Residents' Agreement: The Central Contract Registry Will Not Ensure Full Transparency

The Central Register of Contracts (CRU) is set to be launched on July 1, with the aim of increasing transparency in the spending of public funds. However, the Residents’ Alliance believes that the new system will not meet the expectations placed on it and points to significant gaps in the current regulations. According to the Residents’ Alliance, the government’s stated goal of increasing the transparency of public finances is not fully reflected in the adopted regulations. “The launch of the Central Register of Contracts (CRU), scheduled for July 1 of this year, exposes the deep hypocrisy of the ruling camp. The government’s stated intention is not transparency in public finances at all, but merely to create the appearance of combating systemic irregularities. The tool that was supposed to fix the situation in healthcare is, in reality, a legal sham that may shield hospitals managed by politically appointed officials from public scrutiny,” emphasizes the Residents’ Alliance.

Dispute Over the Scope of the New Regulations

As the residents point out, the problem stems from the structure of the current regulations. The organization draws attention to Article 9 of the Public Finance Act, which defines the list of entities classified as part of the public finance sector and thus subject to the reporting obligation to the CRU. According to the authors of the position paper, the exclusion of commercial law companies from this definition is of key importance. This means that the obligation to publish contracts will not apply to many healthcare entities operating as corporations, even if they are owned by local governments or the State Treasury. – In paragraph 14 of this article, the legislature explicitly excluded commercial law companies from this definition. Crucially, this exclusion also applies to entities in which 100% of the shares are held by local government units or the State Treasury. In practice, this means that hundreds of medical facilities can legally bypass the registry,” the statement reads.

Two Realities in Healthcare?

The Residents’ Association argues that, as of July 1, two different standards of transparency may coexist within the healthcare system. According to the organization, civil law contracts for doctors, nurses, and paramedics employed by independent public healthcare facilities (SPZOZ) will be subject to disclosure in the registry. At the same time, similar contracts concluded at hospitals operating as corporations will not be published. “Full transparency for the little people” and “absolute secrecy for the select few”—this is how residents describe the effects of the new regulations.

In the opinion of PR OZZL, this could lead to a situation in which the public gains access to information about the salaries of some medical personnel, but is unable to verify the terms of contracts entered into at other public healthcare institutions.

Examples provided

The Residents’ Association notes that the obligation to report to the CRU will not apply to, among others, hospitals operating as commercial entities, including those listed in the announcement: Warszawski Szpital Południowy Sp. z o.o., Szpitale Pomorskie Sp. z o.o., and Szpitalne Centrum Medyczne w Goleniowie Sp. z o.o.

The authors of the position paper emphasize that, in their view, the current regulations create a system that does not guarantee uniform transparency standards for all entities funded by public funds. – Economists and lawyers (including those from the Polish Economics Network) unequivocally confirm: those in power have created a system riddled with deliberate loopholes. Demanding transparency from others while simultaneously condoning impunity and a lack of oversight over the hospitals run by “their own” ministers is a textbook example of political hypocrisy,” states the Residents’ Alliance.

Source: OZZL Residents' Agreement