The absence of a dedicated regulator for allied and healthcare professionals was a long-standing gap in India's health system. Assess how the NCAHP Act, 2021 and its 2026 regulations address it.

Doctors, nurses and pharmacists each had a regulator, but allied health professionals did not [3]. Before 2021, only seven States/UTs, including Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi, had any law for them [4]. The NCAHP Act, 2021 and its 2026 regulations largely close this gap. How well the framework works still depends on the States putting it in place.

How the gap is addressed

• Statutory regulator: NCAHP is set up as a body corporate (Sec 3). Its Schedule lists 10 recognised categories, each mapped to international ISCO codes [2].
• Clear definition: an "allied health professional" needs a qualification of ≥2,000 hours over 2–4 years (Sec 2(d)) [2].
• Two-tier federal design: State Councils (Sec 22) set up four Autonomous Boards: UG education, PG education, Assessment & Rating, and Ethics & Registration (Sec 29) [2]. The 2026 Regulations fix each Board at 10–20 members [1].
• Registration and accountability: the Registration Regulations, 2026 run the Central and State registers [1]. Sec 59 adds penalties of up to 3 years' jail or ₹5 lakh [2].
• Quality standards: a competency-based D.MRIT curriculum under "One Nation One Curriculum" becomes mandatory from 2027–28. Institution ratings must be published online [1].
• Continuity: a Central Assessment Committee (CAC) covers States that have no working State Council [1].

Gaps that remain

• Slow rollout: the Act gave States 6 months to set up councils [2]. A central fallback five years later shows many missed that deadline [1].
• Federal tension: health is a State subject (List II, Entry 6). Yet the CAC works under NCAHP supervision, which centralises a State function [1].
• Inspection culture: the Parliamentary Standing Committee preferred "assessment" over "inspection" [5], but the Assessment & Rating Board still inspects institutions [1].
• Uniform norms vs rural reality: the Committee wanted relaxed norms for rural areas [5]. A single national curriculum may be hard for institutions in backward districts to meet.
• People left out: workers trained on courses under 2,000 hours are outside the register. The Committee wanted the Health Ministry to oversee these courses [5].

Overall, NCAHP turns a scattered, unregulated workforce into a registered and standardised profession, so it largely fills the long-standing gap. Next steps should include a time-bound exit for the CAC, public tracking of which States have councils, and outcome-based assessment as the Standing Committee advised [5]. These steps would give the reform a cooperative-federal footing and support SDG 3 on universal health coverage.