DEPUTY Attorney-general Akis Papasavvas had €17,000-worth of teeth implants approved because his application had not been clearly rejected, Health Minister Christos Patsalides said yesterday after being handed the results of a probe into the scandal.
Patsalides gave the wooly explanation at a news conference during which he admitted there had been some procedural omissions and a lack of clarity in the steps followed.
The main conclusion was that the doctor’s opinion on whether the implants had been a medical necessity were unclear, as was the ruling of the special committee that examined Papasavvas’ application.
“Even though the procedure was generally followed, there are some procedural omissions, but also lack of clarity, regarding the doctor’s medical opinion,” said Patsalides.
The minister said that even though the special ministerial committee of doctors who examined Papasavvas’ application hadn’t rejected his request, there was lack of clarity on the actual medical opinion.
“Therefore, the investigating officer suggests that the necessary specifications are made to the special committee’s doctors over the importance of clarity in medical opinions,” said Patsalides.
Pushed to comment further, the minister added: “Even though the procedures were generally followed, at some points there were procedural exceptions from the full implementation of the procedures, without essentially affecting the essence of the decision.”
“No clear opinion was given on whether it was a therapy or not, but there is also no clear rejection of the application,” he said.
This ‘non-rejection’ of Papasavvas’ application had led to an assumption that it had been approved, said Patsalides.
The minister said a series of suggestions were being prepared on the measures that needed to be taken to correct such procedures.
These include, “the correct convocation of the committee of special doctors to always request the participation of a private doctor and ensure doctors’ medical opinions are clear”.
The ministry is also proposing the creation of special protocols for teeth implants, which will clarify when it is required as a medical need.
“The special committee must always prepare a report and a register of reports should be kept,” said Patsalides.
He added that he had given the ministry’s permanent secretary the responsibility of forming a committee to re-examine the scheme for covering patients’ costs and especially to clarify those who are beneficiaries of public health aid, independent of their incomes.
“It is a matter that must be regulated so that it reflects society’s needs,” said Patsalides.
He concluded that a circular letter would be sent to all the special doctors’ committees to remind them of the importance of clear reports when approving or rejecting applications.
The police investigation into the possible theft of a missing document in Papasavvas’ medical file is still ongoing.
“The missing file contained a report by a panel of two state doctors, a craniofacial surgeon and dentist, with their verdict on whether Papasavvas was entitled to the money.
