VSAware of the national treasure represented by their healthcare system, the French are worried about its future. The difficulty of having timely access to a general practitioner, a fortiori to a specialist, exasperates them. It has become an unbearable marker of inequalities between territories and populations. While six million French people have no attending physician, while 57 departments out of 100 (compared to 48 five years ago) only have one general practitioner for 1,000 to 2,000 patients, the response to the country’s medical desertification requires new solutions. Especially since this situation is crudely exploited by the far right as proof of the abandonment of certain French people by the elites.
It is fortunate that the national representation has taken up this socially and politically crucial question since Monday, June 12. The National Assembly, too often the scene of political games that undermine its credibility, finds, with the debate on the bill against medical deserts by deputy Frédéric Valletoux (Horizons), the opportunity to show its ability to respond to the concerns basics of citizens. The text, supported by the government, aims to encourage public and private health actors to take responsibility for access to care in each territory.
To this simple development of the current liberal system, the amendment carried by the socialist Guillaume Garot intended to condition the departure of a colleague the installation of general practitioners in the areas already well provided. But this minimum system of regulation, fought by the unions of doctors, did not find, Wednesday, June 14, a sufficient number of supporters, faced with the hostile vote of the majority of the presidential camp, the right, and all the deputies of the National Rally present.
A distressing scenario
Without being a panacea, the adoption of this mechanism, comparable to that applied to pharmacists, would have marked a desire to finally tackle an injustice of which the most isolated and deprived French people are the first victims. The marked hostility of the government to this common sense lever casts doubt on this desire. Isn’t it Emmanuel Macron who, in April, recalled that in France “there is no real medical liberalism” and that our model, based on the “solidarity”assumes “mechanisms of individual accountability”?
In fact, since the Liberation, the health system has been characterized by its diversity: while the expenses are borne by the community, the city doctor is master of his place of activity and his organization. This public funding of consultations, like that of medical studies, induces the idea of a balance between rights and duties.
However, while the problems of shortage of doctors and unequal distribution on the territory have been posed for more than twenty years, only incentive measures have been taken, the limits of which we now perceive. Paralyzed by the political weight of the medical profession, governments of both right and left have backed down. This distressing scenario, which resulted in the aggravation of the situation, is repeated today.
Certainly, the government cannot ignore either the fatigue and concerns of liberal doctors, or the balance of power favorable to them in a context of shortage, whose responsibilities are shared. But, while it is a question of finally implementing effective solutions, Wednesday’s vote sounds like another missed opportunity.