Health Financing in Act on Health Sued to Court
Image


Health financing as stipulated in Act No. 36 of 2009 on Health sued to the Constitutional Court. Introduction at the hearing on Friday (6/7) in the Plenary session of the Constitutional Court, the Principal Petitioners HF Abraham Amos and Johny Bakar the day-to-day work as an advocate.

In their petition, they tested the Article 170 paragraph (3), Article 171 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), and Article 173 paragraph (1) of Health. According to Abraham Amos, provision has impaired his constitutional rights, particularly in terms of getting decent health care. "We’re not getting the essence of the positive in it," he said.

Paragraph of Article 170 (3) was tested in the "Sources of health financing comes from government, local government, public, private and other sources". Article 171 paragraph (1) reads "Big Government health budget is allocated a minimum of 5% (five percent) of budget revenues and expenditures outside the salary". While paragraph (2)-its, formulated the "Big government health budgets provincial, regency / municipality allocated a minimum of 10% (ten percent) of revenue and expenditure budgets outside of salary".

As for Article 173 paragraph (1), states "The allocation of health funding is sourced from the private sector referred to in Article 170 paragraph (3) were mobilized through the national social security system and / or commercial health insurance."

In his petition, Petitioner unravels many of the facts related in the field of hospital and health insurance. In fact, they have had bad experiences dealing with the hospital. "There should be finance preparations there, and the insurance was a guarantee of employees’ social security affairs was said later," he explained. In essence, the practice still common problems in terms of health care insurance.

After hearing the points of the petition, Constitutional Justice Panel consists of Hamdan Zoelva (Panel Chairman), M. Akil Mochtar, and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, then give some advice to the applicant. According to the Panel, the petition still needs some improvement. "Format application needs to be fixed," said Akil.

In addition, continued Akil, Petitioner too many concrete cases described in the petition. Finally he was advised to the Applicant to further describe anymore about the loss of constitutional provisions that were tested. "What needs to be explained is the article that there is conflict of norms in the legislation (Health) was against the Constitution do you make a test stone," said Akil. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)


Friday, July 06, 2012 | 18:29 WIB 109