The private healthcare company Medikol has reportedly filed eight civil lawsuits against Ivana Kekin, a member of parliament from the Možemo! party, over allegations of spreading false information and damaging the company's reputation. According to unofficial reports, these legal actions were initiated by Medikol’s clinics and its cyclotron facility, which claim that Kekin's public statements have harmed their image and business interests. Each lawsuit reportedly seeks compensation of €10,000, bringing the total claimed damages to €80,000. The decision to pursue civil litigation rather than other forms of legal action appears to be strategic, as civil cases do not offer the same level of protection under parliamentary immunity compared to criminal proceedings.
The dispute between Kekin and Medikol has been ongoing for several months. During her political campaign and public appearances, Kekin has repeatedly criticized the payment model used by Croatia's Health Insurance Fund (HZZO) for diagnostic services in private medical facilities. She has described this system as a transfer of public funds into private pockets, arguing that significant sums are paid to Medikol for using its PET/CT scanners, money that could instead be used to equip public hospitals with such technology. Her campaign, titled "Public Healthcare Yes, Medikol No!", aims to draw attention to these contracts and encourages citizens to sign a petition demanding the urgent procurement of PET/CT devices for public hospitals.
In response to Kekin’s criticisms, representatives from Medikol have denied these claims, emphasizing that HZZO does not exclusively contract with Medikol but also works with other private clinics. They argue that the current model allows patients quicker access to necessary diagnostic and health services, a practice common in many European countries. Additionally, they contend that without private facilities contracted with HZZO, many patients would have to undergo tests abroad, with the costs still borne by the public health insurance system.
The conflict highlights broader debates about the role of private healthcare providers within the public healthcare system. Proponents of the existing model stress the benefits of faster service delivery and reduced waiting times, while critics like Kekin argue that public funds should be directed toward strengthening state-run healthcare infrastructure. This disagreement reflects larger discussions about resource allocation and transparency in healthcare financing.
Reactions from both sides indicate a deepening divide. Kekin continues to push for greater accountability and transparency regarding how public funds are spent on private healthcare services. Meanwhile, Medikol maintains that its operations are essential for ensuring timely patient care and that its financial arrangements are justified. Both parties have engaged in public discourse, with each side presenting arguments aimed at influencing public perception and policy decisions.
Looking ahead, the outcome of the civil lawsuits will likely depend on the evidence presented and the court's interpretation of whether Kekin's statements constituted defamation or damage to Medikol's reputation. Regardless of the legal result, the case underscores the contentious nature of integrating private healthcare into a publicly funded system and raises questions about the balance between efficiency and equitable resource distribution. As the situation unfolds, further developments in the legal process and potential policy changes may emerge, reflecting the broader implications of this dispute for healthcare governance in Croatia.
8 reports
Net.hrIndependentCenterFactual 97Objective 947 days agoThe article reports that the company Medikol has filed eight civil lawsuits against parliamentarian Ivana Kekin, alleging that she spread false information and damaged the company's reputation. Each lawsuit seeks compensation of 10,000 euros, totaling 80,000 euros. The lawsuits were chosen over other legal actions because parliamentary immunity does not protect lawmakers in civil cases as it does in criminal proceedings. The dispute between Kekin and Medikol has been ongoing for months, with Kekin criticizing the system where the Croatian Health Insurance Fund (HZZO) pays for private healthcare services as a misuse of public funds. Medikol denies these claims, stating that HZZO contracts with multiple private clinics, including Medikol, and that this model is common in many European countries to ensure faster access to medical services. They argue that without such private facilities, patients would have to seek care abroad, with costs still covered by HZZO.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives: Kekin's criticism of the private healthcare model and Medikol's defense of its operations. While there is some framing around the controversy of public funds being used in private healthcare, the article does not clearly favor one side over the other. It cites
Why these scores (Factual 97 · Objective 94): The article accurately reports the number of lawsuits (eight), their value (10,000 euros each), and the reasons (false information damaging reputation). It also includes both sides of the dispute fairly, quoting Kekin’s claims and Medikol’s counterarguments.
Telegram.hrIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 927 days agoThe pharmaceutical company Medikol has filed seven civil lawsuits against Ivana Kekin, a member of parliament from the Možemo! party, alleging that she spread false information and damaged the company's reputation. Each lawsuit reportedly seeks €10,000 in compensation, totaling €80,000. Medikol chose this legal route to avoid other proceedings where Kekin would have been protected by parliamentary immunity. Kekin launched a campaign called 'Public Healthcare Yes, Medikol No!' highlighting alleged misuse of public funds in contracts with Medikol, claiming that hospitals could have purchased their own equipment instead of paying millions to the private sector. Medikol responded by accusing Kekin of systematically attacking the private healthcare sector without evidence.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the dispute without overtly favoring one over the other. It reports Medikol's claims of defamation and financial damage while also detailing Kekin's allegations of misusing public funds. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the legal actions and counterclaims.
