Provisional Translation
| OTO No. | 561 | Classification | MHW-242 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Acceptance | November 13, 1997 | Ministry/Agency Receiving Complaint | Economic Planning Agency |
| Responsible Ministries | Ministry of Health and Welfare | Related Laws | Basic Law on People with Disabilities Law for the Welfare of Physically Disabled Persons |
| Complainant | Domestic individual | Exporting Countries | Denmark |
| Subject | Clarification of standards for supplying non-standard prosthetic appliances for the disabled | ||
| Details of Measures | Description of Complaint: 1. Since the prosthetic appliance desired by the complainant was not on the list of standard articles in the ministry's notification, this individual attempted to receive one under the system for supply of non-standard appliances under the Law for the Welfare of Physically Disabled Persons. In such cases, supply is decided in consultation between the prefecture and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, but the relevant municipality decided not to provide the appliance without giving any clear reason, on the basis that the appliance was imported. 2. The complainant maintains that the ministry should ensure that the relevant municipality be instructed to submit an appropriate application, in accordance with the system for supply of non-standard appliances, clarify the standards for supplying the appliance and explain why the appliance was not permitted. The ministry replied as follows: 1. Prosthetic appliances are supplied in consideration of their functions and suitability to the disabled individual, regardless of whether they are domestic or imported products, in both standard and non-standard cases. 2. Thorough guidance is being given to the prefectures regarding proper implementation of the system. Whereas the state shows the types and standards amounts for prosthetic appliances supplied at public expense in notifications, when a needed appliance is not listed, it can be provided after consultation with and approval by the Minister for Health and Welfare. 3. The need for non-standard prosthetic appliances is judged in each case by specialists at prefectural consultation centers for rehabilitation of the disabled, taking the condition of the disabled person into consideration. Clarifying standards is inappropriate, as this could lead to defining them uniformly and make flexible application difficult. 4. In this particular case, the ministry is not in a position to give the reason for the relevant municipality having not approved supply of the appliance, as the municipality did not request consultation for non-standard supply and the decision was made solely by the municipality itself. |
||
| Classification of Processing | Cc | Directions | I-b IV |
| Remarks | |||