Modern civilistic instruments of medical reform: issues of law implementation and law enforcement

The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff is a person with a disability of II category, in accordance with Resolution No. 1303 has the right to release drugs on prescription with payment of 50 percent of their cost. At the same time, the Court of Appeal noted that the dispensing of prescription drugs with payment of both 50 percent of their cost and free of charge takes place in accordance with a particular procedure established by the state.

In particular, the Resolution of the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal states: medical care is provided free of charge at the expense of budget funds in healthcare facilities and individual entrepreneurs who are registered and licensed to conduct business in medical practice, with which the main budget managers have concluded agreements on medical care for the population. Medical care contracts are concluded within the budget funds provided for healthcare for the relevant budget period, based on the cost and volume of health care services, the customer of which is the state or local governments. The cost of a health care service is calculated based on the cost structure required to provide such a service in accordance with industry standards in the field of healthcare. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine approved the method of calculating the cost of medical services and the list of paid medical service. The procedure for concluding agreements on medical care for the population under the medical guarantee programme and the procedure for determining tariffs for payment for medical services and medicines shall be established by the Law No. 2168-VIII.

Dispensing of prescription drugs with payment of 50 percent of their cost, and free of charge, is carried out depending on the funds provided for this purpose in the state and local budgets. The Law No. 2168-VIII, which regulates the procedure for concluding contracts for medical care under the medical guarantee programme and the procedure for determining tariffs for payment of medical services and medicines, does not make provision for the terms of concluding contracts for medical care.

Thus, the appellate court held that the defendant did not commit unlawful inaction, because it took all necessary steps to ensure the right of citizens, including the plaintiff, to receive drugs on preferential terms. Therefore, the court refused in satisfaction of the claim for inaction of the defendant to ensure the right the plaintiff on preferential purchase of medicines.

This is an example of causing negative consequences for an individual, in particular, being a person with a disability who has the right to dispense prescription medicines with payment of 50 percent of their cost, which was established by the court and clearly guaranteed by the Law of Ukraine "On Fundamentals of Social Protection with Disabilities in Ukraine". Resolution No. 1303 does not make provision for any contractual conditions in the regulation of the granting of preferential provision of medicines. Thus, regulatory obstacles exist precisely because of the vagueness of the provisions of the Law No. 2168-VIII, as noted by the Court of Appeal, stating that the terms of the contract are not stipulated, and therefore, everything is left to the discretion of the authorities. Legal uncertainty negatively affects the exercise of human rights in the field of healthcare and not always an individual can get effective protection of their rights in court. The authors of this study do not agree with the assessment of the Court of Appeal in the outlined case, believing that legislative shortcomings should not negatively affect the implementation of human rights in view of Articles 3 and 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

Elements of the rule of law are the principles of equality and justice, legal certainty, clarity, and unambiguity of the rule of law, as otherwise cannot ensure its uniform application, does not preclude unrestricted interpretation in law enforcement practice and inevitably leads to arbitrariness (paragraph 2 of subclause 5.4 clause 5 of the motivating part of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 5-рп/2005 dated 22 September 2005 Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional petition of 51 People's Deputies of Ukraine on the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 92, paragraph 6 of Section X “Transitional Provisions” of the Land Code of Ukraine (case on permanent use of land), No 5-рп/2005. (2005, September). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v005p710-05#Text).

The study draws attention to the Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case "Fedulov v. Russia" [19], where the European Court of Human Rights recognised a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to provide him with the free medicines he was entitled to in connection with his cancer treatment. Mr. Fedulov was diagnosed with cancer in 2007. He was entitled to free medication, in this case Bicalutamide, which he needed for 8-12 months. However, the pharmacy, which was intended to give him the medicine free of charge, provided it only once on these terms. In all other cases, he was informed that Bicalutamide was not available free of charge, but that he could purchase it at his own expense. In the following months, he paid 1,400 euros for treatment. He complained to the authorities and the courts about the lack of free medicines and sought reimbursement, but in February 2008 the district court dismissed his claim in full. The court found that the authorities involved, the St. Petersburg Health Insurance Fund and the St. Petersburg Health Committee, had done everything required by law. The applicant complained that he had not been provided with the medicines to which he was entitled under the law free of charge and that the authorities had not reimbursed him after he had had to purchase the necessary medicines at his own expense, basing his position on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The ECHR stated in its assessment that the parties did not deny that four times out of five the applicant had not been able to obtain the medication needed to treat his illness due to the lack of this medicine for distribution free of charge. Considering the finding that the applicant had a "legitimate expectation" that he would receive preferential assistance, the ECHR concluded that there had been an interference with the applicant's right under Article 1 of the First Protocol, and it is therefore necessary to determine whether this interference was justified.

