207/2003 Coll.
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court decided on 4 July 2003. in June 2003, the plenary on the proposal of the Group
members of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on the abolition
the second part of the sentence of the provisions of § 11 (1). 1 (a). (d)) of the Act No. 48/1997
Coll., on public health insurance and amending and supplementing certain
related laws, as amended, expressed in words
"even in connection with the provision of this care",
as follows:
The proposal is rejected.
Justification
(I).
17 May. 5. in 2002, the Constitutional Court submitted the proposal of the Group of members of the
on 14 June 2004. 5. cancellation of the part of the sentence on the other provisions of section 11 (1). 1
(a). (d)) of the Act No. 48/1997 Coll., on public health insurance, and about
change and the addition of some related laws, as amended
Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "law on public health insurance"), expressed
the words "or in connection with the provision of this care".
The signing of the attached sheet for members of the Constitutional Court found that the
the conditions laid down in § 64 paragraph. 1 (a). (b)) of Act No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the law of
The Constitutional Court "), while the present proposal confirmed their signatures, 54
members. The representative plaintiffs in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court was
intended member of Marek Benda. After the removal of some formal defects
the proposal, which was representative of the plaintiffs ' submission, that the Constitutional Court
received on 11 July. 7. in 2002, the Constitutional Court could examine objectively.
A group of members of Parliament is of the opinion that the contested provisions of the law is in
contrary to the article. 3 (3). 3, article. 4 (4). 4, article. 26 and article. 31 of the Charter of
fundamental rights and freedoms (the "Charter"). Introduction the appellants
They noted that, according to them, the contested provision extends to
the issue, which is outside the area of the Edit itself zákonao
General health insurance (pointed out here in particular the its section 1).
Provisions apparently has no direct link to other parts of the
law and practically excludes the provision of health care and services that
with funds from the public health insurance are not covered.
Contradiction with article. 26 paragraph. 1 of the Charter see the plaintiffs in that the
exhaustively listed Group entities (physician or another specialist
in health care, medical devices) it is prohibited to accept payment from
other group entities (insured persons) for the care or services
unpaid from public health insurance if you are related to the
the provision of health care to this insurance paid. This leads the allegedly
significant restrictions on the provision of health care. According to the article. 26 paragraph. 2
The Charter can act lay down the conditions and limitations for the exercise of certain
occupations or activities, the contested provisions, however, according to the plaintiffs '
interferes with those rights in a manner conflicting with article. 4 (4). 4 of the Charter,
nešetříc their essence and meaning. If the entity authorised to provide
health care, and if there is, in addition to health care fully paid from the
universal health insurance and the care of this insurance-reimbursed,
It is said to be virtually excluding rights to do business, if we stop this
subject to the remuneration for this care, if it was provided
participant, public health insurance, and if it has a link with the
the provision of health care services covered by the universal health insurance.
The contested provisions have also effectively excludes the operation of the
medical devices that are not in a contractual relationship with health
insurance companies.
Contrary to the allegation of the contested provisions with article. 31 of the Charter of the appellants
stated that the prohibition to accept payment for the provision of health care or
nehrazených services from public health insurance is
limiting the supply of health care for the citizens-insured persons, which is referred to in
the plaintiffs are prevented to implement the right to health, as enshrined in the
that article of the Charter.
The appellants further argued that some of the interventions, performances, medicinal products
or AIDS medical techniques are not of public health
insurance covered at all (e.g. acupuncture), some only in limited
the number (e.g., no more than three times the life care in connection with an ectopic
the pregnancy), and some only partly (75% of the price for some
medical devices). In some cases, paid for by the
only the "basic" health care (e.g. medical device in
the implementation of economically at least challenging). The law thus defined the so-called.
free care within the meaning of article. 31 of the Charter, according to the plaintiffs, however, just
the contested provisions prohibiting medical facilities for care
not to accept this care from the insured the reimbursement, if related to the
the provision of care paid for by. In terms of the "intensity of the context" (cf..
the affected text "or in connection with the provision of this care"), divided
the appellants or the related care services into the following
categories:
-inseparable (cases where the law provides only a partial payment of
from public health insurance, for example. as a percentage; common eg. in
Dentistry)
-closely related care (to improve or maintain the health status
the patient, there is a suitable product or method of treatment, which is not paid
from public health insurance, respectively. certain basic health care
paid is, taking Alternatively is available to health care
better, but reimbursed)
-related care (the beneficiary has an interest to agree on the provision of
additional follow-up care on the care-funded from public health
insurance, which is already covered by, however, is not),
-widely related care (medical device provides health
care expenses paid from public health insurance, with which you are associated
provision of other services already nehrazených-eg. When the card on
Spa care are. contributory Spa care covered only
the medical procedure, rather than accommodation and food).
