Comments on Preliminary Report on National Medical Commission, Bill 2016
Summary:
1. NMC, Bill 2016 is proposed to replace MCI as it has failed to perform and achieve its mission
due to alleged corruption, wrong policies and lack of transparency. Chairperson and Board
Presidents of NMC are proposed to be selected (not elected as for MCI) by a search committee
headed by the Cabinet Secretary with some other bureaucrats including Secretary Ministry of
Health &Family Welfare as members. The proposed search Committee is on the same lines as
for other board level selections of as that of Chairmen and Directors of Public sector
undertakings and autonomous government organizations. It is high time that the constitution
of search committee is reviewed to select the best professional candidates & not those pliable to
government/politicians. I suggest that the search committee should not involve
bureaucrats as it is well known that the system has resulted in selection of large number
of corrupt chairpersons as the positions are sold to the pliable candidate to meet the
corrupt demands of the Minister/ruling party politicians. The selection should be by
apolitical experts and on the basis of proven track record. The probable candidates should
be from among those having the experience of managing best non-profit medical colleges at
least for 3 years as Principal/Director/Vice-chancellor of Medical college/university.
2. Regulatory Philosophy has stressed need of switching the criteria from input to outcome;
emphasis on teaching quality rather than infrastructure; improvement through warnings,
grievance system instead of de-recognition and inspection; achieving transparency by
insisting medical college to put entire information in public domain; College ratings to enable
candidates to make informed decisions.
The report smells of a nexus between politicians/bureaucrats and owners of private
medical colleges ( owners obviously have deep pockets) to mint money, at the cost of
making a mockery of medical education by supporting creation of poor quality colleges
without a robust system. Though MCI may have had its shortcomings, but it is foolhardy
to discard the norms laid down by MCI without proper review. I do not support the
recommended soft approach of warnings, grievance system etc as it opens up a lot of loopholes
for compromise on quality. I recommend that there should be interactive video-graphed
inspections which are monitored by the NMC but should be then put in public domain for
transparency and determining rating of institutions for potential students/parents who
invest so much time and money in pursuing a career in medicine. For minor deficiencies,
the management may be given warning to rectify within a specified period. But in case of
major deficiencies/unfair & illegal activities, the college should be de-recognized and
accounts be frozen. The students may be moved to other colleges at the cost of existing
college. The management may be given the option to sell the college through the bidding
process/negotiations overseen by NMC to the scrupulous managements of other colleges.
In case of unfair/illegal activities, the management should be investigated and liable for
legal action. A list of major and minor transgressions must be identified to add
objectivity and fairness, and fines etc fixed prior to implementation of NMC, bill 2016.
Things are very vague in this document, leaving much scope for taking skewed,
subjective decisions depending on the money power and other behind scene
determinants which everyone understands, and which the NMC is supposed to eliminate
at root.
3. National Entrance and Licentiate Examination- It sounds good. It should be conducted
round the year at approved examination centers to avoid malpractice and valid for 2
years. It is important to introduce centralized admission process on the basis of NEET.
4. No cap on Fee for 60% seats: I strongly oppose and disagree. This is wrapping the present
system in a new cover.This again smells of a nexus to make money. If the premise that NMC
will not be able to enforce fee cap for 60% seats, then how will it enforce fee for the balance
40% seats. If there is no cap, then medical education could become a rich men club. Presently,
some Government Medical colleges are among the best. With no fee cap, private medical
colleges will poach the faculty of these colleges by offering higher salary and make them
substandard.
5. Profit Entities and Private Medical Colleges: It is fine as long as the colleges under this
scheme follow the same rules as applicable for other colleges—Cap on Fee, admission through
NEET etc.
Background:
The Ministry of Health & Welfare, Judiciary, medical fraternity & public at large believe that
Medical Council of India (MCI),entrusted with the establishment and approval of medical
colleges/universities to maintain high standard of education has failed miserably to perform its
duties. It is alleged, and various reports in public domain indicate, that there is massive
corruption in MCI. In view of this, it is of utmost importance that any new system should be
free of this evil.
