By Jean Christou
THERE is no criminal case to answer in the tender procedures for the supply of the kidney drug Erythroetine, but there are some question marks concerning ethics, the Attorney-general’s office has ruled.
The ruling asked the Health Ministry to review the policy of allowing medical staff paid trips abroad at the expense of pharmaceutical companies because their position could influence decision making in the provision of medicine and medical equipment.
A letter from Deputy Attorney-general Nicos Charalambous to the chief of police yesterday ruled that there had been failings in the tender process, but that none constituted a criminal offence.
An investigation was launched into the tender procedures for the supply of the vital kidney drug after an uproar over the disappearance of stocks and the revelation that there had been a huge delay in replenishing them.
An investigation then ruled that the Ministry had been too slow in securing fresh stocks, even though it was aware of the urgent need.
Tenders went out in March this year for new supplies, but a contract was not signed until the following June, after the medicine had run out.
The delay was said to have been caused by a court appeal by a company against the award of the tender to another firm. The appellant claimed its bid had been lower.
Other accusations followed. A senior medical officer had allegedly used his influence in favour of the other company reportedly belonging to his father in law. The same official had allegedly tried to secure a trip to Argentina from the failed bidder and subsequently ignored the firm’s offer when it was refused.
There were also accusations relating to omissions and lack of proper procedures by officials, including the Accountant-general.
According to the results of the investigation, the medical officer involved could only have been charged if it could be proved he was acting without legal power. This could not be done, the report said, because the official in question was appointed in 1995 as the person responsible for cooperation with the Tenders Board in relation to the supply of the kidney drug.
“In the past years, the pharmaceutical services were asking and taking his view whenever there was a review of the tenders for Erythropoetine and his suggestions were accompanied by relevant reports from him,” the letter said.
“At the Tender Board on May 27, 1999 a top-level decision was taken during which the official was present following an invitation to be there from the Board Chairman.”
The report said the fact the medical officer was present had no criminal implications.
It also said the bidder’s accusation that the medical officer did not look into its bid due to its refusal to finance a trip to Argentina was not sufficient motive for the doctor to overlook the bidder’s interests. “This has nothing to with the case,” the report said.
“If the officer allegedly asked the bidder to finance a trip to Argentina this is disciplinary issue.” It suggested the Health Ministry look into this aspect of the case.
“Following the police investigation, and according to a report by the Auditor-general, the decision taken to award the bid was the only one which could be taken legally because the offer by the accusing company did not fulfil the conditions for the bid,” the report said.
However, it also notes that the fact the bid did not fulfil the conditions was not mentioned in the assessment report for the pharmaceutical services.
“The omission of the committee to spot that the bid didn’t fulfil the conditions very evidently creates a lot of questions,” the report said.
