The health ministry has "omitted" the contentious provision of a bridge course, proposed in the National Medical Commission Bill, which allows practitioners of alternative medicines to pursue allopathy, while finalising several other amendments in the Bill which has been sent it to the Cabinet for approval, sources said today.
The health ministry is also learnt to have replaced the provisions of the National Licentiate Examination with a 'Common Final Year MBBS Exam' and the term National Licentiate Examination (NLE) with National Exit Test (NEXT), according to the sources.
"The amended version of the bill is likely to come up in the Cabinet tomorrow," a senior government official told PTI, adding, "Once the amendments are approved by the Cabinet, the bill will be tabled in Parliament."
The ministry has also amended a section to provide for a uniform NEET and counselling at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
Stating that the proposed NLE would put "undue stress" on students, a parliamentary standing committee had recommended that the examination be integrated with the final year MBBS examination and be conducted "at the state level".
The ministry, however, has not accepted the panel's recommendation about the examination being conducted at the state level.
"In order to ensure uniformity in the quality of medical education, it would not be desirable for the National Exit Test to be conducted at the state level," the official said.
Elaborating about the omission of the bridge course, the official said that Clause 49 (4) has been rephrased as follows, "the state government may implement measures to enhance the capacity of the existing healthcare professionals to address their state specific primary healthcare issues in the rural areas".
The parliamentary panel, in its report earlier this month, had said the bridge course should not be made a mandatory provision while recommending penal provisions for those practising medicine without requisite qualification.
The government is also learnt to have rejected the recommendation about increasing the strength of all the autonomous boards to five instead of three, saying three members would be assisted by Advisory Committees of Experts and would be further assisted by experts, professionals, officers and other employees to enable efficient discharge of their functions.
The ministry, according to sources, has not accepted the committee's suggestion about giving state governments adequate powers for establishment of a new medical college and said state governments already have the power to issue essentiality certificate before a college can apply for approval and at this stage they have all the powers to inspect and satisfy themselves about the quality of a new college.
Noting that there was no provision to regulate fees in the Indian Medical Council Act, the committee had said the provision of regulating fees is a step in the right direction and had recommended that the existing fee regulatory mechanism for private medical colleges by the states to protect their rights to regulate fees, should not be diluted.
However, it had observed that the fee charged by several unregulated private medical colleges, the deemed universities and the deemed-to-be universities is not regulated under any existing mechanism.
It recommended that to remove discrepancies it may be ensured that the fee charged by all such unregulated private medical colleges, the deemed universities and the deemed-to-be universities should be regulated at least for 50 per cent of their seats.
The ministry is learnt to have accepted the fee recommendation with some modifications so as to ensure that the clause is "not discriminatory in nature".
Besides, several other changes have been made in the Bill.
The recommendations were made by the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare in its report on the National Medical Commission Bill 2017.
The NMC Bill, 2017, which seeks to replace the existing apex medical education regulator, the Medical Council of India (MCI), with a new body, was moved by the government in Parliament on December 29.
Following opposition from the medical fraternity over different provisions of the proposed legislation, one of which was the bridge course, the Bill was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
The provision of the Bill was strongly opposed by health bodies, including the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which claimed that allowing AYUSH doctors to practise modern medicine would promote "quackery", although the Ministry of Health had stated that the provision seeks to address the "acute shortage" of doctors in the country.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
