torney General's Office raised objections to managers Saludcoop

To respond to possible irregularities in disregarding the instructions to be observed in the formulation of recoveries and probably appropriate public resources for personal benefit, the Attorney General's Office cited a public hearing to the governing body and members of the Board of Saludcoop.

At the hearing which will begin on Monday June 4, 2012, Attorney second delegate to the Administrative Monitoring, Fernando Brito Ruiz, listen free version to Mr. Carlos Augusto Palacino Antía, in his capacity as legal representative of Saludcoop; Carolina Lamus, in its capacity as administrative vice president and member of the Board Administrator Epsifarma and Javier Mauricio Sabogal Jaramillo, vice president of finance, legal representative and deputy attorney general Saludcoop.

A related research were also members of the Board of Saludcoop for the period between 2009 and 2011, both main and alternate: Gabriel Franco, Juan Carlos Restrepo Cardona, René Cavanzo Alzugarate, Carlos Julio Mora, William Buitrago Gonzalez Alberto Cantillo Castro, Fernando Arrieta Noguera, Ana Maria Piñeros, Beatriz Giraldo Aristizabal and Gloria Quiroz Lucia Hernandez.

The prosecution explained that Saludcoop EPS is responsible for resource management Social Security System, particularly in the contributory scheme, which, according to the Constitutional Court ruling, is income of quasi-fiscal nature which involve compulsory contributions by nature public.

Therefore, in charge of the investigation was the administration and good management of public resources for health that the Solidarity and Guarantee Fund administration gave in to this EPS, why should ensure that they were used for social purposes for which they were intended.

For the control body as all the accused involved in the management of resources, in accordance with Article 53 of the Single Disciplinary Code will be liable to disciplinary action by the irregularities.

According to evidence gathered, the investigation apparently serious offenses incurred in performing the Fosyga recoveries for drugs, medical or exceptional performance in POS and no health care decisions, using as support the payment of checks written, which, according forensic audit, were not delivered to recipients.

From the above it was concluded that the accounts receivable canceled Fosyga submitted to the EPS on the understanding that the services billed and collected had already been canceled as required by law for its return. However it was shown that the EPS did not make payments on checks supported, but made the Fosyga charges.

As proof of payment not appear that the EPS enrolled against lawsuits from seizure by the IPS whose accounts receivable are as canceled by the Fosyga, and the analysis made by the forensic audit of the accounts of the EPS.

Saludcoop conducted between 2009 and 2010 a massive shift of checks which justified the payment of services referred to Fosyga for the return of those resources, however, checks were not delivered to their recipients and were canceled at the end of their term .

Following completion of the notification challenged individuals may give their version of events at the beginning of the hearing, which may be present alone or in company lawyer. Similarly, they may request and the evidence they deem suitable for their defense.