How the New System for Assessing a Person's Daily Functioning Works, Replacing MSEC: Exclusive Comment from the Ministry of Health to the Judicial-Legal Newspaper
The introduction of the assessment system for a person's daily functioning (APDF) in January 2025, replacing the medical-social expert commissions (MSEC), was a response to the outdated paper-based workflow. Instead of MSEC, a mechanism based on electronic document flow, centralized case accounting, and new procedures for expert teams' work was launched.
The Ministry of Health of Ukraine provided the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" with clarifications on how the new APDF architecture clearly separates the medical evaluation of health status from the legal evaluation of officials' activities.
MSEC vs APDF
Legislation clearly distinguishes the results of the old and new models. Decisions made by the MSEC system are not the result of APDF work. The new system has a fundamentally different route and organizational mechanisms. The review of the validity of old decisions is carried out according to the procedure defined by law, which preserves legal continuity without shifting responsibility for past procedures onto the new system.
The new system has different procedures, electronic document flow, centralized case accounting, and a different mechanism for organizing expert teams' work.
Decisions made under the old MSEC system, including those that attracted public attention due to possible abuses by certain officials, are not the result of the new APDF system. Such decisions may be subject to validity checks according to the law, and issues of possible unlawful behavior by specific individuals are subject to legal evaluation by competent authorities.
Who is responsible for what
The Ministry of Health and the Center for Functional Status Assessment are responsible for the medical-expert component within the powers defined by law, including checking the validity of MSEC or expert team decisions.
Law enforcement agencies, prosecution bodies, disciplinary authorities, and courts are responsible for detecting, investigating, and legally evaluating possible criminal, disciplinary, or official offenses.
Issues of pension assignment, recalculation, or payment fall within the competence of the bodies responsible for pension provision.
MAC and APDF are different procedures. MAC addresses issues related to fitness for military service and the causal link between illness, injury, or wound and service. APDF assesses a person's daily functioning and establishes, among other things, disability or degree of loss of professional working capacity.
Updated referral algorithm for assessment
A key change was the abolition of medical-consultative commissions as a stage in the route for adults.
In the new system, the attending physician independently creates the referral in the electronic system.
A special mechanism is provided for servicemen: the referral can be created by the head of the medical advisory commission, eliminating the need for additional visits to other specialists.
It is important to distinguish: MAC determines fitness for service, while APDF assesses a person's functioning to establish disability or loss of working capacity.
Advantages of digitalization
The assessment of a person's daily functioning is conducted using an electronic system that provides:
- electronic creation of referrals;
- centralized case accounting;
- recording of key stages of case processing;
- electronic adoption and storage of decisions;
- data transfer for further provision of social guarantees.
Paper medical documents may be part of a person's primary medical documentation, but this does not mean that the APDF procedure is paper-based or operates under the logic of the old MSEC.
System indicators as of May 2026
The APDF system demonstrates extensive coverage:
- 769,018 cases entered into the system.
- Over 737,362 cases reviewed.
- Disability established in 640,233 cases (of which 278,721 were first-time), and in 40,078 cases establishment was denied.
- 45,085 decisions were canceled following reviews.
Resource support and forms of work
The process is supported by 1,775 expert teams in 304 healthcare institutions. A total of 7,516 specialists and 965 administrators are involved. The system offers various forms of interaction:
- In-person assessment (main form): 685,293 cases.
- Remote (document-based): 37,110 cases.
- Telemedicine: 11,911 remote assessments.
- On-site assessment: 3,032 cases at the patient's location.
Demographic and diagnostic profile
Among applicants, men predominate (493,919) compared to women (243,444). The most common reasons for applications are:
- Scheduled re-assessment — 338,995.
- Disability establishment — 323,966.
Clinical picture according to ICD-10:
- Diseases of the circulatory system: 132,048.
- Diseases of the musculoskeletal system: 123,434.
- Neoplasms (oncology): 97,176.
- Diseases of the nervous system: 93,309.
Efficiency dynamics
One of the main indicators of reform success is the radical reduction in case review times.
While in April 2025 the average waiting time was 43.05 days, by May 2026 it decreased to 14.89 days. A gradual decline in this indicator was observed throughout the year, indicating system adaptation and optimization of internal processes.
Centralized electronic accounting and recording of each case stage allow effective monitoring of expert teams' activities. The reform has proven its viability by processing over 700 thousand cases during the year and establishing new quality standards in healthcare.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram account to stay informed about the most important events.