Hence National Medical Commission Bill 2016 is proposed and a Preliminary report of the
same is presented at the website of Niti Ayog for comments. Based on my long experience in
critical sectors of the economy , including Planning Commission, my Comments on the
Preliminary Report of Draft National Medical Commission(NMC) ,Bill 2016 are:
(1) The Draft NMC, Bill 2016 has made a basic change from ‘elected’ to ‘selected’ and
inclusion of some officials from law, economics, management, consumer or patient
rights etc. in the proposed commission.
Comments:
(a) The Commission should be able to select the right person for the job by adopting
”Open and transparent process” as mentioned in the report. It is fine to move from
‘elected’ to ‘selected’ regime. However, I have serious concern about the modalities of
the process. The report states that the Chairman/President will be selected’
through an independent and a transparent selection process by a broad based
search cum selection committee.’ The proposed committee comprises of
bureaucrats-Cabinet Secretary, Secretary of Health etc. I do not think that such a
committee will select the right candidate. These bureaucrats will dominate the
decision making in the committee due to their position and proximity to the
Ministers/Ministry. Other members will be mute spectators and act as statues in
the process( a typical problem of Indian system headed by bureaucrats). The
selected/short listed candidate(s) may not be on merit but convenient to their
political bosses. For public consumption, selection is based by broad based panel—
but which is complete eyewash. We have enough experience of candidates being
selected through search committees as Chairman/Board of public sector
companies. It is an open secret that the positions have not gone to the right
candidate but sold to the weak and pliable officers who can be manipulated to
benefit the powers that be. It is an open secret that such selections are a total
eyewash, as selection is predetermined, based on the recommendation of the
concerned top officials and politicians in power ( aim is to select someone who toes
the party line). Do we call such selections ‘Open and transparent process’? Can we
expect the Chairperson and other executives so selected to be upright and do a good
job? Has any body ever bothered about the rampant corruption in public sector due
to such Chairperson and Board members, resulting in poor performance of the
organization. The Government(s) tend to bury everything under the carpet for the
selfish motive.
It is appalling to see that the NMC proposes to install a similar mechanism in NMC
to strengthen political and bureaucratic hold in the hitherto untouched higher
education sector. Is it the precursor for similar policies in other technical fields? The
idea was to cleanse the MCI and not to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
Medicine deals with precious human lives and not like inanimate telecoms or
railways etc. Involvement of people who know how the system runs is critical;
officers from other systems are welcome but it is the people from Medical Sciences
who should be entrusted with the job to run the show as leaders.
The search committee & final selection should be entirely apolitical with no
role of bureaucrats. The proposed selection process for NMC,Bill 2016 in the
preliminary Report will not arrest corruption. It will continue as usual with the
change of beneficiaries.
(b) The selection of Chairman and 4 Board Presidents should be done by the Governing
Council comprising of Principals/Vice Chancellors of Medical Universities of top 20
Medical Colleges/universities, based on average ranking of the previous two years.
The Chairman & 4 Board Presidents should be serving or retired Principal/VC from
the top 20 Medical colleges with a minimum experience of 2/3 years as
Principal/VC.
(c) Ex officio /part time members —numbers as well as selection should be left to the
Governing Council.
2. Regulatory Philosophy: There are following issues in Regulatory Philosophy:
(a) Input based MCI inspection is a barrier for education provider and NMC will focus on
outcome rather than input.
(b) MCI inspection is based more on infrastructure rather than teaching quality.
(c) Institutions with shortcomings will be issued warnings and will be derecognized only if
they do not improve after repeated warnings.
(d) Ratings of Medical colleges will allow students to make informed decisions.
(e) Transparency by insisting that all relevant information is put in public domain.
(f) Deviations will be addressed through grievance system rather than inspection.
Comments:
I am wondering whether the report is for India or Mars. The concept is totally alien to the
realities with bunch of contradictions. I am all for making changes to some of the parameters of
inspection by MCI but do not agree to such ideas.
How will one assess the outcome of a new medical college, when there is no
student, no teaching? Do you have any other choice but to look at
infrastructure, qualification & experience of teaching faculty? Can you have
good outcome without adequate infrastructure? If infrastructure is not
important then NMC could consider online MBBS courses. Students can join
some coaching institutes in Kota to clear NEET and then Licentiate exam. The
country will have unlimited qualified quacks with the official stamp of a top
university of India.
