New rules and regulations to be enforced if new bill passes.
The Medical and Dental Consultants’ Association of Nigeria has voiced opposition to a bill that would change the qualifications for heads of university teaching hospitals in Nigeria. The Association believes that the bill does not reflect the best interests of the Nigerian people and would negatively impact the quality of healthcare in the country, and would thus lead to a decline in the quality of healthcare in the nation.
MDCAN believes that the bill, if enacted, would lower the standards for these important positions. The Association is therefore calling on the Nigerian government to reconsider the bill. The bill in question would lower the standards for important positions within the Nigerian government. These positions are responsible for critical tasks such as maintaining law and order, providing social services, and managing the economy. If the standards for these positions are lowered, it could have serious negative consequences for the country. MDCAN is therefore calling on the Nigerian government to reconsider the bill. The Association believes that it is in the best interests of the country to maintain high standards for these important positions.
It would allow the Head of the Hospital to plan for the long-term.
This bill seeks to change the reference of the Head of Tertiary Health Institutions in Nigeria from Chief Medical Director. Nigeria currently has over 100 tertiary health institutions, which are responsible for providing care to the country’s population of over 200 million people. The current system of appointing a Chief Medical Director to head each institution has been in place for several decades, and has resulted in a number of challenges, including a lack of coordination and accountability, and a lack of transparency in the management of these institutions.
There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that the quality of healthcare improves when the Heads of Tertiary Hospitals are given a definite tenure of office. This is because it allows them to plan for the long-term and make decisions that are in the best interests of the patients. There are a number of reasons why a definite tenure of office would improve the quality of healthcare. First, it would allow the Head of the Hospital to focus on providing quality care, rather than worrying about whether they will be removed from their position. Second, it would allow the Head of the Hospital to plan for the long-term, rather than having to constantly adapt to changes in leadership.
This could result in a loss of accreditation for some institutions.
Governing Boards of Federal Government Tertiary Hospitals are responsible for the overall management and supervision of the hospitals. They are tasked with ensuring that the hospital facilities and services are of the highest quality and meeting the needs of the patients. In order to achieve this, the Governing Boards must have a good understanding of the other related matters that affect the hospital, such as the financial situation, the staffing levels, and the quality of care. They must also be able to restructure the composition of the Board when necessary to ensure that the hospital is run effectively and efficiently.
If passed, it would have a number of implications for tertiary health institutions in the country. Perhaps most significantly, it would portend risks to the running of these institutions. There are a number of reasons for this. First and foremost, the bill would increase the amount of regulation that these institutions would be subject to. This would likely lead to increased costs, as the institutions would need to invest in compliance. Additionally, the bill would likely lead to increased scrutiny from accrediting bodies. This could result in a loss of accreditation for some institutions, which would in turn lead to a decline in revenue. Finally, the bill could lead to a decline in the quality of care at these institutions, with this shift in focus.
This would change the way physicians practice medicine.
The new bill would largely affect physicians. As they are trained, oriented, and experienced to focus on the primary users of hospital services, the patients, the bill could directly impact their care. The bill is designed to improve patient care and safety, and to make sure that physicians are held accountable for their actions. This would change the way physicians practice medicine, and would impact the way hospitals function. The bill would also have a financial impact on physicians, as it would increase their liability insurance premiums. The full effects of a bill may not be known until after it is passed. This is because the ramifications of a bill may not be fully understood until it is put into practice.
The content on AskNigeria.com is given for general information only and does not constitute a professional opinion, and users should seek their own legal/professional advice. There is data available online that lists details, facts and further information not listed in this post, please complete your own investigation into these matters and reach your own conclusion. AskNigeria.com accepts no responsibility for losses from any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of content contained in this website and/or other websites which may be linked to this website. The provided content is given for general information only and does not constitute a professional opinion, and users should seek their own legal/professional advice. AskNigeria.com accepts no responsibility for losses from any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of content contained in this website and/or other websites which may be linked to this website.
Fact Checking Tool – Snopes.com
My understanding of this bill is divided. I do like the fact that physicians will be more accountable than before and patients care and safety is giving more priority. On the other end, am not in support of hospital heads not holding the office for long. I believed this position should be held longer to fully accomplish the tasks.
The bill carries a lot in it in but looking at the implications it will have on the tertiary health institutions in the country it’s best to be opposed to continue and keep the standard quality health care service in the nation, the Nigeria government should reconsider the bill.
