Public hospital ignored tender procedures for New GPC drug supplies

-Auditor General
The Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC) continues to procure drugs and medical supplies from the New GPC without adhering to the relevant tender procedures, the latest Auditor General report has said.

According to the report, between January and June of 2008, the GPHC paid the New GPC $539.301 million for drugs and medical supplies but only received $ 489.904 million worth of supply during the year. The remaining supplies, which totaled $49.397 million, were supplied during last year.

The report said that the total sum expended consisted of nine payments made during the period January to June and were supported by the old Ministry of Health Cabinet Approval CP (2003), which was dated November 25, 2003. “Therefore there was no evidence to indicate that the relevant tender procedures were followed in the procurement of drugs and medical supplies during this period,” the report said, while adding that “with effect from 29 July, 2008 Cabinet granted its “No Objection” to procure drugs and medical supplies by selective tendering from specified suppliers.”

In response to these observations, the Head of the Budget Agency said that the issue was raised in 2008 with the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee when discussing the 2006 Audit Report.

According to the Budget Agency Head, Cabinet subsequently re-newed its approval by the issuance of Cabinet Decision dated 29 July, 2008.

In response, the Audit Office recommends that the Corporation put systems in place to ensure that all drugs supplied are promptly delivered and to avoid any breaches in the tender board procedures.

The manner in which the government procures drugs from the New GPC has been highlighted in previous reports by the Auditor General and the issue has been raised repeatedly by the opposition parties in the National Assembly.  The government’s continued failure to appoint a Public Procure-ment Commission, in accordance with Article 212(W) of the Constitution, to oversee such transactions, has been one of the frequent criticisms.