From what has been stated above, it is evident that, according to the plaintiffs '
"the link between the intensity of different types of care paid for by the public
health insurance and health care nehrazenou undoubtedly exists ".
The amount of the payment for health care provided by unpaid or non-
the medical establishment is materially regulated within the meaning of § 6 of the law No.
526/1990 Coll., on prices, and is regularly edited in Journal
The Ministry of finance pursuant to section 10 of the Act. The contested provisions
However, it allows you to accept payment only in the case when the care provided
health care is paid for.
The plaintiffs have concluded, that are regarded as violations of the article. 26 and 31 of the Charter of
the situation when, in their opinion, the citizen-the beneficiary virtually does not
the ability to make decisions about the way in which it will take care of your health, and it
just because that method is not fully paid from the public
health insurance (either because the remuneration is excluded or limited,
or, therefore, that the medical device is not in a contractual relationship with the
the health insurance company), but with care paid for this
insurance related. If the beneficiary of the chosen medical facility
This will provide still and take care for her, he joins the Act and
the penalty shall remove permissions to their activities.
II.
The Constitutional Court in accordance with the provisions of § 42 paragraph. 3 and 4 and § 69
the law on the Constitutional Court, the present proposal to the representation of the Chamber of Deputies
and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and also the written opinion
The Ministry of health.
Representation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
In the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 20 April.
9.2002, signed by its Chairman PhDr. Lubomír Zaorálkem, is
stated that the provisions of section 11 of the Act on public health insurance
contains an enumeration of the rights of insured persons, among which include the right to
health care without direct remuneration, if he is given the extent and
under the conditions laid down by this law, which defines the scope and conditions
in which health care is provided. The Act provides what health
the care is paid for by public health insurance and what is not covered by the
without disabling the direct payment. Health care is therefore
provided without direct payment or partial payment for the financial, or-
If this is about health care from the health insurance nehrazenou-
for full financial reimbursement. To ensure that contributions in kind in the
the provision of health care to conclude a health insurance contract
medical devices for the delivery of health care. In such a
the case of the health care facility accepts payment for care from
health insurance companies. Therapeutic exercise is paid and there is no place for
additional remuneration of the parties insured.
The plaintiffs ' claim, according to which the contested provision excludes
the operation of medical devices that are not in a contractual relationship with the
health insurance is a vile expression of the Chamber of Deputies
unjustified. Health care and health care may be provided
facilities that contract with health insurance are not.
In this way, health care providers may act as bodies
operating independently, on its own behalf, on your own responsibility
profit, and it depends on the will and financial possibilities of the citizens,
whether such medical equipment.
The purpose of the contested provision, which prohibits receiving remuneration from
the insured person in connection with the provision of health care, which is of
the law of public health insurance, is to prevent the situation,
When the provision of this care were dependent on financial options
the insured person. Its cancellation would in the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies opened
the space in which the medical facilities and doctors tied to
health insurance company could demand from the insured, for which there is no
search for health care choice but a necessity, the different charges (eg.
registration or input). It would be destroyed right enshrined in article. 31
Of the Charter as well as the purpose of the Act on public health insurance, which
It has to provide.
Representation of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 20 April. 9. in 2002,
signed by its Chairman doc. JUDr. Peter Pithartem, States that the
The Senate debated the amendment to the Act on public health insurance
(Law No. 2/1998 Coll.), which was contested in this Act inserted
the provisions, in the days of 12. and 13. 11.1997 on its 9. the meeting in the functional
period, and adopted a resolution which returned the Chamber of Deputies with the proposal
amendments. The Chamber of Deputies returned the Bill
discussed and remained on its original approved version. In the course of the
consideration of the Bill in the Senate was to design institutions. discussion on the
the proposed adjustment of the provisions of section 11 (1). 1 (a). (d)). The result was
approval of the so-called. a comprehensive amendment, which the Senate solved the
in particular, the issue of legal certainty for operators, which can impose penalties
for violation of the cited provisions. However, as regards the contested
the Senate approved the text of the provisions, very similar to the text of the adopted
The Chamber of Deputies and tried only on unambiguous
its meaning ("medical device shall not for this health care even in the
direct connection with the provision of this care receive from the policyholder no
remuneration ").
