A recommendation of the Public Defender to the Prime Minister of Georgia
In accordance with Paragraph B of Article 21 of the Georgian Law on the Public Defender of Georgia, the Public Defender of Georgia has addressed the Prime Minister of Georgia with a recommendation to make such changes to the December 9, 2009 Resolution No. 218 of the Georgian government that will make it possible for doctors of narrow specialization, based on the decision of a family doctor or a district physician, to provide out-patient services to persons who are unable to move around.
According to Subparagraph A.A., Paragraph 1, Article 3 of the December 9, 2009 Resolution No. 218 of the Georgian government, the conditions of medical insurance financed by the insurance voucher provide for the services of a family doctor, district physician, and nurse when needed, which is important in itself.
However, the cases studied by the Public Defender make it clear that the aforementioned provision cannot ensure the full exercise of the right to heath of patients who cannot move around and need to receive the consultation of both a family doctor and doctors of different specializations at home. In some cases, a specialist’s visit is necessary to determine the condition of heath and to set an accurate diagnosis of the patient.
It should be noted that it is technically possible for specialists to make visits to patients’ homes, but reimbursement for this type of service by insurance companies is connected with problems, since the December 9, 2009 Resolution of the Georgian government does not provide for such a regulation.
Under the existing regulation, if a patient cannot move around and go to a clinic himself/herself, he/she may be left without the necessary medical service, in particular, in the cases when the family doctor is devoid of the possibility to set a concrete and accurate diagnosis without a specialist’s involvement. In such cases, the outcome of the patient’s treatment is not positive. If a poor and old person cannot move around, heath care establishments are practically inaccessible for him/her, which violates his/her right to heath care in terms of the physical inaccessibility of one of its elements.