Patients must not become the weakest link in disputes between doctors and insurance companies, nor should they be forced to pay for their treatment out of pocket despite having paid their medical insurance premiums, trusting that the system will guarantee access to healthcare under the agreed terms.
اضافة اعلان
The decision to suspend dealings with several insurance companies and medical insurance administrators raises economic and professional questions about how the relationship between healthcare providers and the entities that finance their services is managed. More importantly, it raises questions about how to protect the rights of citizens who have no part in these disputes.
In principle, doctors have a legitimate right to demand fair fees that reflect their academic qualifications and professional responsibilities. However, the legitimacy of these demands does not necessarily mean that the methods used to achieve them are the best option, particularly when they directly affect the continuity of healthcare services and impose additional financial burdens on citizens.
According to statements by entities representing the insurance sector, insurance companies operating under the umbrella of the Jordan Insurance Federation and the Jordanian Health Insurance Association committed to implementing the revised medical fee schedule effective June 15, 2025. The schedule included significant increases in doctors’ fees, reportedly amounting to around 100% for general practitioners and 50% for specialists.
If this fee schedule has indeed been implemented by the entities covered by the agreement, fairness requires all parties concerned to comply with it, rather than placing the burden of implementation on some while exempting others. Any disagreement over contractual obligations or implementation mechanisms should be addressed through dialogue and legal and regulatory channels, not through measures that could disrupt patients’ access to treatment.
Economically, a stable medical insurance system is essential to protecting families from the risk of unexpected healthcare expenses. It also underpins a sustainable relationship between insurance companies and healthcare providers. Any disruption in this relationship could increase patients’ out-of-pocket expenses, undermine confidence in the insurance system and make people more likely to postpone treatment or seek less suitable alternatives.
Repeated decisions to suspend dealings or halt services also raise concerns about the stability of the healthcare sector, particularly if insured patients are required to pay in cash or pursue insurance providers to recover treatment costs.
The timing of the decision, coinciding with the atmosphere surrounding professional association elections, also raises questions about its timing and consequences, without necessarily establishing that electoral motives are involved. The real measure of any union decision is whether it achieves professional demands while taking its impact on society and the public interest into account.
The steps needed today are clear: implement the agreed fee schedule across all entities covered by it, honour existing commitments and open serious channels of dialogue to resolve any disputes. At the same time, safeguards must be introduced to prevent interruptions to treatment or additional costs being imposed on patients for circumstances they did not cause.
Responsibility extends beyond protecting the rights of doctors or insurance companies. It also includes protecting insured people who pay for a service that should be available when they need it.
Ultimately, patients must not pay the price of a dispute in which they had no part, nor should their health become a means of pressure in a financial or union-related conflict.