The Senate approved the said amendment in the belief that
This text (and therefore also the contested provisions) is in accordance with the Constitution of the Czech
Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and the Charter. The law on public health
insurance distinguishes care from health insurance paid, nehrazenou
and the paid part. In those cases where the care is paid for,
strictly takes into account the diction article. 31 of the Charter and does not allow for such care
Choose from policyholders any consideration. Edit what is reimbursed,
or partially paid health care, then the contents of the other provisions of the law on
public health insurance. If it had to pay the plaintiffs ' opinion,
that the contested provisions prohibited the competent bodies to receive remuneration for
the provision of health care or services from public health nehrazených
insurance, according to the second sentence of the Senate provisions of § 11
paragraph. 1 (a). d) sound eg. as follows: "a physician or another specialist in
health care or medical equipment in health care
paid from health insurance to take from the insured person's remuneration,
including reimbursement for health care nehrazenou or partially paid,
Although this care is provided in connection with the care paid. ".
Representation is closed by stating that the Senate is not of the opinion that
the contested provisions of the limits beyond the constitutional law of capabilities in business
in the health sector; in this context, the Senate also could not identify or
the conclusions of the plaintiffs that the citizen is prevented to implement according to their
ideas of the right to health protection in accordance with the cited article of the Charter.
The opinion of the Ministry of health of the Czech Republic
The Ministry of health in its written opinion of 2 July. 10.
2002, in particular, stated that if the insured persons provided health care in the
the extent and under the conditions laid down by the law on public health
insurance, the beneficiary has a right to this care without direct remuneration. This
the right is the "mirror" a ensured the obligations of doctors, other professional
health care workers and medical facilities to refrain from
the negotiations, which would limit or negate that right. In the diction
the contested provisions "under the care" and "in connection with the provision of
This care "is not in accordance with the Department of practical difference, both directed to
ensure the undisputed rights of insured persons to health care without direct
remuneration, if he is granted within the scope of the Act.
The Ministry of health, by contrast, believes that if the contested
the provisions of the repealed and therefore deleted the text "or in connection with the
by providing this care "could be to qualify the declared
the rights of the insured person. The issue of direct payments granted to health care
It is wider. It is a conceptual issue, beyond the provisions of the law on
public health insurance proposal for group members. The Ministry is
considers, therefore, that these issues should be addressed in the context of the whole
the health policy of the Czech Republic; application for annulment of the contested
provision is, therefore, in this sense, UserLand.
Furthermore, the Ministry observed that the contested provision does not preclude the
the provision of health care which is not paid for from public health
the insurance. Nothing prevents that for health care, more than
the definition given by the Act on public health insurance, could be
collected remuneration. To the contrary to business and economic
the Ministry also activity does not occur. The right business have
non-governmental health care facilities and physicians in accordance with Act No.
160/1992 Coll., on health care in non-State health establishments,
in the wording of later regulations. For the "business", however, in the opinion
the Ministry cannot be considered for the collection of funds from
patients in the form of e.g.. different input or registration fees and
sponsorship. Unable to agree, that the provisions of the
excludes the operation of medical devices that are not in the Contracting
relationship with the health insurance company. Eligible policyholders is not granting
the health care costs of health insurance in any
medical equipment, but in this, which has concluded a contract with the
health insurance (the exception is the provision of the so-called emergency health
care).
The distribution of care to "an integral, closely related, associated and
widely related "the Ministry stated that the Division is misleading and
Special-purpose. It is necessary to consider to what extent and under what conditions
health care is paid for according to the law. To "analysis of the intensity"
the opinion notes that the law distinguishes between partially paid
care only for the pharmaceuticals and medical devices in outpatient care. Participation of the
pharmaceuticals and medical devices in inpatient care is in the Act
excluded. For other health care is fully paid by the care, or
not paid (the relevant annex of the Act).
According to the Health Ministry would release the contested provisions
the Act on public health insurance doctors can understand so that it is
possible from patients to choose without any restrictions on the amounts, whether for
health care or related care. If there were, and were
published the so-called. standards of health care and the law on health insurance
would clearly stated that such a standard of care is of insurance
paid, and that's what goes beyond the standard, is subject to the direct
payment of the policyholder, the situation would have been different. The problem, however, lies in the
the fact that no standards or standard medical procedures
are nowhere described, and if the doctor considers that the provided
the medical performance of health insurance is not paid, because
the insurance company pays only a certain procedure, medical device or drug,
then the patient has no ability to verify that it actually is, and
What insurance actually pays. The existing law only States what
kind of care is paid, not how the procedure or with the use of medicinal products which
or medical devices should be given this care.
