Here’s a rewritten version of the content:
—
The National Defense Ministry’s draft bill, titled “Regulating Healthcare Issues for the Armed Forces,” was voted on by the relevant parliamentary committee and approved by majority vote.
Only members of the governing majority supported it, while the opposition parties—including PASOK, SYRIZA, KKE, and New Left—voted against. The Hellenic Solution, NIKI, Pleysi Eleftherias, and Spartans chose to reserve their decision for the plenary session.
Prior to the vote, relevant external figures voiced their concerns and objections, stressing the need for improvements to the bill.
Deputy Minister of National Defense, Athanasios Davakis, described their interventions as constructive, assuring that “the ministry leadership approaches this with an open mindset, rather than a dictatorial one. The suggestions and observations regarding the armed forces personnel have been duly noted and will serve as foundational material for further development and enhancement of the bill.”
He added that “this legislative initiative has a fourfold mission:
- First: To provide healthcare services to eligible individuals during peacetime.
- Second: To adequately prepare for times of crisis or conflict.
- Third: To contribute to the morale, preparedness, and overall sense of security of active and retired armed forces members.
- Fourth: To provide support to the broader community within the capabilities of the military personnel, without hindering their other duties.
“In line with the reform agenda for 2030, the draft focuses on three main pillars,” he elaborated:
- Enhancing staffing at military hospitals, which includes mandatory assignments of security personnel to military hospitals for several years after completing their specialization.
- Setting a maximum number of individuals serving as clinic directors and providing compensation for night shifts in military hospitals.
- Implementing administrative modernization measures alongside significant initiatives, like the establishment of a Combat Trauma Center.
“The proposed bill represents a cohesive, targeted, and substantive effort to reform military healthcare policy. Its ultimate goal is to ensure that military personnel—both active and retired—feel secure regarding their health and that of their dependents,” stated Davakis.
He concluded, “Strengthening military hospitals, expanding and upgrading healthcare provisions, and modernizing administrative practices are among the key proposed measures, which we believe will greatly contribute to achieving this objective.”
Earlier, representatives of armed forces personnel expressed strong concerns about the bill’s effectiveness in meeting its objectives, citing vague and controversial provisions.
Specifically:
- They emphasized the need for the distinct role of military hospitals to remain intact.
- They voiced dissatisfaction that beneficial healthcare regulations do not adequately include retired armed forces personnel.
- Concerns were raised about access for private insurance companies to military hospitals, as well as the overnight operations of military pharmacies and hospitals.
- Some provisions were perceived as biased against graduates of Military Institutes, undermining the qualifications of military academies.
- There was anxiety regarding the continuity of free healthcare at military hospitals.
Ilia Kollyris, president of the Panhellenic Federation of Military Unions, highlighted the need for corrective changes, such as disengaging military doctors from the National Healthcare System, extending night shift compensation to non-commissioned officers, prohibiting medical services from being outsourced to private doctors, and financial reparation for the three affected series of Military Institutes.
Dimitris Methenitis, president of the Panhellenic Federation of Military Unions, argued that “the whole system will stagnate if there isn’t a focus on extending evening hours at pharmacies,” while also mentioning “contradictory provisions that seem to open services at military hospitals while essentially downgrading them.”
Ioannis Debouros, president of the Retired Army Officers’ Association, pointed out that understaffing and underfunding are the main issues for military hospitals, criticizing the continued failure of the National Organization for Healthcare Provision (EOPYY) to pay its debts to the Pension Funds. He also requested that nighttime duty compensations be paid similarly to the National Healthcare System.
Furthermore, he expressed concern about the operation of an Elderly Care Unit at NIMTS, highlighting the absence of a feasibility study.
“We welcome every improvement effort, provided they do not undermine the rights of eligible armed forces personnel who have earned their healthcare benefits while ensuring the continuous operation of the Navy Hospital, unlike other groups of beneficiaries,” stated Theodoros Gerouki, president of the Retired Navy Officers’ Association.
Additionally, he stressed the importance of reevaluating EOPYY’s services and the need for timely payment of debts to the three Pension Funds to ensure military hospitals maintain their autonomy.
Konstantinos Javelas, president of the Retired Air Force Officers’ Association, argued that the draft increases the number of non-military beneficiaries in healthcare coverage at military hospitals while showing disregard for retired personnel, stressing that priority must be secured for both active and retired armed forces members.
Nikolaos Kyriakopoulos, a member of the Graduates’ Association of the Military Academy, emphasized the need for further enhancements to the draft to prevent operational inefficiencies.
“It must appeal to young people; improving free healthcare for both active and retired personnel at military hospitals, which should not be degraded due to underfunding, is crucial. If conditions don’t improve, young people will turn away from military academies,” he remarked.
George Kilindis, Secretary-General of the Graduates’ Association of Permanent Non-Commissioned Officers, expressed concerns regarding the bill’s objectives while also highlighting the necessity for equal recognition of the degrees from Military Academies and substantial upgrades in education quality.
“The academies are a vital link that must not be compromised through their devaluation. Provide the guarantees to achieve that. Their elevation is essential,” he asserted, adding that “the financial autonomy of military hospitals must be secured without market competition.”
Christos Grigoreas, Air Marshal and honorary president of the Scientific Association of Healthcare Personnel of the Armed Forces, deemed it “disparaging for military doctors to have a civilian appointed as the commander of a military hospital.”
“This is a flawed bill that will yield contrary results by appointing non-military doctors as hospital commanders. EOPYY owes substantial amounts to our Funds; if payments were made, military hospitals would be profitable and in excellent condition,” he noted.
“While the bill is necessary for healthcare provisioning, it may lead to significant operational issues. Allowing all citizens access to all hospitals, without special provisions, will burden military hospitals. Clear distinctions must be made regarding the primary beneficiaries—active military personnel and retired officers at military hospitals,” added Vasilis Nikolaopoulos, president of the Panhellenic Federation of Military Unions.
Professor Giorgos Trantas, Air Marshal from the Teaching Research Staff at the Military Academy, focused on the new teaching staff role, asserting that “a longstanding demand is for employment to occur regularly and for upgrades to proceed towards higher education status.”
Vasilis Tsiligianis, president of the Coordinating Council of Graduates of Higher Military Schools for Non-Commissioned Officers, emphatically raised the issue of rectifying the situation of Military Institute graduates while simultaneously calling for the enhancement of their academies.
Lastly, Ioannis Moscholios, deputy general secretary of the National Confederation of Disabled Persons, remarked on “the many positive aspects present in the draft for individuals with disabilities,” while also stating that “some regulations still require further improvements.”
—
Feel free to ask for any changes or further modifications!
