Ministry of Health communiqué on “aesthetic-corrective medicine”: A groundbreaking interpretation, or the start of a dispute over the boundaries of competence? | In Principle

On 30 January 2026 the Polish Ministry of Health published a lengthy communiqué on performance of aesthetic-corrective medical procedures. Regardless of how the ministry’s position is assessed, it does bring some clarity to the debate over who can perform certain cosmetic treatments and under what conditions. In practice, the communiqué also signals the government’s regulatory policy. The ministry indicates how the regulations should be interpreted and what standard of patient safety can be expected.

The communiqué on aesthetic-corrective medicine (medycyna estetyczno-naprawcza, previously referred to as medycyna estetyczna) is not a source of law, and does not impose new obligations or sanctions. Nonetheless, it is an official explanation of how the Ministry of Health understands the existing regulations and where the line should be drawn between the provision of healthcare and “purely cosmetic” services. This interpretation could later carry over to the practice of conducting inspections (e.g. involving medical treatment), decisions by insurers, and the arguments raised in civil or administrative disputes.

The claim of exclusivity: how the ministry justifies its position

The core of the ministry’s position is clear: the only persons authorised to perform aesthetic-corrective medical procedures are physicians (including dentists) with the right to practise the profession for an indefinite period, after receiving additional training and obtaining certification in performing aesthetic-corrective medical procedures. The communiqué also stresses the specific role of doctors specialising in dermatology and venereology as well as plastic surgery.

The justification is grounded on several pillars:

• Risk and medical character of procedures. The Ministry of Health points to the need for patient examination, diagnosis, determining the patient’s eligibility for the procedure, exclusion of counterindications, maintaining medical documentation, proper handling of medical waste, and preparedness to treat complications.
• Connection with the notion of “healthcare.” The communiqué references the regulations on the medical profession and the definition of “healthcare” (świadczenie zdrowotne) in the Medical Activity Act, drawing the conclusion that procedures entailing the professional skills of physicians constitute healthcare and thus should be performed by physicians.
• Organisational consequences: place of performance. When treatments constitute healthcare, providing treatments constitutes medical activity, and thus should be conducted in compliance with the applicable regulations, solely at registered entities conducting medical activity.

List of procedures, and the implications of the list

The communiqué cites the minimum standard for certification of professional skills in “aesthetic-corrective medicine (code 028),” and lists a broad catalogue of procedures, such as:

• Procedures using botulinum toxin and fillers (e.g. cross-linked hyaluronic acid)
• Mesotherapy using numerous preparations (including medicines)
• Treatments using platelet-rich plasma and fibrin
• Numerous technologies involving devices (e.g. high-energy lasers, intense pulsed light (IPL), monopolar and bipolar radio frequencies, ultrasound, and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU))
• Medium and deep peels
• Injection procedures involving the administration of medicines (hyaluronidase, glucocorticoids, phosphatidylcholine)
• Procedures related to corrective medicine
• Medical procedures using medical threads
• Sclerotherapy
• Lipotransfer, autologous adipose tissue transplantation, injection lipolysis.

But the communiqué identifies an important exemption: the catalogue of procedures to be performed exclusively by physicians does not include micro-needle mesotherapy or treatments performed on devices admitted for use by persons other than physicians.

This exemption, although brief, is crucial in practice, because it suggests that the boundary may be determined not only by the classification of the treatment, but also based on:

• Degree of invasiveness
• Risk
• Qualifications of the user designated by the manufacturer of the device
• The legal regime governing medical devices.

Usage instructions for medical devices set a practical boundary for responsibility

One of the most practical passages in the communiqué is its stress on the instructions and conditions for use of devices. The ministry points out that the manufacturer is responsible for defining for example the qualifications of users (persons who can operate the device). If the manufacturer classifies a device as “medical,” without specifying additional parameters or qualifications of other users, according to the ministry it should be concluded that the device should be operated solely by a physician or (depending on the type of equipment) also by other medical staff (e.g. for rehabilitation purposes). But if the manufacturer allows for users other than physicians, this suggests a lower risk and the possibility of treatment being performed outside the medical “monopoly.”

This approach could have a real impact on the market with respect to verification of the documentation of equipment (particularly medical devices), changes in the way services are offered by clinics, and selection of the equipment and the model for cooperation (for example with a physician determining suitability and overseeing the process).

The definition of “health,” the scope of the medical monopoly, and the role of certificates

But the communiqué contains aspects that could cause controversy—and already are. First, the ministry backs its reasoning with a very broad definition of “health” (physical, psychological and social wellbeing, and not just the absence of illness or disability), and links that with the understanding of “healthcare.” In practice, such a broad interpretation may result in expanding the notion of “healthcare” to include activities aimed primarily at wellbeing and comfort, which may be perceived as insufficiently precise for regulatory purposes.

Second, the ministry categorically states that persons who are not qualified as physicians—including persons practising other medical professions, cosmetologists and cosmeticians—are not authorised to conduct procedures even if they have completed training courses and obtained certificates. Such certificates only confirm that a person has completed training, but do not give the holder the authority to perform aesthetic-corrective medical procedures. This is a major signal to the training market: a “certificate” is not a free pass to legally perform procedures if it does not arise from statutory professional competence.

Third, the communiqué states that following registration with the Centre for Postgraduate Medical Education (CMKP), the rules (regulamin) for certification “become a binding act of law.” This point is debatable, because in the Polish legal system a set of rules does not, in principle, constitute a universally binding normative act. At the same time, even if someone undermined their “legal force,” certification rules and standards can have practical relevance (e.g. for assessing whether a physician has exercised due care).

What is the result in principle?

• The Ministry of Health frames the matter clearly: aesthetic-corrective medicine is a high-risk field, classified as healthcare, carried out by physicians, and, by assumption, within the legal regime of “medical activity.”
• The boundary between medicine and cosmetology should be determined by risk and the need to treat complications: aesthetic cosmetology should include low-risk procedures not requiring direct medical treatment.
• In practice, the “hard” elements of compliance will be crucial: the qualifications of the person performing the treatment, the documentation of the process (eligibility, counterindications), the status of the site where the procedure is performed (medical activity), and whether the device is used in compliance with the instructions, by an intended user.

The communiqué may help reduce the grey zone surrounding injections and procedures that are clearly invasive. At the same time, it leave room for disputes in interpretation—particularly in the case of non-invasive technologies, and given the broad notion of “health.” Nonetheless, it is a clear regulatory signal which the market around aesthetic medical treatments cannot ignore.

Joanna Krakowiak, attorney-at-law, Karolina Hryckowian, Life Sciences & Healthcare practice, Wardyński & Partners