The COMEG : an example of the resistance of doctors faced with the degradation access to care.
1) the AME :
end of 2002 GPs involved in caring for fragile worried about a draft law to establish user fees to the beneficiaries of the AME .
From address books to each other, a petition was signed by many physicians (100) and could be leveraged to mobilize associations.
In July 2003, Philippe Foucras suggested we meet in a group of general practitioners for access to care.
The group brings together some fifty doctors spread throughout the country. From 2006 the specialists who feel concerned were admitted. Within this group come together members of the SMG , Space G FGM , associations (MDM , Cimade ...)
This group has no legal structure It is basically a mailing list. The lightweight structure provides an important reactivity.
Between November and December 2003 a number of press releases are envoyés au sujet de l’ AME .
En décembre 2003, lettre ouverte au Conseil National de l’Ordre des Médecins afin qu ’il condamne les restrictions d’accès aux soins de l’ AME . La lettre est signée par plus de 200 médecins et associations.
La réponse de l’Ordre est lamentable mais a permis une certaine médiatisation de par la lettre ouverte et de la réponse à la réponse.
La loi est finalement votée mais les décrets d’applications ne verront jamais le jour.
2) The CMU :
The refusal of treatment CMU begin to be collected in 2003
Survey recipients of CMU conducted by the Ministry of Health in 2003
:
20% of patients CMU are embarrassing to say they are at the CMU
60% gens ont indiqué spontanément lors de la prise de RV qu'ils étaient
à la CMU
43 % des patients se sont vu demander lors d'un RV s'ils avaient la CMU plus
souvent de la part des généralistes que des dentistes ou des spé .
30 % ont payé au dessus du tarif, rarement chez le MG, souvent chez les
opticiens
15 % ont eu un refus de RV , il s'agissait dans les 3/4 des cas de spé et de
dentistes, dans 15 % des cas de MG.
En Avril 2004 , élaboration a form letter for use by patients who are denied care.
In 2005 Que Choisir and MDM make testing highlighting the repeated refusals of care.
In June 2006, the Fund is sponsoring a CMU testing showing a refusal rate of 40% by specialists.
In June 2006 the COMEG seized the HALDE on denials of care. Very big media success after a positive response HALDE . The College is on his toes.
December 2006: report Chadelat (President of the Fund CMU), which advocates the possibility for associations to file a complaint and shall provide a layer on the failure of the Order. A modification of the public health code gives the possibility for associations.
The report also recommends making available vital cards in 15 days or less ... ....
The Order and the CGFS react by asking doctors not to discriminate; .. while describing the beneficiaries the CMU as strange characters have no place in medical offices as needed.
In June 2008, Circular CNAM making it possible for doctors to complain against patients CMU who would not follow the treatment, they would miss RV ....
New referral to the HALDE by COMEG and big hype.
3) other actions:
CP In 2004 the removal of the management of care after intervention sup to KC 50.
Many actions on the recovery of third-party payment for GPs
Protest against franchises and creating with others in the lawsuit against the franchise.
The COMEG played a significant role in defending access to care precarious. It has established itself as an interlocutor vis-à-vis media with two dozen pitches in radio and national television the past two years.
The structure and mode of operation, it has mainly been involved in whistleblower and mobilization of health, associations, unions ... ..
