The Supreme Court asked a fundamental question to the government about the feasibility of implementing uniform rates in private hospitals. The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, questioned the feasibility of imposing uniform rates on private hospitals during a recent hearing. They emphasized that pricing in private hospitals is typically driven by market forces and compared it to the hypothetical scenario of imposing uniform fees for lawyers.
NEW DELHI: Today (29th April): The Supreme Court asked the Central Government’s attempt to establish uniform rates for patient care in private hospitals, emphasizing the role of market forces in determining such matters.
The Court issued a notice to the Government in response to a petition challenging regulations on uniform rates for ophthalmological procedures across India. The case has drawn the attention of various senior advocates representing different parties, including the Indian Medical Association and private hospitals. Additionally, a prior bench expressed disappointment over private hospitals’ failure to fulfill their commitment to reserve beds for economically weaker sections.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court: Private Hospitals on ‘Subsidized Lands’ Not Keeping Beds for Poor
The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, questioned the feasibility of imposing uniform rates on private hospitals during a recent hearing. They emphasized that pricing in private hospitals is typically driven by market forces and compared it to the hypothetical scenario of imposing uniform fees for lawyers. The Court’s query raises concerns about the government’s attempt to regulate pricing in private healthcare establishments.
The Court questioned,
“How can there be uniform rates even in private hospitals? It all depends on market forces. What if there was uniform fees for lawyers appearing here?”
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing one of the parties, criticized the government regulations as being “completely out of hand.” The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, represented the Central government, while Senior Advocate Maninder Singh spoke on behalf of the Indian Medical Association. Senior Advocate Harish Salve appeared for a group of private hospitals involved in the case.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale remarked,
‘All these private hospitals, when receiving subsidized land, commit to reserving at least 25 per cent beds for Economically Weaker Sections, but it never materializes. We have seen it many times.'”
The issue of private hospitals reneging on their commitment to reserve beds for economically weaker sections also came up during the hearing. A separate bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, had previously expressed their disappointment in private hospitals for not adhering to their obligations regarding subsidized lands. These hospitals were supposed to reserve at least 25 percent of their beds for economically weaker sections. However, the bench noted that this commitment was often not fulfilled.
Background
The petition filed by the All India Ophthalmological Society argued against uniform rates for procedures conducted by specialists, highlighting the disparity between metropolitan cities and remote villages. The society contended that rates should reflect the varying economic conditions and healthcare requirements of different regions.
Previously, the Supreme Court had issued a limited notice to the Attorney General and scheduled further consideration of the matter for April 17. During the earlier hearing, Justice Dhulia expressed concerns about challenging a policy that could potentially affect the affordability of healthcare rates in the northeastern regions.
In today’s proceedings, the case was combined with an existing petition seeking directions to the Union Government to establish hospital treatment rates in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010.
