On Saturday, a group of Lagos‑based lawyers warned hospitals and health providers that demanding upfront payments before treating patients in medical emergencies is unlawful under Nigeria’s National Health Act of 2014, and could expose them to legal sanctions.
“The law is clear that emergency treatment must not be withheld because a patient could not make an upfront payment,” said Ms. Odinichionye Egwuenu, an associate at the Institute of Medical and Health Law. She added that the prohibition applies to both public and private hospitals, and that internal policies cannot override statutory duties.
Egwuenu highlighted the practical challenges hospitals face, such as staff salaries, equipment maintenance and medication procurement. She noted that when a patient dies after emergency care and the family refuses to settle the bill, the hospital is left with a financial loss. “We must also consider the practical realities of healthcare delivery; hospitals have staff to pay, equipment to maintain and medications to purchase,” she said. She urged stakeholders to strengthen emergency funding and establish reliable reimbursement mechanisms.
Mr. Spurgeon Ataene stressed that doctors have an ethical duty to prioritise saving lives before demanding payment. “Demanding payment before attending to a patient in a life‑threatening condition could amount to professional misconduct and expose the practitioner to disciplinary action,” he said. Ataene also called for legislation that would require healthcare providers to stabilise patients before any payment demands or further inquiries that could delay treatment.
Mrs. Jumoke Ajayi of Olorunwapelumi Chambers warned that refusing emergency care over unpaid bills could lead to criminal sanctions. She cited Section 20(2) of the Act, which prescribes a fine of N100,000, up to six months’ imprisonment, or both, for such contraventions. Ajayi clarified that while patients must eventually pay for services rendered, the law does not exempt them from all costs and does not mandate that all treatments be free of charge.
Collectively, the lawyers argued that protecting patients’ lives and sustaining healthcare institutions should not be competing objectives. They called for clearer funding pathways, such as a closer examination of the Basic Health Care Provision Fund, and for lawful avenues to recover outstanding medical expenses without compromising emergency care.
<small>Source: Vanguard News — read the original story there.</small>