The first and most important requirement of Article 1 of the First Protocol is that any interference by a public authority in peaceful possession should be lawful. As for the "law", Article 1 of the First Protocol refers to the same concept as the Convention, where the term is employed, and requires that the measure complained of be based on a sufficiently accessible and sufficiently precise domestic legal provision. Furthermore, the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, is inherent in all articles of the Convention. So, the question of whether a fair balance has been struck between the requirements of the general interest of the community and the requirements of protection of fundamental human rights becomes relevant only after it is established that the intervention satisfies the rule of law and was not arbitrary.

In the present case, the ECHR notes that, although the applicant's right to the benefit in question was never in doubt, the domestic courts had, in fact, justified the refusal by reference to the lack of budgetary resources earmarked for that purpose by the St. Petersburg residents of this city for free medicine. Therewith, they did not invoke any legislative provision which would stipulate the refusal to provide the relevant benefit by any restrictions on budget funds, which made provision for any discretion on the part of the executive authorities to reduce or deny this right after reaching the budget allocation limit or any such provision that could provide legal grounds for such a conclusion. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in subsequent court decisions taken in proceedings on similar claims, it was clearly stated that the existing legal framework establishes the right of those who are entitled to the necessary medicines not only free of charge but also without any restrictions, and that the establishment of a maximum number of specific medicines per person or insufficient budgetary funding allocated to a particular region cannot serve as grounds for refusing to provide interested persons with medicines that are important for their lives.

The study of innovative legal constructions gives grounds to assert that legislative shortcomings, first of all vagueness and uncertainty of the legal essence of civil instruments, source gaps and lack of scientific interest, have already caused problems in law enforcement and, consequently, have violated human rights in healthcare.

Conclusions

Having studied the new legal constructions through the lens of judicial practice, their civilistic nature was clarified and recommendations were made to optimise the enforcement and administration of the law:

1. Law No. 2168-VIII is special, because it regulates the procedure for providing medical care at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine under the medical guarantee programme. Therefore, the following conclusions are drawn: 1) when providing medical care under the medical guarantee programme, the patient's right to freely choose a doctor is limited by the choice of a primary care physician; 2) the choice of a doctor in the provision of other types of medical care under the medical guarantee programme is subject to numerous regulatory restrictions, which does not allow to fully feel the freedom of choice in the exercise of personal non-property right to medical care; 3) when providing medical care outside the programme, free choice must be provided on the basis of Articles 6 and 38 of the Fundamentals, which does not correlate with Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

2. The declaration on the choice of a doctor providing primary healthcare has the following legal significance: a) certifies the exercise of the right to freely choose a doctor; b) by its legal nature is not a transaction; c) is a legal fact that confirms the emergence of a natural person's status of a third party under the Agreement under the medical guarantee programme.

3. The contract under the medical guarantee programme on the legal essence is the contract on rendering of services. According to the principle of dichotomy, this contract consists of two parts: 1) in the part "customer - provider", it is a contract for the provision of services under public procurement; 2) in terms of rendering medical services by the provider to the patient, it is a contract for the benefit of third parties; 3) is civil legal in nature.

4. Theoretical gap leads to problems of legal understanding in the application of Ukrainian legislation, which has a negative impact on the effectiveness of human rights protection in the field of healthcare, which can be clearly seen in the analysis of judicial practice.

5. The "legitimate hope" that arises in a person in the presence of regulatory guarantees is under conventional protection, as illustrated in the decisions of the ECHR, and to change the paradigm, a transformation of the law is required. The principle of the rule of law is guarded so that dissonance does not deepen and "legitimate expectations" through a guaranteed right does not depend on the lack of public funds.