III.
The Constitutional Court as soon as possible in accordance with section 68, paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court
examined whether the law, which the plaintiffs argue the unconstitutionality of his
provision was adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and
constitutionally prescribed way. From the representation of both chambers of the Czech Parliament
of the Republic, as well as of the relevant Council sent prints, data on
during the voting and other collected materials, it is obvious that the law
on public health insurance, as well as its amendment, which was to
This Act inserted the contested provisions (Law No. 2/1998 Coll., which
are changing and supplementing Act No. 48/1997 Coll., on public health
insurance and amending and supplementing certain related laws, as amended by
Act No. 242/1997 Coll.) was adopted and issued a constitutionally prescribed
in the manner and within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence, while observing the quorums
laid down in article 4(1). paragraph 39. 1 and 2 of the Constitution. The proposal cited the amendment to the
public health insurance was returned to the Chamber of Deputies with the Senate
amendments. The Chamber of Deputies returned the Bill
December 2, discusses the. 12. in 1997, at its 17. the meeting in the second term
and remained in its original approved text (of the 183 present
171 votes for and 9 against). Likewise, the Chamber of Deputies on
its 18. the meeting of 13 July 2005. 1. the President of the Republic 1998 outvoted veto
(of 192 MPs was 114 for and 47 against). For completeness, you can
at this point, only to point out that the reasons for which the law was returned
The Senate and the President of the Republic vetoed, in principle, did not concern the substance of the
the contested provisions.
The proposal from a group of MPs on the annulment of the contested provisions did not reach
most of the necessary 9 votes and as a result, the Constitutional Court rejected it.
The law on public health insurance in section 11 (1). 1 (a). (d)),
that the insured person has the right "to health care without direct remuneration, if he
It was granted to the extent and under the conditions laid down in this law.
A doctor or other health care professional or health care
the device shall not for this health care even in connection with the provision of
the care taken by the policyholder no payment ". In the fifth section 13 and
subs. the law defines health care paid for by the care and nehrazenou of
health insurance, with the model in annex 1 to the law lists
health of health insurance or financed by the nehrazených
only under certain conditions.
The plaintiffs, requesting the cancellation of part of the text of section 11 (1). 1 (a). (d))
the cited law, and that the text "or in connection with the provision of this
care ", based on the fact that according to the law, in addition to health care, borne from the
public health insurance fully there are a number of performances,
resources, products and services that are not covered at all, or only
partially or only in compliance with the conditions laid down by law.
The plaintiffs believe that the enlargement of the wording of the ban to accept from
the insured person's remuneration for the provision of free health care for the words "or in the
connection with the provision of this care "arises, so that the text of the General
It includes essentially all health care, including that which is not
paid, which-in their opinion-will lead to health
the device, in order to avoid being suspected of violating the principle of free
health care, will steer clear of such performance, resources and
services that do not fall under the concept of free medical care. In this
the concept of the plaintiffs ' opinion, the contested provisions completely "excludes
the provision of health care and services from the resources of the public
health insurance are not covered. " Then the promoters, it
violations of the freedom of business, as guaranteed by article. 26 paragraph. 1 of the Charter, and
the rights of each of the health protection referred to in article. 31 of the Charter, since the beneficiary
does not have the right to decide on the manner in which it will take care of your health, just
Therefore, that the method is not fully paid from public health
the insurance.
Such an interpretation of the Constitutional Court seems as fully functional and
disproportionate, since the contested provisions of the tracks clearly only acts
related to each other in the framework of the free medical care, i.e. acts which
According to the introductory words of section 11 (1). 1 (a). d) fall into the "health care without direct
remuneration, if ... was given to the extent and under the conditions laid down
This law ". The prohibition on receiving direct payments is therefore mainly concerns
the very exercise of free medical care. It follows from the wording of the law: "
This health care ", and from the wording of the previous sentence is
no doubt that this "care" means "health care without direct payment"
and no other. The ban also applies to the context of the provision of this
care, therefore, once again the care free. At the same time, however, from the wording of the Act suggests
that is no reason not to care provided in excess of the
the conditions for the free care direct remuneration collected from policyholders be
could. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the contested provision does not change the meaning and the
the content of the law, but emphasizes the only realm free health protection
attempts to interfere with her care before the integrity and narrow its scope. This
interpretation is the Act constitutionally Conformal and entirely appropriate. How
known, is the interpretation of the statutory provisions constitutionally conformal,
the Constitutional Court gives it precedence over the interference of the contested provisions. So
It is also in this case. The Constitutional Court is also of the opinion that the contested
the provisions do not address or whether the beneficiary has to pay extra or on
the cost of health care, or to what extent, and in what context
pay extra. That in itself is another, and this circuit problems
public health care.
