It’s a scary experience that you have certainly heard of. A sudden health crisis results in hospitalisation. Several tests, drugs and procedures later, the patient and family are facing crises on two fronts — the illness and humongous costs. After discussing the patient’s condition with an anxious family member, there is another inevitable gloomy interaction: “Doctor, we have exhausted our resources. Can you do something about the bill?” Out-of-pocket costs and impoverishment due to illness are among our gravest societal tragedies. Resentment towards costs is a big factor in the growing hostility, including violence, against healthcare workers.

This is why, when the Supreme Court recently spoke strongly on this issue it resonated with many. The Bench was hearing a PIL by an NGO praying for direction to determine charges in hospitals across the country in terms of Rule 9 of the Clinical Establishment Act. The Court threatened to impose the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) rates on all hospitals as an interim measure. It gave the state six weeks to act. Is it possible for the top court to intervene effectively where governments have failed? What exactly is it wading into?

If there is one policy which should be prioritised by a nation that genuinely cares for its citizens, it’s the elimination of money as a precondition to relieve suffering in an illness. What comes closest to this aspiration is a publicly funded health system which gives timely, effective and free care, irrespective of social class. Countries with universal healthcare ensure that no one pays at the point of care. Funding comes from taxes. Thus, the rich subsidise the........

© Indian Express