Santiago de Cali, March 26, 2009.
Doctor.
Ana Maria Cabrera Videla.
Director General of Occupational Hazards.
Ministry of Social Protection.
right of petition.
Based on Article 23 of the Constitution and the Decree 01 of 1984 (Administrative Code) I am writing to you in a respectful and courteous to make the following requests:
REQUESTS.
Establish or include in the body of the resolution amending Resolution 2346 or herself:
1. Article 11 of Resolution 2346 Recruitment and cost of occupational medical evaluations a paragraph to clarify that employers may not hire occupational medical evaluations with EPS. or IPS. Occupational Health or property associated with the EPS.
2. Section 11 of Resolution 2346 Recruitment and cost of medical evaluations , as amended, which costs Diagnostics Health conditions are made the exclusive responsibility the employer.
3. analyze in greater detail, carefully and in consultation with the different actors of SGRP. and especially Medical Specialists Occupational Health Who or entities who would be to the custody of HCO with proper guarantees for their conservation and the necessary logistics for the movement and use of these documents among the actors system when necessary and under the conditions permitted by law, must be flexible, timely and safe?
Before taking the decision referred to the draft of Resolution 2346, which I think is not the most appropriate and will surely lead to serious injuries that are indexed to compromise the efficiency of the procedure for managing the HCO. and other processes related to it, the SGRP., plus the reliability and prestige of the DGRP. and the MPS.
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS OF PETITION 1.
Social Security System in Health ordered set a limit or cap on the EPS. in providing health care to IPS. Own up to 30% of them, to avoid the monopoly of the EPS. managing and providing service
The SGRP. can not go against vertical integration path, opening doors to the EPS. in providing health services when they are being limited in the health system.
EPS. to provide occupational health services IPSSO. own or linked to them, specifically occupational medical evaluations, may come into bias in diagnostic assessments and concepts of occupational medical evaluations, which are key elements in the rating of the health event source, which may influence the decision of who coverage is the responsibility of income, gender inequality and injustice in the system.
ARGUMENTS OF REQUEST 2.
costs of occupational medical evaluations and occupational health program should be borne by the employer only.
On the value of occupational medical evaluations should assume the employer, pursuant to Section 348 of the CST literal b) of Article 30 of Decree 614 of 1984 and no. 1 of Article 10 of Res. 1016 of 1989 (content of the program occupational health)
Concerning the cost of occupational health program should also be borne by the employer, as provided by paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Res. 1016 of 1989 which says, "employers or employers are required to allocate human, financial, and physical development and essential for the full implementation of occupational health program"
Art 56. 1295 Decree 1994 provides that the employer is responsible for the prevention of occupational hazards and implementation of occupational health program
The diagnosis of health conditions of workers in a company referred to article 18 of Resolution 2346 is part of activities basic and major subprogramme of work Preventive Medicine and Occupational Health Program, to: a standardized planning and monitoring health conditions of workers in the workplace, designing disease prevention programs, unification criteria in the implementation of occupational medical evaluations, statistical information, its analysis are applied in the development of epidemiological surveillance systems, comprehensive rehabilitation programs and qualification processes and origin of loss of earning capacity, therefore the costs of this diagnosis should be borne entirely by the employer and not have to be carried out by doctors, although they make.
In short, the employer must pay the costs (for each) of the occupational medical evaluations, tests or additional assessments and the Diagnosis of health conditions of workers a company.
If the ARP. and EPS. can not assume or replace directly or indirectly by law the responsibilities incumbent on the employer and in particular those obligations and commitments under the Occupational Health Program why that is charged the costs, as in the case Diagnosis of health conditions, the doctor or IPSSO. and does not establish clearly and unequivocally that this service must be paid by the employer, otherwise it would not be enforceable tax and, if no optional in each case.
ARGUMENTS OF REQUEST 3.
regard to the custody of employment and medical history are not considered appropriate that the IPSSO. and doctors who perform medical evaluations that the custodians, for the dispersion that would be generated from them with the respective risks of confusion and loss thereof, affects the security, agility and speed the use of these documents allowed by law
The occupational medical records are private documents, and subjected to compulsory reservation, whose loss has legal implications for whom the custody and for whom particular case laws on the organization of it.
should be clear that the occupational medical evaluation is not occupational medical history, which is formed by or pre occupational medical evaluations, periodic, etc., Complementary examinations and registration of medical evaluations. Physicians or IPSSO. to make medical evaluations, evaluation custodiarían and medical examinations, no occupational medical history.
If the documents are part of the main and sub programs of preventive medicine and the work of occupational health programs, which is the responsibility of the employer who is who puts the risk the worker, he must bear the costs of filing and safekeeping.
The logistics for the use and transfer of these documents among the actors of SGRP. and even the judges of the republic is not clear and expeditiously, as outlined in the draft resolution 2346, there are inaccuracies and gaps in form and substance attributable to provisions made in the resolution would cause confusion, loss, and failure of opportunity.
is not appropriate for this important and definitive resolution SGRP pair. can again be inappropriate and ineffective, that does not happen all that should be necessary.
For all arguments presented and substantiated, and those covered in Law 23 of 1981 Section 34 and following, the 3380 Decree 1981 of this Act, the resolution 1995 of 1999 which regulates the issue of medical records in Colombia, Resolution 1715 of 2005 partially amending the previous Resolution and the Constitution of Colombia, if the resolution is in the terms set forth in Resolution 2346 and the draft amendment would be vulnerable, because it violates the rules raised in this petition law to be unconstitutional and contrary to fundamental rights of doctors, as the right work, to fair remuneration for work performed and equality.
is my right as a doctor SGRP actor. who knows and is actively involved with work experience, and my duty as a citizen and Overseer Officer for the SGRP. early warning of the vacuum that may be the resolution, so that in this way and fulfilling one of the objectives of a preventive Veeduría the highest level legislate in the best interest of the SGRP. and its actors,
Please note the comments of the rights request on the previous issue.
Sincerely
Carlos Arturo Rojas Grisales MD. MSO.
Overseer Officer for the SGRP.
Citizen Veeduría System Comprehensive Social Security Prosesa
(pro - Social Security)
0 comments:
Post a Comment