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 92): The article correctly states seven lawsuits instead of eight but otherwise aligns closely with the primary source. The slight discrepancy may be due to timing or reporting differences. The tone remains mostly neutral, presenting both perspectives without overt bias.
Index.hrIndependentProgressiveFactual 95Objective 755 days agoIvana Kekin, president of the parliamentary Committee on Health from the 'Možemo' party, criticized Prime Minister Andrej Plenković and President Zoran Milanović over their conflict regarding the Medikol case. She accused Plenković of protecting private interests by allowing millions of euros in public funds to flow to Medikol, a private healthcare provider, while violating the constitution. Kekin highlighted that Plenković has refused to establish an investigative committee into the Medikol case, similar to past refusals over the last decade. She emphasized that such committees are standard democratic tools used when there is suspicion of actions against the public interest. Kekin pointed out that Medikol has controlled the only PET/CT scanner in Dalmatia for years, leading to significant public spending on services that could be provided by state-run facilities. She also claimed that HDZ is blocking all discussions about Medikol and will block any investigation into the matter.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the situation as a violation of constitutional duties and highlights the protection of private interests at the expense of public welfare, using critical language towards the ruling party and its policies. The emphasis on constitutional breaches and the blocking of investigations,
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 75): The article accurately summarizes Kekin's statements and provides specific figures about Medikol payments. The tone remains critical of HDZ but maintains reasonable balance by quoting Kekin directly without editorializing.
N1 HrvatskaIndependentProgressiveFactual 85Objective 654 days agoIvana Kekin, članica Hrvatskog sabora, objavila je da će dostaviti dokumentaciju o slučaju Medikol državnom tijelu DORH-u nakon što je saborska većina, vođena HDZ-om, odbila prijedlog za osnivanje istražnog povjerenstva. Kekin kritizira HDZ za njeno ponašanje prema slučaju bivšeg ministra zdravstva Vilija Beroša, smatrajući da partija ne želi da se odgovori na pitanja o nedostatku ključne onkološke dijagnostike u javnom zdravstvenom sustavu i usmjeravanju sredstava prema privatnoj tvrtki Medikol. Kekin navodi da će, ako HDZ ostane u vlasti, osnovati istražno povjerenstvo kako bi dobila odgovore. Također je napomenula da Medikol pokušava joj ušutkati, zastrašiti i financijski iscrpiti putem osam tužbi ukupne vrijednosti 80.000 eura. Sandra Benčić, predsjednica Kluba zastupnika Možemo, kritizira izjave premijera Andreja Plenkovića o sinergiji javnog i privatnog zdravstva, opisujući ih kao model ortačkog kapitalizma.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the actions of HDZ as obstructionist and self-serving, using strong language like 'sabotiranje istrage', 'zastrašiti', and 'ortački kapitalizam'. It portrays HDZ as protecting private interests at the expense of public good, which aligns with left-leaning critiques of corporate or
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 65): Factuality is high as the article reports on specific political actions and statements by Ivana Kekin regarding the Medikol case and HDZ's response. It aligns with cross-source consensus on the political dynamics. Objectivity is lower due to the charged language suggesting HDZ is obstructing justice
Telegram.hrIndependentConservativeFactual 75Objective 555 days ago Ovo su HDZ-ovi argumenti zašto nije potrebna istraga za Medikol. Kad ste čuli nešto uvrnutije?The article discusses the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ)'s arguments against establishing an investigative committee into Medikol, a private healthcare company accused of receiving excessive state funding for PET/CT scans while public health facilities lack necessary equipment. HDZ parliamentarian Željko Glavić argues that there is no need for such a committee, claiming that if something is wrong, the legislature is not competent to investigate. The article criticizes this stance as logically flawed and politically motivated, noting that the law explicitly allows investigative committees to examine the legality of public institutions. It also highlights broader concerns about the ruling party’s suppression of democratic oversight, referencing past instances where similar committees were blocked, including one related to Agrokor. The piece suggests that these actions undermine transparency and democratic accountability.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the HDZ's opposition to the investigative committee as reasonable and legally grounded, emphasizing their trust in institutions and the supposed overreach of parliamentary oversight. It uses dismissive language toward critics who argue for transparency, implying that those demands
Why these scores (Factual 75 · Objective 55): The article accurately reports HDZ arguments against the investigation but uses strong rhetorical questions and sarcastic language like 'Kad ste čuli nešto uvrnutije?' which introduces bias. It also contains some factual inaccuracies regarding the legal basis for parliamentary oversight.
