The Ministry of Health and Social Protection has achieved important clarifications by the Constitutional Court in relation to Cars 2049 of 2024 and 007 of 2025, Key documents for compliance with various orders imposed within the framework of Judgment T-760 of 2008.
(See: ‘We do our best to not sacrifice services’: Profamilia)
These clarifications, made in cars 088 and 089 of 2025, They clarify various aspects that, according to the Ministry, generated doubts about the implementation of decisions.
One of the most relevant points was the clarification around numeral 5.1 of the fifth ordinal of the 2049 of 2024. The ministry had requested that it be required to what the Court was referring to, since in the original car there was mention of a ” non -existent considering 128 “. The Court recognized this error and corrected the remission as 98, thus responding to the request of the Ministry.
(See more: The Moorose Portfolio from the Fomag is triggered)
In addition, the portfolio had raised doubts about numeral 6.1 of the Sixth Ordinal, in which a fulfillment term that had expired before notification to the Ministry was stipulated. For its part, The Court clarified that orders must be fulfilled within 18 calendar days following the notification of providence, And he acknowledged that it is not possible to impart orders towards the past.
Another conflicting point was numeral 6.4, which raised an apparent co -administration and legislation by the Court with respect to the powers of the Ministry of Health. The Court clarified that it was not legislating, but demanding compliance with existing normsparticularly those stipulated in resolution 067 of 2025.
(Also read: Disists of human talent in health in the rural areas of the country persists)
HEALTH COURT
Istock
The Ministry had also requested clarifications on the 007 of 2025, especially about the declaration of insufficiency of the UPC (Capitation Payment Unit) by the year 2024.
(See: Pulse for health financing: tensions between government and court)
According to the portfolio, the Court had issued this statement without clear support and without specifying what would be the sufficient percentage of the UPC. The Court replied that its work is limited to determining whether the ministry has fulfilled the orders on the sufficiency of the UPCbut it is not its function to establish the appropriate value to cover health services and technologies.
An additional discord was the apparent contradiction around the Ministry’s competence to calculate the UPC. The Court clarified that this is an exclusive responsibility of the Ministry of Health, which must carry out the technical studies and validate the information reported by the EPS (health promoters). Therefore, the Court ruled out the idea of delegating this function to a technical table formed by various health system actors, considering that such measure would be illegal.
(Read: Court rejected request for clarification of the UPC submitted by the Ministry of Health)
HEALTH COURT
Istock
Regarding the sufficiency of the UPC, the Constitutional Court ratified that it corresponds to the Ministry of Health and Social Protection Set and analyze this sufficiency, without this function having been transferred to any other collegiate body.
(Read: MINSALUD says that he is not in a situation of contempt with respect to the courts of the court)
This clarification, according to the portfolio, reinforces the authority of the Ministry in the matter and highlights an internal contradiction within the resolutive part of the 007 car of 2025, that he had declared the insufficiency of the UPC by 2024.
With these clarifications, the Ministry of Health said that it will proceed to generate the necessary tools and methods to comply with the orders given by the Court, reinforcing the regulatory framework governing public health policy in the country.
(See more: Why grew health access barriers in the country for cancer patients)
