Modifying or updating is not synonymous with destruction. But the latter is the one that has been prepared after the publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation of the proposal to cancel various official standards of the health sector. There are fears that this possible cancellation will not guarantee care for diseases such as breast cancer, cervical cancer, overweight, obesity, diabetes mellitus, systemic arterial hypertension, prostate cancer and osteoporosis.
The possible disappearance of said criteria was defended by Hugo López-Gatell, denying that there is any risk: “They do not need to regulate prescriptions, therapeutics and diagnoses, because medical care is guaranteed in Mexico. There are 35 thousand defined diseases. He also said: “The standards have not been cancelled, rather it is a proposal as part of the complement to the National Quality Infrastructure Program 2023.”
True, they have not yet been canceled, which does not mean that it does not roll (it also represents two new ones to modify and integrate).
The problem with vanishing norms as they suggest is that it increases the uncertainty of the population in general. NOMs in health are a guide to the minimum that should be provided when these conditions occur. They contribute to guaranteeing the quality, safety and efficacy of services and products in diseases. They are provided by the state or individuals.
They also fulfill the state’s obligation to provide or monitor best practices for health. Canceling the NOMs in question, without providing any explanation or alternatives, just because an undersecretary feels they are not needed, makes it a terrible act and one with overtones of criminality.
In addition, reality shows that there is no guarantee of medical care in our country, there is a shortage of medicines and we are still far from the care provided in other developed countries.
Perhaps the disappearance of these official health standards responds to the fact that many beneficiaries are resorting to providing their own medicine and/or treatment that has not been provided. If the repeal is successful, thousands of patients currently applying for amparo will have to support their legal arguments in another way. That is, the existence of the NOM was a relatively simple way for judges to grant amparo in order to protect a patient from a violation of his or her constitutional guarantee to health.
In the same sense, in private practice, it would be possible to give (or not give) the treatment a doctor decides and do what he decides without meeting any of the basic requirements of care because there is no longer an official standard that determines it. ,
Certainly it will be said that the scrapping of the rules is because there was a lot of corruption, but it is the existence of the guidelines that precisely prevented this. Now every doctor or health center has the possibility to create and propose cures for the above diseases, without being attached to scientifically proven methods and treatments. According to various experts, there are obsolete NOMs, however, so canceling them rather than modifying them does not help patients; Instead, it leaves them helpless.
Many people are feared to be affected by the cancellation of 34 official health regulations. There is also a manager who does not seek to optimize results in depth.