Most private medical college managements are corrupt and adopting
unscrupulous, unethical means to seek approval so that they are able to extract
capitation fee and hefty fees from the students. The report has charged MCI for
corruption at a length but hardly a word is mentioned about corrupt medical
college managements, seeking approval on the basis of false submissions, fake
patients, patient records and ghost faculty. The reality is that we are one of the
most corrupt societies in the world where honesty & integrity is a rare
commodity. Corrupts are rewarded and honest and upright are punished. The
main reason for such rampant corruption is soft approach of the law enforcing
agencies. It is shocking that the same soft approach is advocated in the
regulatory philosophy of this report to further aggravate the situation. If we
really want standard of medical education to produce quality doctors, we need to
be tough and may have to sacrifice the quantity for quality. It is astonishing that
Lodha OC trusted the websites of such corrupt management without verification
and gave approval to such colleges to doom the medical education and produce
quacks. I am also wondering how many corrupt MCI officers/inspectors were
investigated and put behind the bar by the Government, investigating &
Vigilance agencies for alleged rampant corruption.
The real issue is that majority of these private medical colleges are run by
bigwigs through use of other names, and government is too anxious to shower
undue favours through NMC. The government bodies and their allies are so
anxious in increasing the seats that they are not bothered whether the so called
Medical colleges or Medical shops are equipped to provide basic education,
forget the quality education. The present report is just a blue print of the
same to produce qualified quacks.
The concept of addressing the deviations through grievance system rather than
inspection is alien to me. Who will file the grievance and who will handle the
grievance? Is it NMC? Are we getting superhuman beings to run NMC? Don’t we
know that the RTI and Public Grievance system(Pgportal) is a complete eye
wash. The grievance portal has failed miserably to discharge its duties, and in
case of RTI, there is always an attempt to pass the buck or give meaningless
response. The problem is that the rules and Acts have been made but the erring
officers are not being held accountable and penalized as there is no such culture
in the system.
If there is least intention of maintaining/improving the standard of Medical
Education in the country, the College Managements should be afraid of
deviations, and of using corrupt means to circumvent rules, by instituting a
mechanism of automatic tough penalties that are non-negotiable by even the
highest authorities. If this fear is not there, then everyone, especially those
corrupt, can eat the cake and forget about quality Medical education.
I do not understand how NMC will go for rating without inspection. Will it be
done on the basis of information furnished by the colleges just as Lodha OC has
given approval to large number of Medical colleges to produce quacks, on the
basis of fake information available on college websites? If NMC does not feel the
necessity of verification/inspection, then do we really need NMC? Let the college
submit the form to the government body of its intention of opening a medical
college and done with it. The colleges will be there to produce world class
quacks. Govt and Niti Ayog can always call them World Class Medical Colleges
Transparency by insisting that all the information is put in public domain. The
important issue is Compliance. Who and how the authenticity will be checked ?
This rule already exists but the information available in public domain through
college website is outdated & largely false. The problem is that the rules are
there but hardly any compliance. Not only this ,the organizations are getting
rewarded for cheating. The recent example is the approval of Lodha OC. This is
true in every walk of life and it will be foolhardy to even rely on such information
without stringent measures. Let us not forget that the Private medical colleges
want to get approval by hook and crook ,the moment the building is ready.
I think interactive inspection, properly video graphed is a must for
proper approval. Rating of Medical colleges, based on (i) the ranks of
the students in NEET seeking admission,(ii) Result of Licentiate
Examination(iii) No and quality of publications (iv) feedback of the
students and patients should be considered.
3. National Entrance Exam: It is fine. However, the present system of holding it once
a year needs to be reviewed.
Large number of Candidates could result in poor management of examination
centres, leading to malpractice. CBSE or any other agency entrusted to conduct
the exam should develop/identify proper examination centres with limited
number of seats.
Examinations should be conducted at least 6 times a year and no candidate is
allowed to appear more than two times. However, if a candidate appears twice,
then better of the two should be considered.
Out of the 6 exams in a year, 3 should be between April-June.
The result should be valid for Two years.
If any cheating /unfair practice is reported at any centre, the result of that
centre should be declared null and void.
