Botana was the only pro-government legislator who made a closed defense of the restructuring of Casa de Galicia, and flatly rejected the Government’s proposal to redistribute members and workers among four other mutualists, which also had the vote of the Frente Amplio parliamentarians. Although the nationalist Juan Straneo also voted against, he did not take the floor anyway.
During the debate, the former mayor of Cerro Largo wondered: “For what reason, before the deceased is dead we are going to share his pilchas.”
He remarked that on February 1, the Court of Appeals enabled the defense of Casa de Galicia, which the judge had denied on December 23, and questioned that Parliament, turning deaf hatred to that decision, enabled a “emptying of the padrón of the institution, that is to say of its income for the capitations of health and that will make any subsequent solution unfeasible”. The white legislator warned that from a legal point of view this is a risk that the Legislative Power should not assume.
“It implies a risk of reparations of no lesser amount, in addition to conflicts in different areas and damages for partners, workers, doctors and even for the heritage that this institution represents,” he said.
On the other hand, the white parliamentarian stated that the same judge who did not allow the defense of Casa de Galicia on December 23, set the meeting of creditors for May 17. In this sense, he asked: “Won’t these creditors, providers of the institution, be affected if we take away from them the income from the provision of services that are their source of resources?
The solution will not be cheap
Botana also warned that “this solution will not be cheap for the Uruguayan State, because it will cost between 40 and 50 million dollars. Ten times more than it would cost to restructure Casa de Galicia as a medical company”.
He also asked: “Who stays with the partners? Because they do not have freedom, they are given some paths and they will only have the freedom to fully choose in two years.”
“In what conditions are the members, the same ones who do not pay assistance tickets in many situations and receive the medication that the doctor recommends? In addition, it will not be easy for a person to continue seeing the same doctor, ”he said.
On the other hand, he raised: What will happen with the Highly Specialized Medicine Institutes (IMAE) of the institution? Who will be the beneficiary, and where will they end up?
“What about the José Leborgne oncology and radiology clinic that is within the institution and is one of the most important in Uruguay for cancer treatment?” asked Botana.
Regarding the situation of the workers (approximately 2,000) he said that he would like to know the damage they will receive if it will be greater in this situation or in the restructuring, and asked if a mixture of the two solutions could not be considered.
“What’s the rush? It’s not the issue of salaries because they are guaranteed as long as there are partners who guarantee the trust. So, the problem is not the salary, but a certificate from the Social Security Bank”, he pointed out.
Alternatives
He stated that some of the solutions could have been: “the extension of the validity of the BPS certificates, that the State Health Services Administration (ASSE) pay Casa de Galicia what it owes and with it the institution could pay the BPS and obtain its certificate, the advance from FONASA and the restructuring”.
He stated that the negative net worth of Casa de Galicia in 2018 was “7.6 million dollars and in 2020 it was 4.4 million.”
Botana detailed some of the investments made by Casa de Galicia: The ownership of Centenario and 8 de Octubre, the creation of the Dental Center in the sanatorium, a new area for supplies and logistics, the payment of the five-year arrears of vacation salary to doctors an accumulated amount of 2 million dollars, parking on 3 de Febrero street, the expansion of the Emergency Room, the Electronic Medical Record, the new Blood Bank and the new Digestive Endoscopy Center, among others.
The white legislator said that he recognized the “political agreements” achieved, but recalled that as a deputy he repented of following party discipline and voted for something that caused damage. “With me, you can’t count on this kind of thing. I am convinced that Uruguay must make the maximum effort to preserve this institution”.
