The Constitutional Court of Colombia has set a strong precedent on the medical care of cancer patients. In a recent decision, the Court established that cancer treatments must be continuous, without unjustified delays, and complete. The ruling, in which the right to health of three older adults was protected, highlights the responsibility of the Health Promotion Entities (EPS) to guarantee access to medicines in the patients’ place of residence, eliminating barriers that limit their access. access. This decision marks a milestone in the fight for comprehensive and timely medical care, especially for people in vulnerable situations.
The recent ruling of the Third Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court It originated in the review of three guardianship cases presented by older adults against their EPS, who argued that they had not been given timely and complete access to essential medical treatments. One of the cases involved a patient diagnosed with colon cancer, who reported delays in the provision of critical health services for her treatment. The Court determined that cancer, being a serious and progressive condition, requires continuous care free of obstacles that put the life and well-being of the patient at risk.
Law 2360 of 2024, cited in the ruling, establishes that people with a diagnosis or suspicion of cancer must receive special constitutional protection. In this sense, the Court recalled that the principles of “integrality and opportunity” They must be fulfilled in a reinforced manner in these cases, requiring effective, agile and uninterrupted provision to avoid a negative impact on the patient’s right to health.
Obligations of the EPS in the delivery of medicines
In addition to direct cancer care, the Court’s ruling addresses the responsibility of EPSs in delivering medications to patients who, due to their health or economic conditions, cannot travel to obtain them. In two of the cases reviewed, the plaintiffs explained that they had to travel to other municipalities to access the prescribed medications. The Court emphasized that requiring this type of travel, especially when people do not have economic means or face mobility barriers, constitutes a “unjustified administrative barrier” that violates the right to health.
In this context, the Court stated “an EPS ignores the principles of accessibility and comprehensiveness and violates the right to health when it does not take measures to ensure access to prescribed medications in the municipality where the patient resides.” Thus, the ruling emphasizes that the EPS must adopt proactive measures to deliver medications at the users’ place of residence, eliminating any obstacles that limit their timely access to the necessary treatments.
The special protection of the right to health in older adults
The Constitutional Court also highlighted the differential approach that must be applied in the case of older adults, given that they may be in a situation of manifest weakness and vulnerability due to their age and associated health conditions. In its analysis, the Court recalled article 46 of the Constitution, which establishes the obligation of the State, society and the family to protect older persons and promote their integration into active and community life. This special protection implies that older adults should not face obstacles to accessing health services and should have comprehensive support that guarantees their well-being.
The ruling of the Constitutional Court has broad implications for the health system in Colombia. First, it reinforces the obligation of EPSs to ensure that cancer patients receive their treatments without interruptions, eliminating practices that may result in unjustified delays or incomplete treatments. Second, it establishes that patients should not assume additional burdens, such as unnecessary travel, to receive medications and treatments.
The decision is part of a broader policy that seeks to improve access to health in the country, especially for the most vulnerable populations, such as older adults and patients with serious or chronic illnesses. By requiring that treatments and medications be delivered in a timely and accessible manner, the Court sends a clear message: the right to health should not be conditioned on the patient’s economic or mobility situation.
Compliance with the sentence: Immediate actions for the EPS
The Constitutional Court ordered specific measures for each case. The EPS of the cancer patient was instructed to ensure the continuous delivery of the necessary medications and diapers. Likewise, a review of the patient’s treatment was ordered after one of her medications was changed without clear justification. This reflects the importance of health professionals adequately reviewing and justifying any modification in their patients’ treatments, avoiding arbitrary changes that could affect their effectiveness.
In the other two cases, the Court ordered the EPS involved to take the necessary actions to guarantee that the medications are delivered to the municipality of residence of the patients. This order reinforces the obligation of the EPS to adjust their administrative processes to respond to the specific needs of users, preventing economic or geographical situations from becoming barriers to access to health.
