<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the juridical implications of abolishing mandatory health budget allocation under Law Number 17 of 2023 on the protection of the right to health and legal certainty of the National Health Insurance system. The research focuses on the paradigm shift from mandatory spending to performance-based budgeting and its impact on the role of the state as the guarantor of the right to health. Key concepts employed in this study include the right to health as a constitutional right, legal certainty, the rule of law, distributive justice, and performance-based budgeting. This research adopts a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and analytical approaches. The scope of the study covers constitutional guarantees of health rights, national health regulations, and the financing framework of the National Health Insurance program. The findings reveal that the removal of mandatory health budget allocation weakens legal certainty in health financing and increases the risk of regional disparities in health service provision. While performance-based budgeting may enhance efficiency and flexibility, the absence of normative safeguards potentially undermines the protection of health rights as fundamental rights. The main challenge identified is the lack of detailed implementing regulations establishing minimum financing standards and effective oversight mechanisms. This study recommends the formulation of implementing regulations that establish legally binding yet adaptive minimum health financing standards, accompanied by strengthened budgetary oversight mechanisms. This research contributes to health law and constitutional law scholarship by advancing a rights-based perspective on health budget reform and offering a normative framework to balance fiscal efficiency with the protection of constitutional rights.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