4. Fee Regulation: According to preliminary report of Niti Ayog, the Fee cap will
discourage entry of Private Colleges. Enforceability of Fee cap is doubtful and it will
result in Capitation fee & payment demands on various pretexts. Accordingly, the
committee recommends that NMC may be empowered to fix norms for regulating
fees for a proportion of seats (not exceeding 40% of the total seats) in private
medical colleges
Comments:
No fee cap means that the report is suggesting Free Pricing Mechanism for Medical
colleges. The fee will be based on Demand and supply for Private Medical Colleges.
What about Government Medical colleges? Will it be fixed by the Government or it will
follow the same trend as that of Private medical colleges? If NMC will find it difficult
to regulate Fee cap, then how will it regulate fee cap for up to 40% of the seats.
If there is no fee cap then Private medical colleges will form cartel and make Medical
Education so expensive that it will become a club of rich and super rich.
Presently, the best educational standard is in some Govt. Medical colleges. The private
Medical colleges with no fee cap will be able to offer significantly higher salary to the
faculty. Govt Med colleges will become 3rd rate colleges. Who will take care of them?.
Don’t we have the experience of migration of best officers of PSU to Private companies in
Nineties when liberalization took place and migration of highly rated professors in
premier Government Medical colleges to Private practice in Hospitals
My suggestions are:
We are not yet ready to have free pricing in Medical education. There
should be fee cap. All Medical colleges should be categorized in 5 groups
depending upon the rating. The Fee cap should be linked to rating.
All government Medical colleges are restructured to bring under
autonomous Professional Management Boards. There can be one or more
such boards in one city/district. The Boards will be responsible for
functioning of these Medical colleges—Faculty recruitment, fixation of fees
on the same principle as applicable for private medical colleges. These
Board members should be selected by the Governing Council for NMC for a
period of 3 years.
There should be uniform fee for all students. Each Medical college should
be asked to deposit the difference of full fee and subsidized fee for 40% of
admitted students with Secretariat of NMC. This amount should be given to
the students on Merit cum Means basis as scholarship.
All students should be entitled for student loan at concessional rates.
5. Profit Entities and Private Medical Colleges: It is fine as long as the colleges
under this scheme follow the same rules as applicable for other colleges—Cap on
Fee, admission through NEET etc.
Summary:
1. NMC, Bill 2016 is proposed to replace MCI as it has failed to perform and achieve its mission
due to alleged corruption, wrong policies and lack of transparency. Chairperson and Board
Presidents of NMC are proposed to be selected (not elected as for MCI) by a search committee
headed by the Cabinet Secretary with some other bureaucrats including Secretary Ministry of
Health &Family Welfare as members. The proposed search Committee is on the same lines as
for other board level selections of as that of Chairmen and Directors of Public sector
undertakings and autonomous government organizations. It is high time that the constitution
of search committee is reviewed to select the best professional candidates & not those pliable to
government/politicians. I suggest that the search committee should not involve
bureaucrats as it is well known that the system has resulted in selection of large number
of corrupt chairpersons as the positions are sold to the pliable candidate to meet the
corrupt demands of the Minister/ruling party politicians. The selection should be by
apolitical experts and on the basis of proven track record. The probable candidates should
be from among those having the experience of managing best non-profit medical colleges at
least for 3 years as Principal/Director/Vice-chancellor of Medical college/university.
2. Regulatory Philosophy has stressed need of switching the criteria from input to outcome;
emphasis on teaching quality rather than infrastructure; improvement through warnings,
grievance system instead of de-recognition and inspection; achieving transparency by
insisting medical college to put entire information in public domain; College ratings to enable
candidates to make informed decisions.
The report smells of a nexus between politicians/bureaucrats and owners of private
medical colleges ( owners obviously have deep pockets) to mint money, at the cost of
making a mockery of medical education by supporting creation of poor quality colleges
without a robust system. Though MCI may have had its shortcomings, but it is foolhardy
to discard the norms laid down by MCI without proper review. I do not support the
recommended soft approach of warnings, grievance system etc as it opens up a lot of loopholes
for compromise on quality. I recommend that there should be interactive video-graphed
inspections which are monitored by the NMC but should be then put in public domain for
transparency and determining rating of institutions for potential students/parents who
invest so much time and money in pursuing a career in medicine. For minor deficiencies,
the management may be given warning to rectify within a specified period. But in case of
major deficiencies/unfair & illegal activities, the college should be de-recognized and
accounts be frozen. The students may be moved to other colleges at the cost of existing
college. The management may be given the option to sell the college through the bidding
process/negotiations overseen by NMC to the scrupulous managements of other colleges.
