Analysis on the old and new Administrative Measures for the Diagnosis and Verification of Occupational Diseases
10.11763/j.issn.2095-2619.2021.04.015
- Author:
Rui-yan HUANG
1
;
Shi-jie HU
1
;
Bing-ling QUE
1
Author Information
1. Guangdong Province Hospital for Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment Guangzhou, Guangdong 510300, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Occupational disease prevention and treatment;
Occupational disease diagnosis;
Occupational disease identification;
Worker;
Right;
System;
Legal value
- From:
China Occupational Medicine
2021;48(04):437-441
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
As occupational health work enters a new era, the diagnosis and identification of occupational diseases, that are closely related to the protection of workers′ health rights, require higher and newer standards. In 2021, the National Health Commission of the People′s Republic of China revised and issued the Administrative Measures for the Diagnosis and Verification of Occupational Diseases to improve and perfect the original diagnosis and verification system of occupational diseases. These measures clarify the time limit for diagnosis of occupational diseases and shorten the time limit for identification of occupational diseases; and strengthen the main responsibility of the employer. This new system design is more operable. It embodies the management idea of Streamline administration, delegate power, combine decentralization, and optimize services. The language expression is more accurate and standardized. The revision of the Administrative Measures for Diagnosis and Verification of Occupational Disease is conducive to improving the efficiency of occupational disease diagnosis and protecting the rights and interests of workers. It is conducive to strengthening the supervision and management of occupational disease diagnosis institutions and occupational disease verification offices by administrative supervision and management departments. It is conducive to strengthening the responsibilities of employers. However, there are some problems: Article No. 28 sets up obstacles to the realization of legal value, which does not clearly stipulate the concept of new evidence. The effective time of this regulation has caused difficulties for occupational disease diagnosis institutions and occupational disease verification offices. It is recommended that this regulation can be further improved in the future revisions.
