[ad_1]
Without opposition, the government succeeded in passing a bill in parliament on Tuesday on increasing the salaries of doctors and the legal status of the health service. The unusual consistency can be explained by two factors:
- The two main themes of the proposal – a truly large-scale increase in medical salaries and the elimination of legal gratitude money from medical care – were not brought to parliament on the basis of the will of the government from above, but on the proposal of the reformist presidency of the Hungarian Medical Chamber.
- On two of these issues, without the risk of losing political prestige, the opposition groups would not have been able to vote against or abstain if they did not agree with several points or with the way it was presented.
Although this was the case, almost all opposition MPs who spoke in the parliamentary debate on the bill before the final vote on Tuesday morning indicated that, despite the group’s supportive vote, they had serious problems with the bill.
In addition to the lack of income settlement for health professionals or GPs, most of whom are self-employed, the invoice (Gergely Gulyás promised to settle the latter in his response to the speeches), it was the opposition deputies who had the most problems with the way the proposal was presented.
After Viktor Orbán announced on Saturday that the government had accepted the proposals of the Hungarian Medical Chamber to increase salaries and withdraw the thank you money, a bill on the matter was already presented on Monday in parliament. The Hungarian Medical Chamber and other professional organizations, on the other hand, only had hours to comment on it before the corresponding parliamentary commission began to discuss it.
However, the proposal was not simply about creating the legal framework for an agreed wage increase. A new type of legal relationship is Health Service initiated the introduction of the law into the legal system and assigned a series of seemingly strict conflict of interest rules to obtain higher wages.
However, interested organizations, such as MOK or the Hungarian Medical Union (MOSZ), have criticized the proposal. Some of the IOC proposals were incorporated into the bill, which was put to the vote in the exceptional procedure, by means of amendments, and the more general concerns were echoed in the speeches of the deputies who intervened in the parliamentary debate. We passed with Zoltán Szabad, the president of the Hungarian Medical Union (MOSZ), at least on the main points, what are these:
1. The prohibition of commercial contracts or personal contributions compromises the operation of the supply and unjustifiably restricts the freedom of establishment.
In public health, specialists currently provide care in various areas, such as emergencies, trauma, anesthesiology and intensive care, as “personal contributors”, practically entrepreneurial, working in several institutions at the same time. This is prohibited in principle by the bill now approved, unless the ban endangers the functioning of care.
According to Zoltán Szabad, it is not that this situation is appropriate, nor is it good that the doctors working in these professions “can only maintain an acceptable standard of living”, but it is a fact that the state benefits listed are based on individual taxpayers. ,
“A categorical ban on this will lead to the collapse of the system” and, according to the union, it also violates the right to free enterprise.
2. Linking a second medical job to a permit if the conditions are clear is “fine”, but it doesn’t make sense to ban all other gainful activities.
Rita Lénárd, one of the vice-presidents of the Medical Chamber, said on Hír Tv on Monday night that since the doctor who works in public health also works in private practice, the measure will lead to an envelope of doctors. However, she stressed, the camera also points to wanting doctors. you do not have to To take advantage of second jobs, you must be able to earn a living on base salary and possibly on call duty within the legal framework.
Zoltán Szabad is of the same opinion, adding that MOSZ considers it to be an “unjustified restriction” that
The law restricts not only health care activities performed by other service providers, but also all other activities performed for financial gain, including the activities of experts, primary producers, or even professional athletes.
3. Current medical care will not tolerate a strict separation between public and private care.
According to a law passed Tuesday, doctors who provide health services in state or municipal institutions will be prohibited from treating a patient who has already been treated for the same problem in their private practice. However, the provision aimed at a strict separation of private and public care, according to Szabad, will lead to impossible situations in medical care, which will ultimately be to the detriment of patients.
A local patient in a private practice can no longer go to the same doctor, even if he has no other option, because only that doctor works in the specialized clinic.
You are free to imagine that these cases will also be regulated by the promised regulations, but for now, the union will have to start from the text of the law, and that will not solve this anomaly.
4. Publishing for up to two years constitutes an unacceptable restriction of freedoms.
MOSZ’s biggest problem with the law is that it stipulates that doctors who perform health services must agree to be transferred for 1 + 1 years, or as the law states, can be assigned They will be in another state or municipal health institution, even far from their place of residence.
According to Zoltán Szabad and the union, a serious restriction on the freedoms of doctors who work in public health is that they can be transferred to the other half of the country, “away from their family, from their home”, and in a very short time , with only ten days of mandatory notice. Furthermore, according to the MOSZ, the right of patients to freely choose a doctor is restricted if their doctor goes elsewhere for an indefinite period of time.
“According to the first comments, doctors in our field of vision are also very upset with this provision because it interferes with their privacy and creates a strong sense of insecurity in them.”
– Free explained, adding that he also considered it conceivable that these restrictions were considered disproportionate to the promised benefit (higher wages) and that they would prefer freer private health care or work abroad. Simply choosing what the government wanted to act against with the now passed law.
As the owner of the proposed salary increase, we also request the opinion of the Hungarian Medical Chamber on the law finally passed. We wanted to interview one of your board members on the subject. However, they received an email response saying “[k]only knowing the details of the law passed today and after interpreting the text “, can they make a significant statement on the subject, and work on the interpretation of the law” with great force, with the participation of our members. So much so, despite the fact that the government accepted some of its requests for amendments “very soon”, the chamber “considers more consultations necessary” on the law.
[ad_2]
