This Monday, the Senate Finance Commission began the discussion on the so-called short Isapres law, a debate that was marked by how the project has already been approved by the Health Commission, particularly with regard to the continuity of treatment of people. affiliated with isapres that may eventually go bankrupt.
The initiative says that the situation of people who are receiving one or more benefits with GES, that is, benefits for pathologies or catastrophic illnesses, in the event that their isapre is no longer sustained, Fonasa “may authorize the continuity of the granting of the health intervention that was in progress without the need for a new diagnostic confirmation, assigning a provider for such purposes.
The verb “may” and why it is optional and not imperative caused resentment within the body and generated a strong debate among parliamentarians from various sectors.
The explanation, on the one hand, is that Fonasa does not have that power, so without this legal change it cannot do it and the patient would have to go through the entire process of a new diagnosis.
A second point, as explained by the director of Fonasa, Camilo Cid, is because in this way the organization maintains the power to negotiate better economic conditions, either with the same provider or with other providers.
“We think, and that gives us some flexibility to be able, by ensuring the quality of people’s rights, to see that the prices charged can be negotiated in a way that is more convenient for us,” Cid explained.
Likewise, he added that with this we can “evaluate the price level in the agreements that are being discussed, which are similar to those that we can obtain. That gives us some flexibility to be able to simply neenjoy.”
In any case, the issue generated an intense debate between parliamentarians from the ruling party and those from the opposition, one of them a change of opinions between Rojo Edwards (former member of the Republican Party) and José Miguel Insulza (PS).
“A person with three chemo treatments, who is missing four, or a person who had a bone marrow transplant and needs a special piece, because they have no platelets and no white blood cells, it turns out that they are going to be sent home; or you are simply not going to treat those people who could perfectly well die waiting for you to negotiate the treatment,” Edwards questioned.
The statements were responded to by Insulza, who claimed to be “surprised with what we are hearing here. The explanations are given and the senator (Edwards) continues that he is going to kill I don’t know how many people, that I don’t know how many are going to die, that they are going to reject I don’t know who.
“The truth is that it seems rude, I want to say this quite frankly, rude, completely inappropriate mistreatment in a congressional committee,” he stated. the socialist militant
