Parliament rejects motion alleging healthcare service disruptions

An emergency motion filed by the main opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), alleging discontinuation of Aasandha coverage for medical consultations and diagnostic services by private medical facilities, as well as a general lack of availability of medicine, was rejected by the presidency of the Parliament on Monday, citing failure to verify the authenticity of the claims.

In his motion, North Galolhu MP Mohamed Ibrahim (Kudu) many private hospitals and clinics have been discontinuing Aasandha coverage for consultations and diagnostic services since the start of this year.

He also said that there has been a rise in public complaints over lack of availability of medicine and lifesaving medical equipment.

Kudu referred to the case of a six-year-old boy who died in March after his condition deteriorated as he waited for over eight months for a feeding tube.

Kudu said that he has learnt that such incidents are resulting from changes made by the incumbent administration to procurement policies of State Trading Organization (STO) and the National Social Protection Agency (NSPA) in order to facilitate corruption.

He warned that there are multiple families in need of medicine, and that negligence and delays in services by institutions is endangering the lives of many.

Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim, who was presiding Monday’s sitting, stated that emergency motions submitted to the Parliament must be based on fact, and that it is the duty of parliamentarians who submit emergency motions to verify the authenticity of the claims made in their motions.

“However, while you, honorable member, claim that you have learnt that the issues stated in your motions arise from government changing the policies of NSPA and STO so that medicine and medical equipment are procured through select parties in order to facilitate corruption and illicit enrichment through import of medicine, you failed to establish if this is fact,” said Nazim.

He also went on to say that emergency motions must involve “emergency” situations, and that the motion therefore does not fit this criterion.

Nazim therefore decided to reject the motion.