Judicial Order in the Examination of the Constitutionality and Legality of Health Financing Norms

This study examines the role of judicial orders in healthcare financing in Indonesia through decisions by the Constitutional Court (MK) and the Supreme Court (MA). It employs a normative approach with qualitative analysis to explore the role of judicial orders in regulating healthcare financing, focusing on decisions from both MK and MA. The analysis reveals that the MK, through Decision No. 63 of 2012, emphasizes the shared responsibility of the state and individuals in healthcare services, while Decision No. 72 of 2019 upholds the principle of non-regression. The MA, in Decision 7P of 2020, annulled the BPJS premium increase for violating the principle of social justice. This study underscores the importance of legislative responses to judicial decisions to establish a sustainable, fair, and inclusive healthcare financing system aligned with constitutional mandates.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Asian Journal of Healthcare Analytics
Published
2024-11-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.55927/ajha.v3i2.12583
Primary Topic
Polish Law and Legal System
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Judicial Order in the Examination of the Constitutionality and Legality of Health Financing Norms

Muhammad Juang Rambe, Muhammad Azhali Siregar, Danioko S. Sembiring
Asian Journal of Healthcare Analytics
Polish Law and Legal System
article

Judicial Order in the Examination of the Constitutionality and Legality of Health Financing Norms

Muhammad Juang Rambe, Muhammad Azhali Siregar, Danioko S. Sembiring
article en

Abstract

This study examines the role of judicial orders in healthcare financing in Indonesia through decisions by the Constitutional Court (MK) and the Supreme Court (MA). It employs a normative approach with qualitative analysis to explore the role of judicial orders in regulating healthcare financing, focusing on decisions from both MK and MA. The analysis reveals that the MK, through Decision No. 63 of 2012, emphasizes the shared responsibility of the state and individuals in healthcare services, while Decision No. 72 of 2019 upholds the principle of non-regression. The MA, in Decision 7P of 2020, annulled the BPJS premium increase for violating the principle of social justice. This study underscores the importance of legislative responses to judicial decisions to establish a sustainable, fair, and inclusive healthcare financing system aligned with constitutional mandates.

Asian Journal of Healthcare AnalyticsVol. 3(2)
Universitas Pembangunan Panca Budi Medan (ID)
Openalex Percentile: Top 53%
Polish Law and Legal System
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.