The Constitutional Court also found a contradiction of the contested provisions with article. 26
paragraph. 1 of the Charter, and did to the opinion of the Ministry of
health care, which refers in this context to protect the business
the freedom of medical practitioners in accordance with Act No. 160/1992 Coll. Cannot agree nor
with that, the contested provisions excludes the operation of medical
devices that are not in a contractual relationship with the health insurance company.
Claim the insured person from the law on universal health insurance
free care is naturally concerns the care provided in this
medical device, which has a contract with a health insurance company.
After the Constitutional Court found that the reasons given in the submitted proposal
does not establish the unconstitutionality of the contested provision, to consider whether the
There are other reasons for which the opinion on the unconstitutionality
justify. He dealt mainly with the question of whether the contested provisions
does not deviate from the framework of the constitutional mandate of article. 31 of the Charter, under which
citizens on the basis of public insurance the right to free health
care and medical AIDS under conditions provided for by law, in
the extent to which the path can be extended or narrowed law, while
only within the limits of the law to the constitutional rights of claim (article.
41 of the Charter). Such a law is undoubtedly the law on public health
insurance, as amended. On this basis, it is therefore
Conformal and provisions on the constitutional fact of health care from
public insurance supplemented by codicil "or in connection with the provision of
This care ", since it is a clarification that the scope is only
detail in the overall adjustment of health care and does not interfere with its content, but
Specifies the principle of free medical care according to the article. 31 of the Charter.
Due to its extent cannot be challenged the amendment or
přeinterpretována, as if it were a substantial interference with the principles of editing
health insurance, or as intervention in the reasonable equivalence of the protection
policy holders. Considerations about the cancellation of the contested provisions of the Act
could be a signal, which would facilitate the reconstruction of the free
health care towards a greater participation of the insured (e.g. allowances on the
Hospital food, recipes, medical operations, etc.),
The Constitutional Court as completely vybočující of the task before the Constitutional Court in the
context of the proposal of the group members is. Any removal
the amendment as a first step to change the health policy of the State should
the competence of the Constitutional Court would toward a constitutionally
unacceptable position "the positive of the legislature", new inspirátora editing
Regardless, that the contested provision is in accordance with the Constitution. Such
step is the responsibility only of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, whose task is to consider the
the options of public funds and to assess the appropriateness of the application of the principles
equivalence and solidarity when the overall health in the new
the situation. The Constitutional Court in this connection only refers to its finding of
12.4. 1995 SP. zn. PL. ÚS 12/94, promulgated under no. 92/1995 Coll. and
published also in volume 3 Collections of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court
on p. 123 et seq., and the different views to him attached.
The Constitutional Court is aware that these questions are part of the whole complex
the problems of public health care, which is based on certain constitutional
principles which should respond to your total solution by modifying the common
in developed democratic countries and internationally agreed, respectively.
the recommended position.
Therefore, the-more on the edge-the Constitutional Court dealt with and the basis for that
may, albeit indirectly, have an effect on the concept of the individual provisions
representing the only detail the total adjustment of the General
health insurance.
The Constitutional Court is based in their considerations of the constitutional concept of protection
health, which is enshrined in the article. 6 (1). 1 of the Charter, according to which "everyone has the
the right to life, "and in the article. 31 of the Charter, which reads: "everyone has the right to
the protection of health. Citizens on the basis of public insurance the right to
free health care and to medical AIDS under conditions which
lays down the law. ".
The Charter also corresponds to the statutory framework for the delivery of health care. Law No.
20/1966 Coll., on the health care of the people, as amended, in the article. (III) based on the
the fact that the prerequisite for health care of the people is "swift application of the
the results of scientific research in practice ", and section 11 (1). 1 provides that
health care facilities provide care "in accordance with the current
the available knowledge of medical science ". Identically and law No. 123/2000 Coll.
on medical devices and on the amendment of certain related laws
stores in the section 1 provide health care "appropriate, safe and effective
medical devices ".
