Irrational spending? Montenegro is going to spend 18 million euro on medical supplies

For almost three decades, since Health Fund has operated, only once – at the request of the Ministry of health, this institution asked for the list of medical supplies in hospital stocks.

In 2016 the list indicated that there is a lot of unnecessary spending in Montenegrin healthcare. The Minister of health at that time, Budimir Šegrt, in cooperation with the Health Insurance Fund, estimated that they needed approximately eight million euro for medical supplies.

More than five million euros were planned by the budget, but the existing stocks were at the level of three million euro.

“It is estimated that 51.7 percent of the total amount of needed funds remains annually, which implies that the overall health system, along with all health institutions, could function with no additional funds by mid-November 2016”, Šegrt said.

The following year, Šegrt was no longer Minister of health and the budget for medical supplies doubled. It remained at the similar level in 2018, but 2 more million was demanded by the budget rebalance.

“Amount of 15.4 million euro was planned for procurement of medical supplies in 2017, at the level of public healthcare. In the current year, the amount of 16 million euro was initially allocated for the purchase of medical supplies, whereas, because the amount initially allocated did not cover the real needs of the healthcare system, an additional two million euro were allocated through the rebalance of the budget, that is, a total of 18 million euro“, Health Insurance Fund stated in a written response.

The Fund confirmed that they have not been listing medical supplies during the past year, because this is, as they say, competence of health institutions. However, if the supplies are not listed, it is unclear why the budget for them has doubled. Costs of medical supplies have been changing very little over the past several years, as we find out from the procurers. The needs of health insurers have not doubled compared to 2016 either.

“If in two years of functioning of a single system, you have needs that have doubled, it is a situation in which you must absolutely turn on red alert. Someone should have detailed the explanation why suddenly we have a double increase in needs. This is not an increase in needs, it is an attempt to cover the dubiousness that has been obviously created for years”, Boris Marić, former Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, said.

“It is not true that the Health Fund does not control, because it is its role and it is an “umbrella” institution that monitors all these details. It cannot happen that the Clinical Centre runs a particular policy of supplies and on the other hand general hospital in Bar, runs another one”, Mila Kasalica, economic analyst, said.

The largest consumer of medical supplies is Clinical Centre. On average, 60% out of total sum of money goes to this health institution – it is almost 12 million euros in 2018.

“For medical consumable supplies in 2017, 10 736 244,77 euro was allocated from the budget along with 10 769 600 euro for the current year. Also, we note that for the year 2018, a revision of the budget of the Health Insurance Fund has been carried out, whereby a higher amount of 11 845 544 euro has been given to our institution”, the Clinical Centre stated.

In that institution, they say, the list of goods is compiled once a year, while in the case of departments, before the annual proceedings, an informal listing of consumable medical materials is always carried out.
We could not find out whether the results of that list show something else, apart from the usual finding that stocks are optimal for the functioning of the largest healthcare institution in Montenegro.

It is interesting that Clinical Centre is the only healthcare institution that does not have a hospital information system – which implies that the Health Fund does not know how precisely medical material has come into or has left the institution.

“In our place, this is the type of work that is located in tables and papers, that are hand-made, and that is a hell, from counting, pairing, disagreement, which cannot show us a real state of affairs. Why it did not become a regular procedure after 2016 – well, that is a political issue in our country, it is neither a medical nor an economic issue”, Kasalica said.

“Year in, year out – we have been talking about this fund – that some resources have been spent irrationally. What are all the causes of irrational spending – the first cause is the lack of a list of its core property or its essential assets. On the other hand, we do not have an information system that would clearly tell us in-depth about expenditure and the needs of that system”, Marić said.

In the non-governmental sector, they consider that in the whole story there are three fundamental problems: lack of market analysis in the public procurement system, lack of approval of procurement plans by the Ministry of Finance, but also the issue of dual and poor planning.

“We have been coming across that particular procurement, especially in healthcare, have been double-planed, which implies that Fund plans them separately from other health units. This also leaves us to the problem; because it may happen that something is procured twice, or not procured at all. This creates a confusion, how can we know what we have in healthcare system, what do we need more, and what shall we procure”, Ana Đurnić from Institute Alternative said.

At any rate, Montenegro is going to spend 18 million euro on medical supplies in this year.

Director of Health Fund Sead Čirgić recently added that budget allocated to this Fund has not been able to cover real medical needs of the system for years.

He explained that health spending is growing due to the increasing number of consumers of health services, increasing quality and access to health protection and due to the expansion of health insurance rights. He also admitted, however, that it is necessary to maintain control over spending and to rationalize expenditures.

TV report is available here:

This report was created within the project “Money Watch: Civil Society, Guarding the Budget!”, implemented by the Institute Alternative in cooperation with NGO New Horizon and the Institute for Public Finances, with the support of the European Union. The content of this report is the sole responsibility of the author and in no way reflects the views of the European Union.

Ministry of Finance hides EC’s Opinion on the Draft Law on Public-Private Partnership

Ministry of Finance claims that it does not possess the European Commission’s (EC) Opinion on the Draft Law on Public Private Partnership (PPPs), although it states in another document that it obtained the Opinion in July this year.

