Several states in India have expressed their concerns regarding quality and competition compromises due to hospital service rate standardization

In response to the escalating dispute, the Supreme Court intervened, directing the central government to convene a virtual meeting with health secretaries

An ongoing legal saga unfolded as states like Haryana, Telangana, Bihar, Mizoram, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh voiced their apprehensions regarding the central government's proposal to standardize healthcare service rates nationwide. According to an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, these states cautioned against the potential ramifications of rate fixation on the quality of healthcare. The affidavit, a response to a Writ Petition seeking standardized healthcare costs, shed light on the contentious Rule 9 of the Clinical Establishment Rules 2012, which empowers the Center to establish hospital rates. During a virtual meeting in March, state representatives showcased diverse perspectives on the feasibility of uniform rates across India's vast landscape. States adhering to the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (CERAR) expressed a willingness to collaborate with the Union health ministry. However, they underscored the pitfalls of rate fixation, citing concerns about compromised healthcare quality, the financial viability of healthcare setups, and potential market distortions.

In response to the escalating dispute, the Supreme Court intervened, directing the central government to convene a virtual meeting with health secretaries from all states and union territories. The aim is to explore avenues for establishing uniform costs for medical procedures and services. As the legal battle unfolds, stakeholders brace themselves for a decision that could reshape the healthcare landscape. The next hearing, slated for September 10, looms large, promising further deliberation on this complex issue at the intersection of policy, economics, and public health.