This is determined in accordance with the constitutional principles of the development trend of public
health care in the direction of high-quality, full-featured and effective care on the basis of the
of equal position of all policyholders. From the constitutional and legal principles
This care cannot be divided into a basic, "cheaper" but less appropriate
and less effective, and the superior, more "expensive", but more convenient and
more effective. The difference between the standard and premium care must not be
the differences in the relevance and effectiveness of treatment. The law does not regulate what
health care may be the doctor, or health care facility to provide, but
What must be in the general interest, in order to provide all insured persons should
equally entitled to such treatment and treatment, which correspond to the
objectively identified needs and the requirements of the appropriate level and medical
Ethics. The developmental orientation of health, backed the law, it is therefore
based not on the movement of "better" health care operations of the free
care to insured persons directly to employers, but rather in the direction of improvement of
operations provided free of charge from public health insurance. This
the concept also corresponds to international conventions such as the Convention on human
rights and Biomedicine and recommendation, for example. Recommendation Rec (2001) 13
The Committee of Ministers to Member States of the Council of Europe, which has been approved by 10. 10.
2001. the Committee of Ministers Meanwhile stressed that article. 3 Convention on human
rights and Biomedicine requires that operators of the closing of the Treaty on
the availability of health care to ensure the right to health care of appropriate
the quality. The Constitutional Court adds that article. 4 this Convention lays down the obligation,
any intervention in the area of health care ... be carried out in accordance with the
the relevant professional obligations and standards ". The Convention itself has entered
for the Czech Republic in force 1. 10.2001 (No 96/2001 Coll. m. s.).
Czech law on public health insurance in annex 1 lists
health of health insurance or financed by the nehrazených
only under certain conditions, in annex 2, section and then a list of the medicinal
substances for which defines the substance fully paid, partly paid for by and
unpaid public insurance, and in section B of the list of substances with
the indicating and preskribčním restrictions. Are contained in annex 3 lists
medical devices nehrazených and funds payable by
health insurance and annex 4 applies to dental products
indication of payment by the insurance company, or with an indication of the maximum amount of this
the remuneration. From this it is clear that the contested provisions of the Act
does not exclude and cannot exclude from the provision of health care services, which
are not covered by compulsory insurance.
You can admit that adaptation is fairly easy to navigate, so it can be
a simple beneficiary, sometimes with the success of the direct payment, and referenced there,
where it is not justified. If the public health insurance
Zoom in to the European standard, it would probably need to act
clearly and intelligibly defined private payment options of insured persons,
probably similar, as is the case in developed European countries, Germany,
Switzerland, etc. So for example. in Germany, although around 10% of the population
privately insured with commercial insurance companies, the quality of private care
the same level of public health insurance, and according to the
common national directives. In public hospitals to provide
the same health performances including the same types of medical materials
firmly United with the human body, for example. Endoprosthesis for privately
the insured person, the insured's statutory sickness insurance for insurance companies,
and including the time the classification of patients to health outcomes by
the professional criteria and not according to ability to pay extra. Private
the patient or publicly insured person can in public hospitals
as additional operations and services ordered and pay only
approved items with officially certified by the prices, which
does not affect the level of health, for example. special accommodation, catering,
free choice of doctor or nurse, another type of dressing or a cure.
However, however, aside from the overall issue of our
health and returning to the design of group members, you cannot see
that the contested provisions of the amendment of the Czech law applies only to one, and
This component of the problem in the overall adjustment of public health care. The task of the
The Constitutional Court is not, therefore, the assessment of the overall health of this edit
even the amendment to the act as a whole. The purpose of the contested provision is
undoubtedly face the illegal collection of money for the services provided,
which are covered by the compulsory general health insurance, whether it
There are different registration fees and overhead surcharges or then remuneration for
This type of health and medical procedures, which are referred to in
"better", and more expensive, even though they are the types that fall under
in the realm of services fully financed by public health insurance.
After reviewing the proposal, the group members came the Constitutional Court from all
for those reasons, concluded that the proposal to repeal the contested provisions
It is not probable, and therefore rejected.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Haboob in r.
Under section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by
amended, took to the decision of the plenum of a different opinion
judges JUDr. Vojtech Cepl, JUDr. Vladimír Čermák, JUDr. Güttler, Turgut
JUDr. Pavel Holländer, JUDr. Jiří Malenovský, JUDr. Jiří Mucha and JUDr.
Antonín Procházka.
