PolicyExamining the National Medical Commission Bill, 2017Nivedita Rao- May 3, 2018TheNational Medical Commission(NMC) Bill, 2017 was introduced in Lok Sabha in December, 2017.  It was examined by the Standing Committee on Health,which submitted its report during Budget Session 2018.  The Bill seeks to regulate medical education and practice in India.  In this post, we analyse the Bill in its current form.How is medical education and practice regulated currently?The Medical Council of India (MCI) is responsible for regulating medical education and practice.  Over the years, there have been several issues with the functioning of the MCI with respect to itsregulatory role, composition, allegations of corruption, and lack of accountability.For example, MCI is an elected body where its members are elected by medical practitioners themselves, i.e. the regulator is elected by the regulated.  In light of such issues,expertsrecommended nomination based constitution of the MCI instead of election, and separating the regulation of medical education and medical practice.  They suggested thatlegislative changesshould be brought in to overhaul the functioning of the MCI.To meet this objective, the Bill repeals the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and dissolves the current Medical Council of India (MCI) which regulates medical education and practice.Who will be a part of the NMC?The NMC will consist of 25 members, of which at least 17 (68%) will be medical practitioners.  The Standing Committee has noted that the current MCI isnon-diverseand consists mostly of doctors who look out for their own self-interest over larger public interest.   In order to reduce the monopoly of doctors, it recommended that the MCI should include diverse stakeholders such as public health experts, social scientists, and health economists.  In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the General Medical Council (GMC) responsible for regulating medical education and practice consists of 12 medical practitioners and 12 lay members (such as community health members, and administrators from the local government).How will the issues of medical misconduct be addressed?The State Medical Council will receive complaints relating to professional or ethical misconduct against a registered doctor.  If the doctor is aggrieved by the decision of the State Medical Council, he may appeal to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board, and further before the NMC.  Appeals against the decision of the NMC will lie before the central government.  It is unclear why the central government is an appellate authority with regard to such matters.It may be argued that disputes related to ethics and misconduct in medical practice may require judicial expertise.  For example, in the UK, the GMC receives complaints with regard to ethical misconduct and is required to do an initial documentary investigation.  It then forwards the complaint to a Tribunal, which is ajudicial body independent of the GMC.  The adjudication and final disciplinary action is decided by the Tribunal.What will the NMC’s role be in fee regulation of private medical colleges?In India, theSupreme Court has heldthat private providers of education haveto operate as charitable and not for profit institutions.Despite this, many private education institutions continue to charge exorbitant fees which makes medical education unaffordable and inaccessible to meritorious students.  Currently, for private unaided medical colleges, the fee structure is decided by a committee set up by state governments under the chairmanship of a retired High Court judge.  The Bill allows the NMC to frame guidelines for determination of fees for up to 40% of seats in private medical colleges and deemed universities.  The question is whether the NMC as a regulator should regulate fees charged by private medical colleges.ANITI Aayog Committee(2016) was of the opinion that a fee cap would discourage the entry of private colleges, therefore, limiting the expansion of medical education.  It also observed that it is difficult to enforce such a fee cap and could lead medical colleges to continue charging high fees under other pretexts.Note that theParliamentary Standing Committee (2018)which examined the Bill has recommended continuing the current system of fee structures being decided by the Committee under the chairmanship of a retired High Court judge.  However, for those private medical colleges and deemed universities, unregulated under the existing mechanism, fee must be regulated for at least 50% of the seats.  The Union Cabinet hasapproved an Amendmentto increase the regulation of fees to 50% of seats.How will doctors become eligible to practice?The Bill introduces a National Licentiate Examination for students graduating from medical institutions in order to obtain a licence to practice as a medical professional.However, the NMC may permit a medical practitioner to perform surgery or practice medicine without qualifying the National Licentiate Examination, in such circumstances and for such period as may be specified by regulations.  The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare hasclarifiedthat this exemption is not meant to allow doctors failing the National Licentiate Examination to practice but is intended to allow medical professionals like nurse practitioners and dentists to practice.  It is unclear from the Bill that the term ‘medical practitioner’ includes medical professionals (like nurses) other than MBBS doctors.Further, the Bill does not specify the validity period of this licence to practice.  In other countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, a licence to practice needs to be periodically renewed.  For example, in the UK the licence has to be renewed every five years, and in Australia it has to renewed annually.What are the issues around the bridge course for AYUSH practitioners to prescribe modern medicine?The debate around AYUSH practitioners prescribing modern medicineThere is a provision in the Bill which states that there may be a bridge course which AYUSH practitioners (practicing Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy) can undertake in order to prescribe certain kinds of modern medicine.  There are differing views on whether AYUSH practitioners should prescribe modern medicines.Over the years, various committees have recommended a functional integration among various systems of medicine i.e. Ayurveda, modern medicine, and others.  On the other hand, experts state that the bridge course may promote the positioning of AYUSH practitioners as stand-ins for allopathic doctors owing to the shortage of doctors across the country.  This in turnmay affect the developmentof AYUSH systemsof medicine as independent systemsof medicine.Moreover, AYUSH doctors do not have to go through any licentiate examination to be registered by the NMC, unlike the other doctors.  Recently, the Union Cabinet hasapproved an Amendmentto remove the provision of the bridge course.Status of other kinds of medical personnelAs of January 2018, the doctor to population ratio in India was 1:1655 compared to the World Health Organisation standard of 1:1000.  The Ministry of Health and Family Welfarestatedthat the introduction of the bridge course for AYUSH practitioners under the Bill will help fill in the gaps of availability of medical professionals.If the purpose of the bridge course is to address shortage of medical professionals, it is unclear why the option to take the bridge course does not apply to other cadres of allopathic medical professionals such as nurses, and dentists.  There are other countries where medical professionals other than doctors are allowed to prescribe allopathic medicine.  For example,Nurse Practitioners in the USAprovide a full range of primary, acute, and specialty health care services, including ordering and performing diagnostic tests, and prescribing medications.  For this purpose, Nurse Practitioners must complete a master’s or doctoral degree program, advanced clinical training, and obtain a national certification.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»
PolicyExamining the National Medical Commission Bill, 2017Nivedita Rao- May 3, 2018