Three organisations — the Patients’ Federation (OSAK), the Cyprus Confederation of Disabled Organisations (KYSOA) and the Third Age Observatory — have jointly expressed their disagreement over recent changes made to the bill regulating rehabilitation centres in Cyprus.
In a joint statement, they criticised the outcome of Thursday’s House Health Committee session, saying that the amendments adopted “do not address the gaps and distortions of this crucial bill.”
According to the statement, “in simpler terms, these amendments fail to correct the weaknesses and instead maintain the structural flaws of the framework as presented to the plenary last summer, which had already caused strong disagreement among parties.”
Concerns over centre categories
The organisations said that maintaining separate categories for rehabilitation centres creates a “two-tier system”, leading to inequality and restricting public access to recovery and rehabilitation services.
Under the new provisions, a centre no longer needs to provide all eight thematic areas previously required to qualify as Category A — it can now offer between one and eight. While the organisations agreed with lifting that restriction, they remain opposed to the categorisation of centres into Category A and B, describing it as “unjustified, a source of inequality, and a barrier to future development.”
Call for medical authority, not parliament
The statement also reiterated that defining which thematic areas constitute medical services should not be set out in legislation but determined by the Ministry of Health in consultation with professional bodies such as the Cyprus Medical Association and scientific societies.
They noted concern over a new provision allowing future additions of thematic areas depending on medical advances, questioning why “Parliament — a non-scientific body — should be involved in defining or approving medical acts.”
They also challenged how the health minister could add or remove services when these are defined in the basic law, calling the approach inconsistent and problematic.
Unequal treatment between facilities
Under the adopted amendments, existing facilities currently operating as care homes may now offer Category A services if they have at least three years’ relevant experience. While the groups said they did not oppose that clause, they reiterated their opposition to categorisation overall.
They also raised concerns over an exemption allowing existing hospital-based centres to bypass evaluation when relicensed as rehabilitation centres. The justification — that they are already licensed under the Private Hospitals Law — was deemed inadequate, as rehabilitation services are not covered by that legislation.
Finally, they noted that a transitional clause requiring only care homes, and not private hospitals, to comply with new building standards further deepens existing inequality.
“Despite our ongoing efforts and consultations with all parliamentary parties,” the statement concluded, “yesterday’s developments show that these discussions ended without results, as they ran into excuses that cannot be accepted.”
Also read: New ‘Little Heroes’ park to open in Aglantzia
For more videos and updates, check out our YouTube channel
