PoliticalRepoPoliticalRepo

France · Question · Question écrite

11402

Question 11402 — health professions

openFrance· National Assembly· FR

Introduced

Last action

Status

posée

Sponsors

Subjects

Discovery layer

Source updated

Summary

Mr. Yannick Favennec-Bécot draws the attention of the Minister of Solidarity and Health to the practice of osteopathy in France. Article 75 of the 2002 law laid the foundations for the distinction between three types of osteopaths in France: osteopaths who are doctors of medicine (ODM), paramedical osteopaths (OPM) and finally osteopaths who are not health professionals (ONPS). If this distinction is well enshrined in the law, it is necessary to note that the situation is more confused in reality, as evidenced by numerous reports from the field. Often, patients do not know whether they are contacting a healthcare professional for a medical procedure or a non-health professional performing comfort procedures. Furthermore, the multiplication of the number of non-professional osteopaths - 26,222 practitioners in 2016, which is six times more than in the United Kingdom for a identical population - is one of the consequences of this confusing situation which reinforces the precariousness of young osteopaths who are not health professionals. Indeed, the latter follow expensive training for four years in private establishments and, once graduated, find themselves confronted with a situation where the supply is much greater than the demand for care. This is why he asks him if he intends to take measures to clarify this public health issue.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.

Sources

PoliticalRepo is an index and interpretation layer, not the authoritative legal source.