The Council of Ministers has lodged an appeal against the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court for the suspension of the validity of Articles from Decree № 57 of the Council of Ministers, reported the Center for the Protection of Health Rights. On the 13th of May, the SAC ruled that it is suspending several texts from the Decree relating to the limits imposed on hospital budgets, until a conclusion of the proceedings with regard to the case of an effective judicial act is reached.
The court motives are as follows:
“In this case, the contested in the appeal provisions of Annex № 2B from Decree № 57 / 03.16.2015 of the Council of Ministers, limit the possibility to receive payment in full for the work done when providing hospital care.
Due to the obligation of contractors under Article 59 of the Health Insurance Act to provide medical assistance to insured persons, as guaranteed by the provisions of Articles 81 and 85 of the Health Act, and the setting of limits to the preliminary business expenses of hospitals, could lead to a restriction of their activities. Determining the sums for hospital care within the NHIF budget would lead to the non-payment of certain activities carried out by medical institutions, and to property damages for them.
Since the contested provisions would hinder or delay the delivery of medical care, it is likely that this would inflict substantial and irreparable harm to patients. Applicants rightly cited as reasons that the limiting of healthcare activities would limit patients’ rights to benefit from their preferred medical institution inpatient care.
In the light of the facts outlined above, the request for the suspension of the contested secondary legislative normative act provisions is legitimate until a final resolution of the legality of this issue through a court order becomes effective.”
The reasons for which the Council of Ministers has appealed the decision of the SAC have not yet been announced, so at the moment it is not clear with which of the arguments of the Court the government did not agree, commented from the Center for the Protection of Health Rights.