Bihar became the first state to scrap the MLA Local Area Development Fund scheme (MLALAD). According to news reports, Nitish Kumar, Bihar’s Chief Minister, is planning to replace it with the CM Area Development Programme, which would be implemented at the District level. The schemes would be selected by a district selection committee headed by the minister-in-charge and MLAs and MLCs of that district as members. The implementation shall rest with a body of engineers, headed by Engineer-in-chief. The district magistrates would only monitor implementation and contractors would be chosen through open tendering in which a representative of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) would be present. The state government would allocate funds as per requirement. The MPLAD and MLALAD scheme was introduced in December 1993 by former Prime Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao to enable legislators to execute small works of a local nature to meet the urgent needs of their constituents. Under the scheme, each legislator may identify projects and sanction upto Rs 2 crore per year for public works in their constituencies. The scheme was mooted after MPs demanded that they should be able to recommend certain development projects in their constituencies. The projects include assets building such as drinking water facilities, primary education, public health sanitation and roads. The initial amount allocated was Rs 5 lakh per year to each MP. It has however not been smooth sailing for the scheme. Besides the many implementation lapses (as pointed out by the Standing Committee on Finance in 1998-1199, the CAG and the Planning Commission), the constitutionality of the scheme has been questioned by various scholars and experts. In 2002, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended immediate discontinuation of the MPLAD scheme on the ground that it was inconsistent with the spirit of federalism and distribution of powers between the centre and the state. Former MP, Era Sezhiyan in a booklet titled ‘MPLADS – Concept, Confusion and Contradictions’ also opposed the scheme and recommended that it be scrapped since it ran contrary to the Constitutional provisions which envisaged separate roles for the Executive and Legislature. However, the Committee on MPLADS in its 13th Report and its 15th Report stated that there was nothing wrong with the scheme per se except some procedural infirmities and recommended among other things a change of nomenclature to the Scheme for Local Area Development. The debate continued with the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission’s report on “Ethics in Governance” taking a firm stand against the scheme arguing that it seriously erodes the notion of separation of powers, as the legislator directly becomes the executive. However, in response to a Writ Petition that challenged the constitutionality of the MPLAD scheme as ultra vires of the Constitution of India, in May 2010, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of the concept of separation of powers because the role of an MP in this case is recommendatory and the actual work is carried out by the Panchayats and Municipalities which belong to the executive organ. There are checks and balances in place through the guidelines which have to be adhered to and the fact that each MP is ultimately responsible to the Parliament. Meanwhile, some MPs are pushing for hiking the amount allocated under the scheme to Rs 5 crore. However, no decision has been reached yet. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation has suggested that a single parliamentary committee be formed comprising of members of both Houses of Parliament to monitor MPLAD schemes. While the question of constitutionality of the MPLAD scheme may have been put to rest by the Supreme Court ruling, other issues related to implementation of the scheme still remain. Unless problems such as poor utilisation of funds, irregular sanction of works, delay in completion of works are tackled in an efficient manner, the efficacy of the scheme will remain in doubt.
Recently, the Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare submitted its report to the Parliament on the National Commission for Human Resource for Health Bill, 2011. The objective of the Bill is to “ensure adequate availability of human resources in the health sector in all states”. It seeks to set up the National Commission for Human Resources for Health (NCHRH), National Board for Health Education (NBHE), and the National Evaluation and Assessment Council (NEAC) in order to determine and regulate standards of health education in the country. It separates regulation of the education sector from that of professions such as law, medicine and nursing, and establishes professional councils at the national and state levels to regulate the professions. See here for PRS Bill Summary. The Standing Committee recommended that this Bill be withdrawn and a revised Bill be introduced in Parliament after consulting stakeholders. It felt that concerns of the professional councils such as the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India were not adequately addressed. Also, it noted that the powers and functions of the NCHRH and the National Commission on Higher Education and Research (to be established under the Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 to regulate the higher education sector in the country) were overlapping in many areas. Finally, it also expressed concern over the acute shortage of qualified health workers in the country as well as variations