Acting upon our request for free access to information submitted on 15 September 2018, Ministry of Finance denied us access to the Opinion of the EC on the Draft Law on PPPs, explaining that is does not possess it, since “the harmonisation process is still ongoing”.

On the other hand, Information on the implementation of the Plan for fulfilling final measures for temporary closing Negotiation Chapter 5 – Public Procurement, adopted by the Government on Thursday, November 1, states that “the Draft Law on PPPs was sent on 16 June 2018 to the European Commission for their opinion”, and that the Ministry of Finance “responded to the European Commission at the end of July 2018, that, in accordance with the Opinion, all suggestions and comments were accepted and incorporated in the new version of the Draft Law”.

This means that EC gave an Opinion on this Draft Law, based on which the Ministry prepared a new version of the Draft Law. Thus, the public has the right to know what was problematic in the version of the Law which was sent to the European Commission and what changes has the Commission proposed.

The fact that “the harmonisation process is ongoing”, as stated in the Ministry’s Decision issued upon our FOI request, cannot be adequate rationale for not providing us with the EC’s Opinion. What the Ministry stated in its Decision, that it “does not possess the Opinion” was obviously not true, because now we know that the Ministry received the Opinion at least two months before we requested it.

This is not the first time that the Ministry of Finance and the Government and acting irresponsibly towards the citizens and are hiding the Commission’s opinion on this document.

The latest failed Government’s attempt to regulate public-private partnerships legally ended in May 2015, when a public discussion on the then Draft Law on PPPs was held. The Government has never published a report from this public discussion, the Law has not been adopted nor has the European Commission’s opinion ever been published or made available upon the request for free access to information. The process of preparing this important regulation has been stopped, without any explanation provided by the Government, the topic has been “forgotten”, and only this year the Government began to draft the new PPP Law.

The interested public has the right to be informed on the harmonisation of legislation in this and all the other areas at each stage of the process, not only when everything is already done and the laws are adopted. With such attitude towards the civil society and the general public, the Government renders meaningless the processes of consultations and participation of these actors in the European negotiations process.

Therefore, we call upon the Ministry of Finance to publish the Opinion of the European Commission on the Draft Law on PPPs received in July this year, as well as all the other EC’s opinions on laws and regulations received in the meantime or to be received in the future.

This must be the Government’s standard for including the public in the preparation and adoption of all the future legal acts. This is why in our Proposals for the Open Government Partnership, we have suggested to the Government to proactively publish all the key documents based on which it prepares regulation and its other acts and submits it to the Parliament and thus improve transparency of the policy development.

Based on the comments and opinions of the European Commission, TAIEX and other experts, as well as the Peer Review reports, numerous decisions are made regarding the creation of public policies in Montenegro and their non-transparency prevents interested public from the equal participation in these processes.

Ana Đurnić
Public policy researcher

 

Materials for Council’s sessions to be published in advance

Agency for Prevention of Corruption does not publish materials for the Council’s sessions in advance, thus further disabling interested public to participate in this body’s work. The Agency did not publish the Third Quarterly Performance Report for 2018 nor the Proposal of the Rulebook on internal organisation and systematisation, which are to be discussed at the next session of the Council.

Third Quarterly Performance Report for 2018 and the Proposal of the Rulebook on internal organisation and systematisation of workplaces in the Agency are on the Agenda of the Council’s session scheduled for Tuesday, 30 October. Both documents could be interesting for the expert public to participate at the session and discuss these documents with the Council’s members.

First document is important because the dissatisfaction with the Agency’s work and lack of its concrete results has reached Brussels and lead to very poor evaluation of this institution’s work in the latest European Commission’s country (EC) report for Montenegro from April 2018. Also, EC will soon issue its third non-paper on Chapters 23 and 24 which will also include the Agency and its work as one of the topics. This is why the Agency’s Quarterly Performance Report requires wider and open debate on its content.

Members of the Agency’s Council, who claim to be independent members of the independent body, should be open to hear independent experts’ opinion on the Agency’s work and their recommendations for improvements, before adopting this document.

Second document which the Council will have on its table on Tuesday also requires open and wider debate. Primarily, because the implementation of the Plan for optimisation of the number of employees in the public sector is ongoing, while the moratorium on public employment is in force until 1 July 2019. Additionally, in the Optimisation Plan, the Government has promised to let go about 3200 employees from the public service.

For all these reasons, the Proposal of the Rulebook on internal organisation and systematisation of work places in the Agency should be publicly available and a subject of the broader debate before the Council formally adopts it. Whether the proposed Rulebook is in line with the principles and objectives of the optimisation process could and should be particularly discussed.

Director of the Agency proposes the Rulebook on internal organisation and systematisation of workplaces, and the Council adopts it.

Work of the Agency’s Council is exceptionally non-transparent. Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Council, adopted in May 2016, practically closed the door for the NGO representatives to monitor Council’s sessions. The Council’s rationale was that NGO representatives are not contributing to the Council’s work by solely monitoring the sessions. Thus, the Council decided that NGO representatives can participate in the sessions, but only if prior to the session they submit in writing what they want to discuss at the session and upon that, the Council’s members will decide whether to allow participation or not.