In case of unfair/illegal activities, the management should be investigated and liable for
legal action. A list of major and minor transgressions must be identified to add
objectivity and fairness, and fines etc fixed prior to implementation of NMC, bill 2016.
Things are very vague in this document, leaving much scope for taking skewed,
subjective decisions depending on the money power and other behind scene
determinants which everyone understands, and which the NMC is supposed to eliminate
at root.
3. National Entrance and Licentiate Examination- It sounds good. It should be conducted
round the year at approved examination centers to avoid malpractice and valid for 2
years. It is important to introduce centralized admission process on the basis of NEET.
4. No cap on Fee for 60% seats: I strongly oppose and disagree. This is wrapping the present
system in a new cover.This again smells of a nexus to make money. If the premise that NMC
will not be able to enforce fee cap for 60% seats, then how will it enforce fee for the balance
40% seats. If there is no cap, then medical education could become a rich men club. Presently,
some Government Medical colleges are among the best. With no fee cap, private medical
colleges will poach the faculty of these colleges by offering higher salary and make them
substandard.
5. Profit Entities and Private Medical Colleges: It is fine as long as the colleges under this
scheme follow the same rules as applicable for other colleges—Cap on Fee, admission through
NEET etc.
Background:
The Ministry of Health & Welfare, Judiciary, medical fraternity & public at large believe that
Medical Council of India (MCI),entrusted with the establishment and approval of medical
colleges/universities to maintain high standard of education has failed miserably to perform its
duties. It is alleged, and various reports in public domain indicate, that there is massive
corruption in MCI. In view of this, it is of utmost importance that any new system should be
free of this evil.
Hence National Medical Commission Bill 2016 is proposed and a Preliminary report of the
same is presented at the website of Niti Ayog for comments. Based on my long experience in
critical sectors of the economy , including Planning Commission, my Comments on the
Preliminary Report of Draft National Medical Commission(NMC) ,Bill 2016 are:
(1) The Draft NMC, Bill 2016 has made a basic change from ‘elected’ to ‘selected’ and
inclusion of some officials from law, economics, management, consumer or patient
rights etc. in the proposed commission.
Comments:
(a) The Commission should be able to select the right person for the job by adopting
”Open and transparent process” as mentioned in the report. It is fine to move from
‘elected’ to ‘selected’ regime. However, I have serious concern about the modalities of
the process. The report states that the Chairman/President will be selected’
through an independent and a transparent selection process by a broad based
search cum selection committee.’ The proposed committee comprises of
bureaucrats-Cabinet Secretary, Secretary of Health etc. I do not think that such a
committee will select the right candidate. These bureaucrats will dominate the
decision making in the committee due to their position and proximity to the
Ministers/Ministry. Other members will be mute spectators and act as statues in
the process( a typical problem of Indian system headed by bureaucrats). The
selected/short listed candidate(s) may not be on merit but convenient to their
political bosses. For public consumption, selection is based by broad based panel—
but which is complete eyewash. We have enough experience of candidates being
selected through search committees as Chairman/Board of public sector
companies. It is an open secret that the positions have not gone to the right
candidate but sold to the weak and pliable officers who can be manipulated to
benefit the powers that be. It is an open secret that such selections are a total
eyewash, as selection is predetermined, based on the recommendation of the
concerned top officials and politicians in power ( aim is to select someone who toes
the party line). Do we call such selections ‘Open and transparent process’? Can we
expect the Chairperson and other executives so selected to be upright and do a good
job? Has any body ever bothered about the rampant corruption in public sector due
to such Chairperson and Board members, resulting in poor performance of the
organization. The Government(s) tend to bury everything under the carpet for the
selfish motive.
It is appalling to see that the NMC proposes to install a similar mechanism in NMC
to strengthen political and bureaucratic hold in the hitherto untouched higher
education sector. Is it the precursor for similar policies in other technical fields? The
idea was to cleanse the MCI and not to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
Medicine deals with precious human lives and not like inanimate telecoms or
railways etc. Involvement of people who know how the system runs is critical;
officers from other systems are welcome but it is the people from Medical Sciences
who should be entrusted with the job to run the show as leaders.