among states and rural and urban areas. As per the 2001 Census, the estimated density of all health workers (qualified and unqualified) is about 20% less than the World Health Organisation’s norm of 2.5 health workers per 1000 population. See here for PRS Standing Committee Summary. Shortfall of health workers in rural areas Public health care in rural areas is provided through a multi-tier network. At the lowest level, there are sub health-centres for every population of 5,000 in the plains and 3,000 in hilly areas. The next level consists of Primary Health Centres (PHCs) for every population of 30,000 in the plains and 20,000 in the hills. Generally, each PHC caters to a cluster of Gram Panchayats. PHCs are required to have one medical officer and 14 other staff, including one Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM). There are Community Health Centres (CHCs) for every population of 1,20,000 in the plains and 80,000 in hilly areas. These sub health centres, PHCs and CHCs are linked to district hospitals. As on March 2011, there are 14,8124 sub health centres, 23,887 PHCs and 4809 CHCs in the country.[i] Sub-Health Centres and Primary Health Centres
Table 1: State-wise comparison of vacancy in PHCs
|
Doctors at PHCs |
ANM at PHCs and Sub-Centres |
|||||
| State | Sanctioned post | Vacancy | % of vacancy | Sanctioned post | Vacancy | % of vacancy |
| Chhattisgarh | 1482 | 1058 | 71 | 6394 | 964 | 15 |
| West Bengal | 1807 | 801 | 44 | 10,356 | NA | 0 |
| Maharashtra | 3618 | 1326 | 37 | 21,122 | 0 | 0 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 4509 | 1648 | 36 | 25,190 | 2726 | 11 |
| Mizoram | 57 | 20 | 35 | 388 | 0 | 0 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 1238 | 424 | 34 | 11,904 | 0 | 0 |
| Gujarat | 1123 | 345 | 31 | 7248 | 817 | 11 |
| Andaman & Nicobar Isld | 40 | 12 | 30 | 214 | 0 | 0 |
| Odisha | 725 | 200 | 28 | 7442 | 0 | 0 |
| Tamil Nadu | 2326 | 622 | 27 | 9910 | 136 | 1 |
| Himachal Pradesh | 582 | 131 | 22 | 2213 | 528 | 24 |
| Uttarakhand | 299 | 65 | 22 | 2077 | 0 | 0 |
| Manipur | 240 | 48 | 20 | 984 | 323 | 33 |
| Haryana | 651 | 121 | 19 | 5420 | 386 | 7 |
| Sikkim | 48 | 9 | 19 | 219 | 0 | 0 |
| Meghalaya | 127 | 23 | 18 | 667 | 0 | 0 |
| Delhi | 22 | 3 | 14 | 43 | 0 | 0 |
| Goa | 46 | 5 | 11 | 260 | 20 | 8 |
| Karnataka | 2310 | 221 | 10 | 11,180 | 0 | 0 |
| Kerala | 1204 | 82 | 7 | 4232 | 59 | 1 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 2424 | 76 | 3 | 24,523 | 2876 | 12 |
| Rajasthan | 1478 | 6 | 0.4 | 14,348 | 0 | 0 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Assam | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Bihar | 2078 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Chandigarh | 0 | 0 | NA | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| Dadra & Nagar Haveli | 6 | 0 | NA | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| Daman & Diu | 3 | 0 | NA | 26 | 0 | 0 |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 750 | 0 | NA | 2282 | 0 | 0 |
| Jharkhand | 330 | 0 | NA | 4288 | 0 | 0 |
| Lakshadweep | 4 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Nagaland | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Puducherry | 37 | 0 | NA | 72 | 0 | 0 |
| Punjab | 487 | 0 | NA | 4044 | 0 | 0 |
| Tripura | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| India | 30,051 | 7,246 | 24 | 1,77,103 | 8,835 | 5 |
| Sources: National Rural Health Mission (available here), PRS.Note: The data for all states is as of March 2011 except for some states where data is as of 2010. For doctors, these states are Bihar, UP, Mizoram and Delhi. For ANMs, these states are Odisha and Uttar Pradesh. | ||||||
Community Health Centres
Table 2: Vacancies in CHCs of medical specialists
| Surgeons | Gynaecologists | Physicians | Paediatricians | |
| State |
% of vacancy |
|||
| Andaman & NicobarIsland | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 74 | 0 | 45 | 3 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Assam | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Bihar | 41 | 44 | 60 | 38 |
| Chandigarh | 50 | 40 | 50 | 100 |
| Chhattisgarh | 85 | 85 | 90 | 84 |
| Dadra & Nagar Haveli | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daman & Diu | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 |
| Delhi | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Goa | 20 | 20 | 67 | 66 |
| Gujarat | 77 | 73 | 0 | 91 |
| Haryana | 71 | 80 | 94 | 85 |
| Himachal Pradesh | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 34 | 34 | 53 | 63 |
| Jharkhand | 45 | 0 | 81 | 61 |
| Karnataka | 33 | NA | NA | NA |
| Kerala | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Lakshadweep | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 78 | 69 | 76 | 58 |
| Maharashtra | 21 | 0 | 34 | 0 |
| Manipur | 100 | 94 | 94 | 87 |
| Meghalaya | 50 | NA | 100 | 50 |
| Mizoram | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Nagaland | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Odisha | 44 | 45 | 62 | 41 |
| Puducherry | 0 | 0 | 100 | NA |
| Punjab | 16 | 36 | 40 | 48 |
| Rajasthan | 57% | 46 | 49 | 24 |
| Sikkim | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Tamil Nadu | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tripura | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Uttar Pradesh | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Uttarakhand | 69 | 63 | 74 | 40 |
| West Bengal | 0 | 57 | 0 | 78 |
| India | 56 | 47 | 59 | 49 |
| Sources: National Rural Health Mission (available here), PRS. | ||||
[i]. “Rural Healthcare System in India”, National Rural Health Mission (available here).
