Group wants SC to void penalty hike for hospitals demanding deposits in emergencies

The country's organization of private hospitals, health clinics and other health facilities has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to declare unconstitutional the law increasing the penalties on hospitals demanding deposits in emergency cases.

In a petition filed on October 18, the Private Hospitals Association of the Philippines, Inc. (PHAPi) called on the high court to immediately stop the implementation of Republic Act 10932 (An Act Strengthening the Anti-Hospital Deposit Law) which was signed by President Rodrigo Duterte on August 3.

Named respondents to the petition filed by PHAPi president Dr. Rustico Jimenez were Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and the Department of Health (DOH).

The law, which amended provisions of Batas Pambansa 702, provides for stricter penalties to hospitals that demand any deposit or other forms of advance payment as a prerequisite for admission or medical treatment of an emergency patient.

This include four to six years' imprisonment and fines ranging from P100,000 to P1,000,000.

The law also gives authority to the DOH to revoke the license of a health facility after three repeated violations committed pursuant to an established policy of the hospital or clinic or upon the instruction of its management.

It also calls for the establishment of a Health Facilities Oversight Board tasked to probe the claims of patients who were denied treatment and services during emergency situations due to their inability to pay hospital deposit.

'Astronomical' fines

According to PHAP, the imposable fines under Section 4 of RA 10932 are "unjust, excessive and oppressive, and thus amount to denial of due process."

"Going by the astronomical amounts of the fines imposed, RA 10932 has thus branded an erring physician, nurse, and other hospital officials and employees as more evil than a public officer refusing their sworn duty to our sacred institutions by up to five times," the petition read.

"It is unimaginable how this can be deemed as fairly required by the legitimate demands of public interest and public welfare. It must be remembered that without BP 702 as amended, failure to administer treatment and support in an emergency situation amounts only to criminal negligence resulting in homicide or physical injuries. And the fine imposable therefor is P40,000 at worst," it added.

The group said the presumption of liability clause under Section 5 is against the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The clause allows for a presumption of generalized liability—administrative, civil and criminal—upon the occurrence of death, permanent disability and serious impairment of the health condition of the patient or her unborn child if pregnant after the denial of the patient’s admission due to a hospital/clinic policy of demanding advance payments.

"This makes the clause all the more unjust and oppressive. Its application necessarily presumes—and thus an accused’s presumption of innocence would necessarily hinge on a theory—that there is at all times causal connection between the injury and the acts or omissions complained of," the petition stated.

PHAPi also said Section 1 of the law, which imposes duty to administer treatment and support upon the hospital or medical clinic, its management and staff, was "unreasonable, being predicated on the achievement of an end that is impossible to guarantee."

"[P]hysicians and all those who act on their orders, including hospital/clinic staff, cannot be expected to guarantee that death or permanent disability will not occur nor that the loss or non-institutional delivery of a baby will not occur. It is impossible to make that guarantee," the petition stated.

"And if physicians and those who act on their orders cannot reasonably be expected to warrant against death, permanent disability, and the loss or non-institutional delivery of a baby, with more reason can it not be expected that the hospital/clinic and its management make the same warranty as the hospital/clinic as well as its management, are not the ones practicing medicine."

Lastly, the PHAPi said Sections 7 and 8 go against the equal protection clause of the Constitution since these provisions exclude patients of basic emergency care not classified as poor, indigent or marginalized from Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) reimbursement, Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) assistance and tax deductibility.

PHAP said PhilHealth data as of December 31, 2016 show 43,485,804 of the 93,400,861 total beneficiaries or only 46.56 percent are classified as indigents.

"The reality is that more patients are not classified as indigents than otherwise.  And many of them, while not being technically 'indigent' by definition, are nevertheless financially unable to pay for the costs of their health care," the petition read.

"With the exclusion from PhilHealth reimbursement, PCSO assistance and tax deductibility the basic emergency care rendered to patients comprising more than half the PhilHealth covered population, it is almost as if the State is begging for the failure of the hospital industry."

'Lives are non-negotiable'

Senator Risa Hontiveros, the law's principal author, previously said there was nothing objectionable in the RA 10932.

"The rights and lives of emergency patients are non-negotiable," she said in a statement.

She also expressed confidence that majority of the country's hospitals are compliant with the law and contributing to address the public health care gap.

"Common sense and basic humanity dictate that lives are more important than profit," she added. — BM, GMA News