Parliament today approved, by majority, the law regulating the operation of rehabilitation and recovery centres in Cyprus, a vote marked by sharp exchanges between political parties and the rejection of amendments tabled by AKEL and EDEK.
AKEL parliamentary spokesperson Giorgos Loukaides launched a strong attack against DISY and DIKO, accusing them of serving “specific private interests” through changes introduced by the House Health Committee.
Similarly, EDEK leader Marinos Sizopoulos expressed serious reservations, arguing that certain provisions of the bill could foster a monopoly, limit patient choice, and undermine the quality of healthcare services.
Responding in equally firm tones, the Chair of the House Health Committee and DISY MP Efthymios Diplaros rejected the accusations, saying: “Whenever they disagree with us, they resort to claiming we serve private interests.”
'The law institutionalises discrimination'
The Cyprus Federation of Patients’ Associations (OSAK) voiced strong dissatisfaction with the way Parliament passed the legislation, arguing that the final version “preserves the same distortions, legitimises inequalities, and fails to serve patients’ interests.”
The Federation criticised the retention of a two-tier classification system - Category A and Category B Centres - without scientific or qualitative justification, stating that it “institutionalises discrimination, leads to a two-speed system, and creates unequal access to services.” Instead of promoting a fair and unified framework, OSAK said, the law “maintains a logic of administrative privilege that undermines rehabilitation as a core pillar of healthcare.”
Equally unacceptable, according to OSAK, is the exemption granted to existing centres operating under private hospital licences from the new evaluation process, “while other facilities must meet new and stricter requirements.” Such selective exceptions, it argued, “negate equality before the law, erode meritocracy, and foster unequal treatment at the expense of service quality and safety.”
'Real needs ignored'
The Federation also condemned transitional provisions imposing building standards only on care homes, excluding private hospitals, a move it said “deepens inequalities and sustains an uneven regulatory framework that harms transparency and balance in the system.”
Although OSAK held discussions with DIKO, its proposals were not adopted; the party’s amendments approved by the Health Committee “failed to correct the distortions” highlighted by the Federation. OSAK nonetheless welcomed AKEL’sstance, saying its amendments “reflected the Federation’s positions.”
Earlier in the day, the Employers and Industrialists Federation (OEB) had also sent a letter to all parliamentary parties, expressing concerns similar to those raised by OSAK.
In conclusion, the Patients’ Federation stated that the law “does not meet the real needs of patients, persons with disabilities, or the elderly, nor does it safeguard the quality and continuity of care.” Instead of driving progress, it warned, the legislation “traps a vital health sector in restrictions, inequalities, and ambiguities that will directly affect the daily lives of thousands of citizens.”