The search committee & final selection should be entirely apolitical with no
role of bureaucrats. The proposed selection process for NMC,Bill 2016 in the
preliminary Report will not arrest corruption. It will continue as usual with the
change of beneficiaries.
(b) The selection of Chairman and 4 Board Presidents should be done by the Governing
Council comprising of Principals/Vice Chancellors of Medical Universities of top 20
Medical Colleges/universities, based on average ranking of the previous two years.
The Chairman & 4 Board Presidents should be serving or retired Principal/VC from
the top 20 Medical colleges with a minimum experience of 2/3 years as
Principal/VC.
(c) Ex officio /part time members —numbers as well as selection should be left to the
Governing Council.
2. Regulatory Philosophy: There are following issues in Regulatory Philosophy:
(a) Input based MCI inspection is a barrier for education provider and NMC will focus on
outcome rather than input.
(b) MCI inspection is based more on infrastructure rather than teaching quality.
(c) Institutions with shortcomings will be issued warnings and will be derecognized only if
they do not improve after repeated warnings.
(d) Ratings of Medical colleges will allow students to make informed decisions.
(e) Transparency by insisting that all relevant information is put in public domain.
(f) Deviations will be addressed through grievance system rather than inspection.
Comments:
I am wondering whether the report is for India or Mars. The concept is totally alien to the
realities with bunch of contradictions. I am all for making changes to some of the parameters of
inspection by MCI but do not agree to such ideas.
How will one assess the outcome of a new medical college, when there is no
student, no teaching? Do you have any other choice but to look at
infrastructure, qualification & experience of teaching faculty? Can you have
good outcome without adequate infrastructure? If infrastructure is not
important then NMC could consider online MBBS courses. Students can join
some coaching institutes in Kota to clear NEET and then Licentiate exam. The
country will have unlimited qualified quacks with the official stamp of a top
university of India.
Most private medical college managements are corrupt and adopting
unscrupulous, unethical means to seek approval so that they are able to extract
capitation fee and hefty fees from the students. The report has charged MCI for
corruption at a length but hardly a word is mentioned about corrupt medical
college managements, seeking approval on the basis of false submissions, fake
patients, patient records and ghost faculty. The reality is that we are one of the
most corrupt societies in the world where honesty & integrity is a rare
commodity. Corrupts are rewarded and honest and upright are punished. The
main reason for such rampant corruption is soft approach of the law enforcing
agencies. It is shocking that the same soft approach is advocated in the
regulatory philosophy of this report to further aggravate the situation. If we
really want standard of medical education to produce quality doctors, we need to
be tough and may have to sacrifice the quantity for quality. It is astonishing that
Lodha OC trusted the websites of such corrupt management without verification
and gave approval to such colleges to doom the medical education and produce
quacks. I am also wondering how many corrupt MCI officers/inspectors were
investigated and put behind the bar by the Government, investigating &
Vigilance agencies for alleged rampant corruption.
The real issue is that majority of these private medical colleges are run by
bigwigs through use of other names, and government is too anxious to shower
undue favours through NMC. The government bodies and their allies are so
anxious in increasing the seats that they are not bothered whether the so called
Medical colleges or Medical shops are equipped to provide basic education,
forget the quality education. The present report is just a blue print of the
same to produce qualified quacks.
The concept of addressing the deviations through grievance system rather than
inspection is alien to me. Who will file the grievance and who will handle the
grievance? Is it NMC? Are we getting superhuman beings to run NMC? Don’t we
know that the RTI and Public Grievance system(Pgportal) is a complete eye
wash. The grievance portal has failed miserably to discharge its duties, and in
case of RTI, there is always an attempt to pass the buck or give meaningless
response. The problem is that the rules and Acts have been made but the erring
officers are not being held accountable and penalized as there is no such culture
in the system.
If there is least intention of maintaining/improving the standard of Medical
Education in the country, the College Managements should be afraid of
deviations, and of using corrupt means to circumvent rules, by instituting a
mechanism of automatic tough penalties that are non-negotiable by even the
highest authorities. If this fear is not there, then everyone, especially those
corrupt, can eat the cake and forget about quality Medical education.
