Constitutional Court: Remuneration for Medical Professionals in Remote Areas and Priority Hospitals is Lawful

The Constitutional Court (CC) has declared that the provisions of the Health Insurance Act (HIA) regulating the labor remuneration of medical specialists in remote areas and priority hospitals do not contradict the Constitution. The decision was reached with 10 votes in favor out of a total of 11 judges, according to the court’s press center.

The request for a declaration of unconstitutionality was submitted by the Supreme Administrative Court and concerned the texts of Art. 55, para. 2, items 3b and 3v of the HIA.

According to the Constitutional Court, the provisions serve a legitimate purpose: guaranteeing accessible and high-quality medical care by ensuring dignified pay for medical professionals in difficult-to-access areas and in hospitals of particular importance to the system.

The Court states that providing healthcare facilities with qualified specialists is of constitutional rank, as it is linked to the realization of fundamental rights—the right to health and the right to work.

“Free economic initiative cannot exempt the state from its obligation to guarantee accessible medical care for all citizens,” the Constitutional Court emphasized.

Regarding the provision for additional funding for hospitals in remote areas or unique healthcare facilities in a given region, the court ruled that it does not violate the principle of equality, but rather aims to overcome inequality among citizens in different parts of the country.

The judges noted that the state has an obligation under Art. 20 of the Constitution to create conditions for the balanced development of individual regions, including regarding access to health services.

Concerning the funding of priority multidisciplinary hospitals, the Constitutional Court accepted that the measure is aimed at a legitimate goal—protecting the right to health. The provision applies equally to all healthcare facilities that meet the criteria, regardless of their form of ownership.

The decision was adopted with a dissenting opinion from Judge Sonya Yankulova and a statement from Judge Sasho Penov, the court specified.