- Hydraulic failure forces AI plane to make emergency landing
- Body found in Raigad forest is of Sheena, confirms DNA sample report
- Market back to levels when Narendra Modi came to power
- Two Indians taken into custody in Bangkok bombing case
The Bombay Nursing Home Act is being implemented and there is no need for another Act in the state, doctors said. The Clinical Establishment Act (CEA) Bill first introduced in Parliament in 2007 by the then health minister Anbumani Ramadoss was rejected by a parliamentary panel
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) has strongly opposed certain sections of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 likely to be adopted by Maharashtra the Winter session of the state legislature.
The IMA brass has written to MLAs, and MPs as well, urging them to give it a rethink.
They claimed in a statement here that Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad was keen on getting the draft rules and regulations adopted by the state in the Winter session. "The union minister has not taken into consideration how detrimental certain portions of the draft rules are," IMA national vice-president of Dr D K Shirole, IMA state secretary Dr Jayesh Lele and others said in the statement.
This will lead to corporatisation of healthcare and disappearance of single-doctor practitioners while promoting corruption and nepotism, IMA alleged and pointed out they were apprehensive of largescale harassment of the private healthcare sector if the rules are adopted by the state.
The Bombay Nursing Home Act is being implemented and there is no need for another Act in the state, doctors said. The Clinical Establishment Act (CEA) Bill first introduced in Parliament in 2007 by the then health minister Anbumani Ramadoss was rejected by a parliamentary committee.
In 2010, the rejected bill was introduced in Parliament by Azad and was passed despite strong opposition. It was supposed to be adopted by states with changes if needed.
The requirements of the health sector differs from state to state and objections are being raised as the Act would directly increase treatment costs in the state.