I do not understand how NMC will go for rating without inspection. Will it be
done on the basis of information furnished by the colleges just as Lodha OC has
given approval to large number of Medical colleges to produce quacks, on the
basis of fake information available on college websites? If NMC does not feel the
necessity of verification/inspection, then do we really need NMC? Let the college
submit the form to the government body of its intention of opening a medical
college and done with it. The colleges will be there to produce world class
quacks. Govt and Niti Ayog can always call them World Class Medical Colleges
Transparency by insisting that all the information is put in public domain. The
important issue is Compliance. Who and how the authenticity will be checked ?
This rule already exists but the information available in public domain through
college website is outdated & largely false. The problem is that the rules are
there but hardly any compliance. Not only this ,the organizations are getting
rewarded for cheating. The recent example is the approval of Lodha OC. This is
true in every walk of life and it will be foolhardy to even rely on such information
without stringent measures. Let us not forget that the Private medical colleges
want to get approval by hook and crook ,the moment the building is ready.
I think interactive inspection, properly video graphed is a must for
proper approval. Rating of Medical colleges, based on (i) the ranks of
the students in NEET seeking admission,(ii) Result of Licentiate
Examination(iii) No and quality of publications (iv) feedback of the
students and patients should be considered.
3. National Entrance Exam: It is fine. However, the present system of holding it once
a year needs to be reviewed.
Large number of Candidates could result in poor management of examination
centres, leading to malpractice. CBSE or any other agency entrusted to conduct
the exam should develop/identify proper examination centres with limited
number of seats.
Examinations should be conducted at least 6 times a year and no candidate is
allowed to appear more than two times. However, if a candidate appears twice,
then better of the two should be considered.
Out of the 6 exams in a year, 3 should be between April-June.
The result should be valid for Two years.
If any cheating /unfair practice is reported at any centre, the result of that
centre should be declared null and void.
4. Fee Regulation: According to preliminary report of Niti Ayog, the Fee cap will
discourage entry of Private Colleges. Enforceability of Fee cap is doubtful and it will
result in Capitation fee & payment demands on various pretexts. Accordingly, the
committee recommends that NMC may be empowered to fix norms for regulating
fees for a proportion of seats (not exceeding 40% of the total seats) in private
medical colleges
Comments:
No fee cap means that the report is suggesting Free Pricing Mechanism for Medical
colleges. The fee will be based on Demand and supply for Private Medical Colleges.
What about Government Medical colleges? Will it be fixed by the Government or it will
follow the same trend as that of Private medical colleges? If NMC will find it difficult
to regulate Fee cap, then how will it regulate fee cap for up to 40% of the seats.
If there is no fee cap then Private medical colleges will form cartel and make Medical
Education so expensive that it will become a club of rich and super rich.
Presently, the best educational standard is in some Govt. Medical colleges. The private
Medical colleges with no fee cap will be able to offer significantly higher salary to the
faculty. Govt Med colleges will become 3rd rate colleges. Who will take care of them?.
Don’t we have the experience of migration of best officers of PSU to Private companies in
Nineties when liberalization took place and migration of highly rated professors in
premier Government Medical colleges to Private practice in Hospitals
My suggestions are:
We are not yet ready to have free pricing in Medical education. There
should be fee cap. All Medical colleges should be categorized in 5 groups
depending upon the rating. The Fee cap should be linked to rating.
All government Medical colleges are restructured to bring under
autonomous Professional Management Boards. There can be one or more
such boards in one city/district. The Boards will be responsible for
functioning of these Medical colleges—Faculty recruitment, fixation of fees
on the same principle as applicable for private medical colleges. These
Board members should be selected by the Governing Council for NMC for a
period of 3 years.
There should be uniform fee for all students. Each Medical college should
be asked to deposit the difference of full fee and subsidized fee for 40% of
admitted students with Secretariat of NMC. This amount should be given to
the students on Merit cum Means basis as scholarship.
All students should be entitled for student loan at concessional rates.
5. Profit Entities and Private Medical Colleges: It is fine as long as the colleges
under this scheme follow the same rules as applicable for other colleges—Cap on
Fee, admission through NEET etc.