However, even such already limited and controlled participation is completely disabled by the Council’s practice not to publish materials for the sessions in advance, but only after adoption when it is no longer possible in any way to influence their content.

For all these reasons, the Agency’s Council should publish these and all the other materials for all its future sessions and thus allow the interested public to participate in the Council’s work and provide their expertise on the documents discussed and adopted by the Council.

Ana Đurnić
Public Policy Researcher

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accountability of police officers: spiders pass, and small flies get caught?

The goal of internal mechanisms for determining accountability is to make difference between those police officers who obey the law and the rules of the service and those who do not obey, or obey to a lesser extent, said Dina Bajramspahic, Public Policy Researcher at Institute Alternative.

She highlighted the importance of a consistent and non-selective processing of the police officers at a panel discussion organized by the IA, called ”Internal Mechanisms for Determining the Accountability of Police Officers”.

Bajramspahic also states that the accountability is timely established for those officers who feel asleep during the third shift, while there is no criminal responsibility and investigation of more serious cases, such as enormous enrichment of some police officers.

The conclusions and recommendations of this panel discussion, which gathered the interlocutors from the Internal Control Unit, Disciplinary Commission and Ethics Committee, refer to the improvement of the work of these bodies, strengthening their competencies and capacities, as well as the employment of the highest quality personnel.

”It is hard to hire personnel because our jobs are not popular, just the opposite, they are very repellent. Also, our highest quality personnel are taken by Police Administration. When it comes to salaries, we are practically equal to the police officers, and since our employees can have inconveniences with their colleagues (other police officers) during their work, these circumstances do not motivate officers to choose Internal Police Control”, said Marina Radonjic, Chief Police Adviser at Internal Police Unit.

IA’s president of the Managing Board, Stevo Muk, took part in discussion and said that the law should give more authority to the Internal Police Unit in order to deal with key problems of accountability of police officers, such as corruption, enrichment of police officers and falsification of diplomas.

”A clue of possible corruption and crime is left in the property itself that the officials are earning. We know that there is not a small number of cases in which when you compare incomes and assets of police officers, you can notice a major incompatibility. Why Internal Control did not deal with this problem, when the Law gave authority to this body to do so?” asked Velizar Kaludjerovic, from Democratic Montenegro.

Radonjic pointed out that police is not a criminal organization, so one can not expect some astonishing statistics regarding the processing of police officers, while decline in the number of complaints on police officers from 2014 should be considered as a positive result of the long-lasting work of Internal Control Unit, and not as ineffectiveness of this body. As proof of the increase in the capacity of this body, she mentioned equipping this body to perform measures of secret surveillance, both in technical and personnel terms.

President of Ethics Committee, Radomir Radunovic, spoke about the basic tasks and goals, as well as the results and weaknesses of this body. He stated that in 2017 a total of 721 proceedings were initiated in the Ethics Committee. Since the establishment, the Committee worked in three cycles, and the Ministry of Interior appointed new board last week.

When asked by Dina Bajramspahic what happened with cases in the period from the expiration of the last mandate until the appointment of the new board (from February to October 2018), Radunovic responded that the Committee received a certain number of reports in that period, and that right after the session of the Committee they will start working on it.

A member of the Disciplinary Commission, Azra Cama, said that in the first half of the 2018, 31 cases were initiated against 42 officials, and that they are mostly related to violations of behavior of police officers (in and out of work), as well as non-executing the tasks the were given. According to her, the proceedings are being much faster terminated now, because the law prescribed the possibility of termination of proceeding in the absence of police officer, while before they avoided attending the proceedings, which led to the postponement of proceeding termination.

Bajramspahic believes that it is important to point put the problem of ”fake medical certificates”, which is being used by police officers to justify their absence and prolong disciplinary proceedings. She stated that such abuses could significantly harm the legitimacy of the Disciplinary Commission. Djekic, from the Police Administration, proposed involvement of a medical expert to examine those certificates, adding that this is a criminal offense of a doctor who gives fake certificate, not an officers fault.

Citing the French novelist Balzac, Dina Bajramspahic, IA, gave a conclusion that ”Law is a spider-web through which spiders pass, and the small flies get caught”, pointing out the need of a consistent approach to the prosecution of both lower-ranking police officers, and those who are at higher rankings of the police hierarchy.

Clarifications – Money Watch Call for Proposals

Below you can find clarifications and answers to the question we have received so far regarding our Call for Proposals for Small Grants Facility within the project Money Watch – Civil Society Guarding the Budget.

Clarifications include answers to all the questions raised during the info sessions held in Bijelo Polje, Budva and Podgorica, as well as to all the questions sent via e-mail, until 23 October 2018.

You can send your additional question until 5 November at latest, via e-mail info@institut-alternativa.org.

Clarifications and answers can be downloaded here (only in Montenegrin).

Project “Money Watch – Civil Society Guarding the Budget” is being implemented by Institute Alternative, in partnership with Institute of Public Finance from Zagreb and NGO New Horizon from Ulcinj. The project is financially supported by European Union.