Editor,
The latest public opinion survey indicates significant trends for both Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and the Opposition. Here are the key takeaways:
NDA’s Strength: The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by Prime Minister Modi, is projected to secure a third term with a commanding majority in the upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
The NDA is likely to win 335 seats says Mood of the Nation survey while Zee News-MATRIZE Lok Sabha opinion poll says 377, comfortably surpassing the 272-seat threshold required for government formation.The BJP itself is anticipated to secure 304 seats, reaffirming its capacity to command a simple majority independently.
Opposition’s Challenge: The INDIA opposition bloc, which includes the Congress, is expected to secure 166 seats according to Mood of the Nation Survey while Zee News-MATRIZE Lok Sabha opinion poll puts it at 93 seats. However, this falls significantly short of posing a substantial challenge to the NDA’s stronghold.
The Opposition’s struggle to present a unified front and an effective leadership alternative to PM Modi remains a critical impediment to their electoral ambitions.
3. Economic Focus: The survey highlights that the economy is a central concern for both the ruling party and the Opposition. For the NDA, it serves as an alarm bell, emphasizing the need for effective economic policies. For the Opposition, this situation presents both an opportunity and a responsibility to address economic issues and present viable alternatives.
4. Regional Factors: While the NDA is predicted to perform well in North, East, and West India, the southern states appear to favour the opposition INDIA bloc. Regional variations in voting behaviour continue to play a significant role in Indian politics.
Summing up, PM Modi’s influence on the nation’s political landscape remains significant as he gears up for a potential third term. The survey underscores the importance of addressing economic challenges and the need for a cohesive Opposition strategy.
Yours etc.,
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email
Supreme Court’s landmark judgement on healthcare as a right
Editor,
Responding to a PIL filed by an NGO – ‘Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life,’ the Supreme Court said the Right to Health includes affordable treatment. Two cases demonstrate the exorbitant charges by hospitals. A resident of Gurgaon alleged he was charged Rs 15.88 lakh for 21 days when his child was admitted to Medanta Hospital. The child had severe dengue and succumbed to his illness. Before his death the child was transferred to a government hospital and thanks to the intervention of the government hospital the amount was refunded to the parents.
Another private hospital – Fortis was accused of charging Rs 16 lakh for 15 day’s treatment of a patient suffering from dengue. A committee formed by the Haryana government has found criminal negligence on the part of the hospital. The above two examples show that the decision of the Supreme Court is in the interests of the common man who is unable to spend exorbitant sums for medical treatment. The apex court’s push for standard hospital rates is good news for patients.
Health has been a contentious issue in India not because health care facilities are unavailable but because the amenities are beyond the reach of many. A country with 1.42 billion people would definitely have a large population suffering from various ailments. Some of these illnesses require hospitalisation and prolonged treatment. We saw how huge amounts were spent for Covid vaccinations. Thankfully it was provided free by the Central Government due to the fundamental right to health.
Expenses for healthcare in private hospitals are exorbitant and could destroy a family. Recently for a gene related disease the government had imported 6 vaccines from the US. Each injection cost Rs 16 crore and it takes about 10 years to prepare one injection. While India has several hospitals they cannot handle all patients. As per information provided by Central Bureau of Health Intelligence (CBHI), there are a total of 23,581 state government hospitals and 22 central government hospitals around the country, with a total of 11.57 lakh allopathic doctors attached to these government hospitals. For a vast country like India, these hospitals and medical workforce are insufficient. Hence private hospitals step in to meet the needs of the patients.
This is where the problem starts, as the majority of privately-run hospitals blatantly operate as commercial ventures without caring for the economic condition of the patients. Hence a PIL was filed by the NGO so that some relief may be sought for the commoner who is unable to bear the high cost of medical treatment.
The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to take a call on standard hospital charges or face implementation of Central Government Health Services rates. It has also censured the Union Government for not implementing Clinical Establishment Rules for standard rates. The apex court has further questioned the Centre why no standard rates of treatment have been notified yet. After this decision of the Supreme Court the shares of all private hospitals dipped because their daily Incomes will be impacted.
Surprisingly, the central government told the Supreme Court that though it had repeatedly written to state governments on the matter they had not responded. The apex court has finally observed that citizens have a fundamental right to healthcare and the Centre cannot shy away from its responsibility on this ground. It has also advised the central government to use central laws if states don’t fix uniform hospital charges. The apex court has directed the Union Health Secretary to convene a meeting of his state counterparts, to ensure notification of a standard rate within a month.
The apex court noted that if the Union Government fails to find a solution, then it will consider the petitioner’s plea for implementing CGHS-prescribed standardised rates. The NGO had sought a direction that the Centre should determine the rate of fee chargeable from patients in terms of Rule 9 of clinical establishments (Central Govt) Rules 2012. Under these rules all hospitals and clinical establishments, to retain their registration, must, “display rates charged for each type of service provided and facilities available for benefit of patients at a conspicuous place in vernacular as well as in English language and charge rates for each type of procedure and service within range of rates determined and issued by the Centre from time to time in consultation with state governments.
The Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) launched by the central government, aims to be one of the world’s largest health insurance schemes. It had planned to offer an annual health insurance plan of Rs 5 lakh per family, for secondary and tertiary care hospitalisation. This scheme had benefitted many. The vicious circle will break only when private hospitals genuinely believe that medicine is a noble profession. One understands that the cost of setting up and running a private hospital is immense. However, the treatment expenses at such hospitals many a times are unbelievably enormous. Healthcare institutions, especially the corporate ones need to understand that saving a human life is more important than earning huge amounts from their “critically ill patients.”
The central government must ensure that the state governments take regular reviews of such hospitals under their jurisdiction vis a vis the fees charged. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Central Government over the rising disparity in medical expenses between government and private facilities. For instance, a cataract surgery in a government hospital costs up to Rs 10,000 while the same cost between Rs 30,000-1,40,000 in a private facility. The apex court has taken strong exception to this particular disparity. The petitioner informed the Supreme Court that the central government promptly implemented standardized treatment rates for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner further suggested that in cases where states did not cooperate in framing a range of rates for various treatments, the Centre could use its authority under central laws to unilaterally declare fees for different medical procedures.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email