<p class="bodytext">Anticipating the passage of the National Medical Commission bill in the ongoing session of Parliament, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) has stepped up protests against the bill which seeks to replace the Medical Council of India (MCI) with the proposed body.</p>.<p class="bodytext">India’s largest association of doctors claims the bill is not in sync with the nation’s federal structure. The MCI is currently a body of doctors elected from the states, whereas the proposed NMC would primarily consist of doctors and officials picked by the government.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The majority of NMC members will be nominated by government. The elected members will not have participation in the regulatory boards. A parliamentary standing committee recommendation to include elected members in each of the four boards was overlooked,” IMA president Ravi Wankhedkar told <span class="italic">DH.</span></p>.<p class="bodytext">The bill proposes creation of four autonomous boards to regulate undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, assessment of colleges and looking after medical ethics and registration of doctors.</p>.<p>In January 2018, the controversial legislation was sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health for a review. On basis of its report, the Union Cabinet in March modified some portion of the original draft.</p>.<p>“The Standing Committee suggested 24 changes to the bill, out of which the government accepted only one fully (dropping the idea of controversial bridge course that would have enabled an Ayurveda practitioner to prescribe allopathic medicine) and another three partially. But these are cosmetic changes,” he said.</p>.<p>The IMA’s main concern, argued its past president K K Agarwal, was to protect the autonomy of the MCI. “A regulatory body can’t be an extension of the health ministry,” said Wankhedkar.</p>.<p>Responding to the demands from states to increase their representation in the NMC, the nominees of states and UTs in the NMC have been increased from three to six. The commission will comprise 25 members of which at least 21 will be doctors.</p>.<p>Another major unresolved issue is the government decision to control the fees of only 50% seats in private medical colleges.</p>.<p>“From regulating the fees in 85% of seats, the number drops to 50%. This would make medical education expensive,” he noted.</p>.<p>Several state governments, Karnataka included, spoke against the NMC architecture and the bill’s proposal to regulate fees for only 40% of seats that was enhanced to 50% by the Cabinet.</p>.<p>Health ministry officials, however, pointed out the provision to regulate fee in the Indian Medical Council Act, which governs the MCI. Also the fee charged by several unregulated private medical colleges, deemed universities and deemed-to-be universities is not regulated under any existing mechanism.</p>
<p class="bodytext">Anticipating the passage of the National Medical Commission bill in the ongoing session of Parliament, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) has stepped up protests against the bill which seeks to replace the Medical Council of India (MCI) with the proposed body.</p>.<p class="bodytext">India’s largest association of doctors claims the bill is not in sync with the nation’s federal structure. The MCI is currently a body of doctors elected from the states, whereas the proposed NMC would primarily consist of doctors and officials picked by the government.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The majority of NMC members will be nominated by government. The elected members will not have participation in the regulatory boards. A parliamentary standing committee recommendation to include elected members in each of the four boards was overlooked,” IMA president Ravi Wankhedkar told <span class="italic">DH.</span></p>.<p class="bodytext">The bill proposes creation of four autonomous boards to regulate undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, assessment of colleges and looking after medical ethics and registration of doctors.</p>.<p>In January 2018, the controversial legislation was sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health for a review. On basis of its report, the Union Cabinet in March modified some portion of the original draft.</p>.<p>“The Standing Committee suggested 24 changes to the bill, out of which the government accepted only one fully (dropping the idea of controversial bridge course that would have enabled an Ayurveda practitioner to prescribe allopathic medicine) and another three partially. But these are cosmetic changes,” he said.</p>.<p>The IMA’s main concern, argued its past president K K Agarwal, was to protect the autonomy of the MCI. “A regulatory body can’t be an extension of the health ministry,” said Wankhedkar.</p>.<p>Responding to the demands from states to increase their representation in the NMC, the nominees of states and UTs in the NMC have been increased from three to six. The commission will comprise 25 members of which at least 21 will be doctors.</p>.<p>Another major unresolved issue is the government decision to control the fees of only 50% seats in private medical colleges.</p>.<p>“From regulating the fees in 85% of seats, the number drops to 50%. This would make medical education expensive,” he noted.</p>.<p>Several state governments, Karnataka included, spoke against the NMC architecture and the bill’s proposal to regulate fees for only 40% of seats that was enhanced to 50% by the Cabinet.</p>.<p>Health ministry officials, however, pointed out the provision to regulate fee in the Indian Medical Council Act, which governs the MCI. Also the fee charged by several unregulated private medical colleges, deemed universities and deemed-to-be universities is not regulated under any existing mechanism.</p>
