The Ministry of Health and Social Protection has clarified that it is not in a situation of contempt or non -compliance with respect to 2049 2024 and 007 cars of 2025, issued by the Special Monitoring Chamber to Judgment T-760 of 2008 of the Constitutional Court.
(See: How long can EPS postulate maximum budget payments, according to ADRES?)
According to the portfolio, these cars are not firm, since they have been subject to clarification requests that must be resolved before the orders contained in them are executed.
According to the ministry, in the exercise of the available procedural resources, Requests for clarification on both records were filed before the Constitutional Court. In this context, the entity cited article 302 of the General Code of the Process, which establishes that when the clarification or complementation of a providence is requested, it will only be executed once the application is resolved. Therefore, the portfolio emphasized that it has not breached any order of the high court.
(Read more: New EPS does not deliver financial information since March 2024)
In relation to the 2049 car of 2024, which deals with the maximum budgets, the Ministry of Health submitted a request for clarification on January 23. As explained, inconsistencies were identified in the document that generate uncertainty about the nature of the car, the established deadlines and the coherence of the orders taught.
Among the concerns raised are The lack of clarity on whether the car opens a contempt incident or introduces new orders, references to non -existent recitals, expired deadlines for the payment of maximum budgets and alleged incompatibilities with current regulationssuch as Law 1955 of 2019 and Resolution 067 of 2025. In addition, erroneous references were mentioned to literals in the resolution of the car.
(See also: Six EPS intervened leave the guilds to optimize health resources)
Constitutional Court
Courtesy
On the other hand, on February 2 the Ministry also requested clarifications regarding the 007 of 2025, related to the Capitation Payment Unit (UPC). In this case, The portfolio detected contradictions in the Court’s decision to declare the UPC of 2024 insufficient, since a technical study would not have been contributed to support said statement and the assessment of the technical study prepared by the Ministry itself would have been omitted.
(Read: Court declared the UPC of 2024 insufficient and ordered readjustment to last year and 2025)
It was also pointed out that the majority of The Chamber did not present studies that justified the existence of an alleged lag in the validity 2021-2023nor was the nature of said lag specified.
In addition, The Ministry expressed doubts about the possibility that the readjustment of the UPC should be applied retroactively and on whether this would imply additional payments to the EPS in the following years. He also questioned the competence of the Special Monitoring Chamber to modify the UPC calculation methodology, which could generate conflicts with current regulations.
(See: New Maximum Budget Methodology does not resolve health definance)
In addition, he raised questions about The structure and operation of the technical monitoring table, including its presidency, operational regulation and the need for socialization of its regulations in accordance with Law 1437 of 2011.