Večernji listIndependentProgressiveFactual 70Objective 552 days agoThe article discusses the political dynamics within Croatia's ruling coalition, focusing on tensions between the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) and the Social Democrats (SDP). Political analyst Ankica Mamić comments on the situation, noting that while there are internal conflicts, HDZ still holds significant power due to its strategic Plan B, which maintains cohesion within the coalition. The article also addresses the controversy surrounding the private clinic Medikol and the refusal by HDZ to establish a parliamentary investigative committee into its operations. It suggests that this decision could further embolden opposition figures like Ivana Kekin, who has consistently pushed for such an investigation. The piece concludes by comparing the Medikol issue to past scandals involving HDZ members, implying that while it may generate public concern, it is unlikely to cause significant damage to the ruling party.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the HDZ's refusal to form an investigative committee as potentially giving more strength to opposition figures like Ivana Kekin. It implies that HDZ is avoiding accountability and downplays the potential impact of the Medikol scandal, suggesting a left-leaning perspective that is,
Why these scores (Factual 70 · Objective 55): Reports on Katičić's response to SDP's proposals, but frames it in a way that implies SDP's ideas are not original. This reduces objectivity by presenting a biased interpretation of the situation.
N1 HrvatskaIndependentProgressive12 hr. ago We can!: HDZ attacks the family of Ivan Kekin and equates Medikol with the stateZastupnica Ivana Kekin (Možemo!) objasnila je da joj je podnio privatni operator Medikol sedam građanskih tužbi, koje opisuje kao klasične SLAPP tužbe – tužbe namijenate zastrašivanje i financijsko iscrpljivanje. Kekin navodi konkretne primjere iz njezinih izjave, uključujući kritiku države za neosiguranje javnih PET/CT uređaja i pitanja o ulazi privatnog sektora u javna zdravstvena zavodova. Ona ističe da građani plaćaju Medikolove tužbe preko svojih prihoda za PET/CT pregledi, što stvara situaciju gdje građani financiraju privatnu tvrtku koja ih tuži. Kekin podsjeti na prethodne tužbe protiv novinarke Slavice Lukić, koje su bile izgubljene. Predsjednica Kluba Možemo! Sandra Benčić istaknula je da je donesen Zakon o zaštiti javnih osoba, koji omogućuje odbacivanje SLAPP tužbi, i očekuje da će se ovaj slučaj koristiti za testiranje europske regulative. Međutim, HDZ poručuje da Kekin napadom na Medikol ruši državu, dok Medikol i HDZ međusobno štite.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the situation as a struggle between democratic accountability and corporate influence, highlighting the use of legal tactics by private entities against public figures. It emphasizes the role of the HDZ in protecting private interests at the expense of public oversight, which is a
HRT (Hrvatska radiotelevizija)State / PublicProgressive12 hr. agoZastupnica Ivana Kekin (Možemo!) objasnila je da joj privatna poliklinika Medikol podnijela sedam građanskih tužbi, koje opisuje kao klasične SLAPP tužbe – tužbe namijenate zastrašiti i financijski iscrpati javne liječnike. Kekin navodi konkretne primjere iz njezinih izjave, uključujući kritiku državne nezainteresiranosti za osiguranje javnih PET/CT uređaja u Dalmaciji, te ističe da Medikol koristi građanska sredstva za financiranje tužbi protiv političara koji kritikuju njihovo ponašanje. Kekin ističe da su takvi pohodovi povezani s HDZ-om, koja, prema njoj, zatire demokratske metode i koristi pravni sustav za sprečavanje javnog djelovanja. Predsjednica Kluba Možemo! Sandra Benčić istaknula je da je Hrvatska donijela zakon o zaštiti javnih osoba, koji omogućuje sudovima da odbaci SLAPP tužbe prije glavnog procesa, te da se očekuje da će ovaj slučaj testirati europsku regulativu o SLAPP tužbama.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue as a struggle between democratic accountability and corporate influence, highlighting the use of legal tactics by private entities against public figures. The tone criticizes the HDZ and Medikol for undermining democratic processes and using the legal system to suppress,
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
Croatia
