“Our primary aim with this bill is to rationalize a chaotic situation, where there are no distinct units because no budgets are submitted, no clear financial reports are filed, and there is no accountability. As a result, all their deficiencies are covered by the general operational expenses of the General Staff.”

This was the central message delivered by the Minister of National Defense, Nikos Dendias, during his address to the relevant committee of the Hellenic Parliament, in the context of the debate on the bill titled “Regulation of Health Matters of the Armed Forces and Other Provisions.” Dendias emphasized that the goal is to safeguard the revenues of military hospitals, achieve financial rationalization, and ensure their continued operation.

In response to opposition criticism—most of which described the bill as fragmented, vague, and lacking in cohesion while stressing the need for a comprehensive plan to address ongoing issues and properly support Armed Forces personnel—Dendias reassured that the Defense Ministry’s leadership is open to constructive suggestions.

“Criticism is welcome and necessary, but it must also stand up to scrutiny. This bill is not carved in marble or stone. We will adopt any proposal that improves it,” he argued. He pointed out the peculiar financial structure of military hospitals, noting that none of them even have a tax identification number (AFM).

“Funds from the National Organization for the Provision of Health Services (EOPYY) are not retained in full by the military hospitals. A significant portion is redirected to retirement fund accounts. You know this, but no one mentioned it,” said Dendias, adding:

“How can hospitals be expected to survive financially when part of their revenue goes toward pension contributions? And how can a hospital stand without even a tax ID, without any formal obligation to submit a budget or a proper balance sheet that can withstand scrutiny? We know these issues exist. The reason this bill is being introduced is to bring order to a chaotic system where units do not submit budgets or clear reports, face no accountability, and rely on the general budgets of the General Staff. This has been the norm for many years. I haven’t heard anyone claim this is the right way to operate.”

Dendias also emphasized the financial viability of military hospitals, which, he said, is currently unsustainable due to low occupancy rates.

“It has been said that these hospitals must survive for the benefit of military personnel. That is correct. It has also been mentioned that they lack the necessary staff to offer required services. But do you understand the quality of services in military hospitals? Clearly not. The 401 General Military Hospital of Athens had an occupancy rate of 55% in 2024. Do you know any hospital in the world that can survive with such a rate?” he asked rhetorically, and continued:

“The best performing hospital is the Naval Hospital with a 62% occupancy rate, while the 404 Military Hospital operates at only 38%. Is it wrong to increase these occupancy rates for the sake of the hospitals and their staff? No hospital unit can survive economically with such numbers. Either you reduce beds and staff or you increase occupancy. Do you think I’m doing the judiciary a favor or handing out political favors?”

He was also critical regarding the NIMTS military hospital. “Has it been properly managed until now? Do you know how many beds are occupied compared to its capacity?” he asked, underlining:

“I feel uncomfortable discussing an issue when we lack even the basic data. We must first agree on what is wrong or what needs improvement before debating what regulation to enact.”

“We’re discussing what we should do. Don’t assume that a minister or deputy minister simply had a dream and woke up the next morning to draft this proposal.”

Dendias described the bill as having clear objectives.

“First, to address the major administrative issues of military hospitals—and I say that politely—and to support their personnel, including introducing significant innovations. The second major part of the bill concerns improving access to health services for Armed Forces personnel through this healthcare system,” he said.

“I fully share the ambition for this to become the best healthcare system in the country. I also support the right of Greek Armed Forces personnel to access health services both within and outside the military system, just like any other Greek citizen. This is their right. It is not mandatory. If they choose not to use it, they are not forced to. Nor is insurance mandatory. But they are not second-class citizens. It is wrong to ghettoize them. They have the right to seek care where they believe they will receive the best treatment. And it is my duty to ensure they receive the best possible care within the Armed Forces’ system. That’s what this legislation aims to establish.”

On the opposition side, PASOK’s general rapporteur Michalis Katrinis strongly criticized the government, accusing it of once again submitting a bill that does not truly address the deeper problems of the military health care system, despite including some positive provisions.

He claimed that the government, instead of solving the issues it created within the National Health System (NHS), is now transferring those problems to the Armed Forces. According to him, the new legislative initiative from the Ministry of Defense further weakens military hospitals by enabling greater involvement of military medical staff in the NHS.

He also highlighted the lack of meaningful incentives for supporting military medical personnel and criticized the introduction of private insurance and insurance companies into military hospitals—a move, he said, that contrasts with international norms.

“While we support the social character of the Armed Forces, that does not mean the distinct role of military hospitals should be undermined—something that remains clearly defined in all Western defense systems,” Katrinis stressed.

“PASOK cannot, in principle, endorse a bill that fails to secure the necessary resources, sufficient staffing, and appropriate incentives to deliver on its promises. We will not consent to the further degradation of military healthcare.”

SYRIZA’s general rapporteur Symeon Kedikoglou was similarly critical, asserting that the bill gradually leads military hospitals—once considered models of healthcare—towards financial suffocation, degradation, and devaluation.

He voiced opposition to integrating military hospitals into the NHS during emergencies, as well as to the provision allowing hospital administrators to be appointed from the private sector. He warned that such moves could lead to mass resignations among military doctors, and criticized what he called a degradation in training standards and vague provisions that foster suspicion about the bill’s true intentions.

The KKE’s representative, Giorgos Lambroulis, opposed the bill, arguing that the development of military health services is being adapted to cost-benefit criteria—just like the NHS—and will suffer the same devastating consequences of devaluation. He pointed to inadequate staffing, infrastructure deficiencies, and underfunding as barriers to meeting the needs of entitled personnel.

“The members of the Armed Forces face the same problems as the NHS due to longstanding anti-popular policies that prioritize business group profits. This bill not only fails to address these real problems but also promotes the commercialization of military healthcare,” he said.

Stelios Fotopoulos of the Hellenic Solution party acknowledged both positive and negative provisions, stating that military hospitals—once jewels of medical care—are being degraded. He supported the idea of extending their operations beyond regular hours, provided that adequate staffing is ensured, and praised the provision allowing military doctors to support NHS units in emergencies as a step in the right direction.

“We agree on many points, but the steps being taken are too small. We would like bolder support measures for Armed Forces personnel,” he concluded.

Tasos Oikonomopoulos of the NIKI party said that while the bill moves in the right direction toward ensuring the healthcare needs of Armed Forces personnel and their families, it is effectively undermined by staffing shortages and underfunding.

Alexandros Kazamias from the Plefsi Eleftherias party argued that the bill’s goals are not addressed effectively. He claimed that instead of transferring the high-quality care offered by military hospitals to the NHS, the government is instead burdening military hospitals with the NHS’s serious problems. He also accused the Ministry of Defense of attempting to reform military healthcare without allocating any budget, trying to have it both ways.

Sia Anagnostopoulou from the New Left accused the government of aligning its efforts with the commodification of healthcare and private labor models, as seen in the NHS. “You’re trying to reform military hospitals with a zero budget,” she stressed.

Alexandros Zerveas from the Spartans party said it was “unthinkable” for civilians to have access to military hospitals and warned that appointing private individuals as hospital administrators posed a serious national security risk.

Independent MPs Theodora Tzakri and Evangelos Apostolakis called for clarifications of specific provisions in the bill.

Finally, ND’s general rapporteur, Yiannis Andrianos, described the bill as a “substantive and multifaceted legislative intervention,” which is part of the government’s broader strategic plan for the comprehensive upgrade and meaningful support of Armed Forces personnel.