The bill has quite a number of impact as highlighted by the MDCAN. I can’t outrightly support or oppose the bill, as I’m not so informed in the field. And this is from an opposition, so we don’t expect to see the positive side of the bill from their perspective.
One of their argument is they don want HOH be worrying about being removed from position, rather focus on providing quality care. Isn’t there a tenure, or do they want to stay there forever? Idg
I can’t support or opposes the bill. The head office should not be worried of how to stay long or been removed it should be on how effective and efficient you are and it also enable the safety of patient more priority
I think the new bill might be too much of a burden to the health sector. This is why there has been an uproar against its implementation. Laws that will govern the health sector should be one that will enhance the input and output of the health care system. People should be the beneficiary of the initiatives being put forward for the nation to move forward.
I’m of the opinion that the post of the Chief medical director of all teaching hospital should be on a termly base and their should be certain criteria the person should have apart from intellectual capabilities,the person should have high integrity to care for such establishment.
If the bill were to have a detrimental effect on the standard of medical care offered in the country, it would likely cause general deterioration in the middle of medical care provided across the country; then, it should be abolished.
The proposed legislation would decrease the bar for entry into key posts within the Nigerian government so the bill shouldn’t come into law
The government should provide these governing boards with funds to adequately run these hospitals, and we, the citizens, will have better lives.
My perspective, any proposal/bill that will have negative effects on the standard of health care should not be signed into law. Actually we are still hoping on good health system. I’d prefer to oppose the bills so that standard of quality health system we are building will continue and well monitored.
Both MDCAN and the government has a points, as they all seek what they believe to be the best practices.
However, it is necessary that they both reach an agreement.
Lowering the standard for head of tertiary hospital might also reduce effectiveness and transparency, and also they should be choose based on capacity and performance.
To uphold the country’s excellent standards for medical care, the Nigerian government should reconsider the bill. Although the bill would greatly benefit patients, it is better to put a stop to it for now considering the detriment impact it would have on the country’s tertiary medical services.
MDCAN is obviously opposing this new bill for their own best interest, if they are really interest in saving people’s life then they should not be bothered about the number of years they’d spend in a position
Before these guys propose any bill, they should first look into the issue of hospitals being understaffed. They should employ enough doctors and nurses in hospitals to ensure their smooth running.
They should seriously change the medical director system because it is clearly not working. The government hospitals lack organisations in every department
There is a growing body of research that demonstrates that the quality of healthcare increases when the heads of tertiary hospitals are given a defined tenure of office, which is how it should be done. This should be how it should be done.
Before approving any bill concerning the health sector, the positive and the negative impact it will have on the quality of the health care that the people will receive should be considered . If the positive impact outweighs the negative one then the government should approve it
The passage of this bill would almost certainly result in a heightened level of scrutiny from relevant accrediting agencies. It is possible that as a consequence of this, certain institutions could lose their accreditation, which will afterwards result in a drop in revenue.
The amount of regulation that would be placed on these institutions will rise as a result of this bill, which is a really positive development, and I am in favour of it.
The MDCAN clearly does not want their services to be regulated because why else will they be against a bill that supports regulating their activities and giving definite terms to their leadership in the institution. Charging of leaders should not be an issue when obviously the organization does not belong to one person
Before any new bills is finally brought in the health sectors I hope they check the advantages and disadvantages of the new bills because you can’t have people complaining about it and have to restructure a new plan
The passage of this bill would almost certainly result in a heightened level of scrutiny from relevant accrediting agencies. This could result in certain institutions losing their accreditation, leading to a decrease in revenue for those institutions. This is a good bill, but those organisations don’t want it to pass since it won’t put money in their pockets if it does.
The new bill is suppose to better how hospital is been manage but if the disadvantages is more than the advantages,it should be step down for interest of the masses.
We already have weak healthcare sector. We can’t allow such bill that well further weaken the healthcare sector to be accepted. What government need to do is to pump money into the health sector for quality healthcare and not bills that are not benefiting to the country.
We can’t afford to allow such bill that will bring down our quality of our healthcare to be passed.I love the move taken by the Medical and Dental Consultants’ Association of Nigeria to oppose the passage of the bill. Are our government contempted with the way our healthcare sector is? Anyway they are too quick to run to abroad for treatment.
Before any new bill they should look at the advantage and disadvantage if it will work well. We want good health system