Wording
of charter spurs concern right to free care may be limited
AS THE
REFERENDUM on the charter draft draws nearer, people are concerned their right
to free state healthcare services will be lost if the document is adopted.
Their
concern centres on the draft's Section 47, which states that "the
poor" will get free medical services but does not refer to other groups.
At first
glance, the clause sounds good because it would benefit the poor. But as the
charter draft comes under closer scrutiny ahead of the August 7 referendum,
critics have pointed out that the next government could effectively receive a
blank cheque to redesign the universal healthcare scheme if the charter passes.
Launched
14 years ago, the scheme offers most types of medical services to most people
in Thailand for free. At present, the scheme covers 48.7 million people.
As a
result, most people no longer have to worry about medical bankruptcies. They
can walk into hospitals and ask for treatment, even in the case of medical
emergencies, without having to worry about the cost.
People
not covered by the social security scheme or the health scheme for civil
servants and their family members are entitled to the universal healthcare
scheme's services. Before the launch of the universal scheme, only poor people
were entitled free medical treatment. But to access free treatment, they had to
ask for help from medical service providers.
Many
paying people complained that hospital staff demanded money in advance before
providing care in medical emergencies.
That is
why the charter drafters' decision to specify that "the poor" will
receive free medical services without mentioning other groups has become a
contentious issue.
Critics
have warned that the charter would set Thailand's healthcare system backwards.
They believe it would undo the efforts achieved by the 1997 and the 2007
constitutions, which supported the universal healthcare scheme for the benefit
of most citizens.
Many
critics also remain unappeased by the charter draft's promise of free
preventive healthcare and disease prevention during outbreaks of dangerous
diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), or the commitment to
the welfare of the elderly and pregnant women.
Sarcastic
comments about the draft have been proliferating particularly on social media.
Critics have insisted that people should have a right to free state medical
services and not have to beg for it. Dr Mongkol Na Songkhla, a former public
health minister and permanent secretary for Public Health, posted on Facebook:
"We won't want to see Thai people coming to hospitals, sweating and using
loans to pay for their treatment. We won't want to see people coming to
hospitals so depressed as they hold low-income-earner cards and have to beg for
medical services."
There has
been a proposal to categorise some people as low income, entitling them to the
free care. Other prominent figures have also questioned the draft.
However,
Constitution Drafting Commission (CDC) chairman Meechai Ruchuphan has said the
charter would not deprive the public of the right to free state medical
services. "We didn't mention anything about cancelling the rights. We
didn't touch on the universal healthcare scheme either. You can check our
draft," he said.
He added
that the decision to enshrine the rights of poor people in regards to receiving
free medical care only aimed to ensure the care of them. "We add what the
country has not yet had. We hope to promote equality and eradicate
inequalities," he said.
CDC
spokesman Udom Rathamarit also insisted the charter draft would not strip
people of their right to free medical services.
Nimit
Tien-udom, of the AIDS Access Foundation, said: "Through state mechanisms,
the government has informed people that the current charter draft seeks to give
complete healthcare to people from birth until death. But the problem is the
government has provided just some of the facts."
Nimit
said he and representatives from several healthcare groups in the
non-governmental sector believed the charter draft would destroy equality in
the healthcare system. "We have such a concern |and we have tried to
communicate that with the public. So far, though, our voice hasn't been as loud
as the government's," he said.
Chularat
Saengpassa
No comments:
Post a Comment