BRICS summit signalled a more purposeful solidarity among emerging economies.
The scope of corporate social responsibility needs to be expanded.
A South Asian union based on trade could reduce the incentive for war in the region.
The recent concern about healthcare is not new, nor is the demand for an effective watchdog. There are many watchdogs in India. But they seldom bark or bite. In healthcare, the reason for this lies in the absence of implementable norms. A watchdog without norms is toothless. For hospitals, this translates as the need to have protocols and standards of healthcare that put patients first. The government already has sufficient investment in healthcare that could be used to leverage and implement the protocols without arm-twisting.
But political will would have to be generated for that, since hospitals, major resources for political parties and leaders, will resist this.
Few people realise governments in India already spend over Rs 8,000 crore per year in various health insurance and insurance-like schemes. At least two-thirds of this goes to private hospitals. Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra have already brought the majority of their populations under health insurance. Others will soon follow.
Making some simple changes to the law and in the implementation of schemes will ensure that this money is spent more in the interest of patients rather than in the interest of hospitals and insurance companies. Maharashtra alone has linked insurance reimbursements to the observance of standard clinical protocols, the essential benchmarks of good practice. The issue of clinical benchmarks of care is certainly a complex task, but doable. All that Maharashtra did was ask the best doctors in the country to put their heads together and come up with the requisite protocols. This difficult task was completed on a priority basis.
Certainly, there are enough consultants in India who care for good practices. One result of this was rationalising decision-taking and making it less arbitrary. If, consequently, the incidence of angioplasty, for example, came down by 20 per cent, did it imply unnecessary procedures in the past?
For observance of protocols, hospitals need to keep records of treatments in a systematic way. That is almost entirely missing currently. “Too costly, time-consuming and of no real immediate value,” is the response from hospitals. Not that hospitals don’t maintain data. That which impacts their profitability is rigorously maintained — how many patients treated, procedures done, the outgo of consumables, etc. It is data pertaining to the response of patients to the caring efforts that is missing. Could such absence be cause for suspicion?
One result of the lack of record-keeping is that it is difficult to red-flag bad practices. The Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana, for example, does not have any pre-authorisation mechanism for treatments. That allowed for, inter alia, suspect treatments being offered. Some would still recall the thousands of questionable continued…