The subject matter is multidisciplinary, important for both lawyers and healthcare professionals, therefore scientific intelligence should be spectral and in-depth in order to provide better scientific cognition of the analysed legal constructions, and thus develop a doctrine that will best protect human rights, including in the administration of justice.

References

1. Myronova, H.A. (2020). Modernization of civil legislation in the field of medical care: theoretical principles and practice of implementation. Kyiv: Research Institute of Private Law and Entrepreneurship named after Academician FG Burchak NAPRN of Ukraine.

2. Haro, H., & Bobak, O. Declaration of choice of doctor: why, how and when it should be signed. Retrieved from https://zib.com.ua/ua/132283- deklaraciya_pro_vibir_likarya_yuristi_poyasnili_chomu_yak_i_.html

3. Kolisnykova, H.V., Lekhkar, O.V., & Samsonova, Y.O. (2019). Legal nature of contract for provision of state medical services. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 10(7), 2032-2034.

4. lunes, R., Uribe, M.V., Torres, J.B., Garcia, M.M., Alvares-Teodoro, J., De Assis Acurcio, F., & Junior, A.A.G. (2019). Who should pay for the continuity of posttrial health care treatments? International Journal for Equity in Health, 18(1).

5. Vasilevskaya, N.S., & Bailo, O.V. (2019). Medical insurance as a direction of reforming the health system in Ukraine. Wiadomosci Lekarskie (Warsaw, Poland: 1960), 72(5 cz 1), 897-902.

6. Mammadova, V.Y., & Mammadov, V.G. (2018). Violations of united nations bioethics and human rights declarations by corruption in the health. Medicine and Law, 37(2), 285-296.

7. Baulin, Y., Rohozhyn, B., & Vyshnevska, I. (2019). Legal regulation of professional obligations of physicians in ukraine. Wiadomosci Lekarskie (Warsaw, Poland: 1960), 72(9 cz 2), 1839-1843.

8. Shishido, S. (2019). Work system reform for medical doctors. Journal of the Medical Society of Toho University, 66(4), 193.

9. Xu, Y., Zhang, T., & Wang, D. (2019). Changes in inequality in utilization of preventive care services: Evidence on china's 2009 and 2015 health system reform. International Journal for Equity in Health, 18(1), Article number 172.

10. Pardo, C. (2019). Health care reform, adverse selection and health insurance choice. Journal of Health Economics, 67, Article number 102221.

11. Abesalashvili, M.Z., Ertel, L.A., Mustafin, R.F., & Tkhakushinov, R.A. (2015). Issues on regulation of medical services contract in the context of healthcare reform in Russia. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 6(1), 7-13.

12. Grant, S., Ring, A.', Gabbay, M., Guthrie, B., Mclean, G., Mair, F.S., Watt, G., Heaney, D., & O'Donnell, C. (2015). Soft governance, restratification and the 2004 general medical services contract: The case of UK primary care organisations and general practice teams. Sociology of Health and Illness, 37(1), 30-51.

13. Freidson, Ye. (2017). The reorganization of the medical profession. Medical Care Research and Review, 42(1), 11-35.

14. Senyuta, I.Ya. (2018). Civil law regulation of relations in the field of medical care: issues of theory and practice. Lviv: Vydavnytstvo LOBF “Medytsyna i parvo”.

15. Decision of the Melitopol City District Court of the Zaporizhia Region of December 18, 2019 (case No 937/9145/19). Retrieved from http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/86859252.

16. Decision of the Novokakhovka City Court of the Kherson Region of 01.06.2020 (case No 661 / 557/20). Retrieved from http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/90122305.

17. Operational management of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine "How to organize the system of primary health care at the local level." (2018). Retrieved from https://moz.gov.ua/uploads/0/4992- phc_operational_manual_apr_2018_fin_web1.pdf

18. Decision of the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal of 16 June 2020 (case 140/663/20). Retrieved from http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/89852341.

19. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Fedulov v. Russia” (2020). Retrieved from http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-196411

Размещено на Allbest.ru