Georgetown Hospital CEO should refund car allowance -audit report
Health Minister wasn’t entitled to chauffeur expense
Stabroek News
October 18, 2002
The refunding of an overpaid transportation allowance by the CEO of the Georgetown Hospital, Michael Khan is among the recommendations made by the Auditor General’s Office following investigations into several allegations against him.
The investigations have also found that Health Minister, Dr Leslie Ramsammy received a chauffeur allowance when he was not entitled to it.
The findings and recommendations were made in the Auditor General’s report, dated October 15, following a special investigation into allegations made against the two officials. The investigation was requested by the GPHC Board of Directors after the allegations were made by the institution’s former director of financial services, Mahase Pertab.
Asked to comment on the report which he said he had seen, Khan yesterday said that he could not, as the findings and recommendations had not been discussed by the GPHC Board of Directors.
Stabroek News was unable to contact Dr Ramsammy on the findings and recommendations yesterday.
In relation to the secondment of a GPHC driver to the minister by the CEO and the payment of his salary by the hospital, the Auditor General’s Office said that as a general rule, the driver’s salary and allowance should be met by the Ministry of Health. The Auditor General’s Office described the arrangement as an untidy one which should be remedied urgently.
Investigations revealed that the minister was paid a chauffeur allowance although he was not entitled to it, since a driver of the GPHC was assigned to him during the period he was in receipt of it. The minister was overpaid the chauffeur’s allowance since May 2001. He was paid $43,195 per month by Parliament Office with effect from May 1, 2001. This was increased to $45,296 per month with effect from December 2001. The allowance ceased with effect from August, 2002 at Dr Ramsammy’s request.
There was no recommendation in the report as to whether the minister should refund the chauffeur allowances he received or not.
In relation to the CEO and the car allowance he received, the report stated that the CEO was not entitled to the transportation allowance and was overpaid the sum of $15,000 per month from the time he was assigned the vehicle “sometime in 2000” to July 18, 2002 when he returned it to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health.
The AG’s office is recommending that Khan be requested to refund the overpayment of the transportation allowance of $15,000 per month from the time he received the first payment to July 18, 2002. The Auditor General’s office said that the CEO’s contract ascertained that Khan was entitled to a transportation allowance of $15,000 per month. He was also entitled to duty-free concessions on a motor vehicle but based on provisions in the contract it was interpreted to mean that he could be paid the allowance of $15,000 a month whether he had a vehicle or not. However, the Auditor General’s Office found that the CEO was assigned vehicle PDD 3135 sometime in 2000 and it was used solely by the CEO as he did not have his own means of transportation. Gate security records show that the vehicle was not lodged overnight in the GPHC compound.
On the allegation that a television set was bought and instructions given by the CEO for it to be delivered to his house, the Auditor General’s report said the CEO admitted in a letter to the Chairperson of the GPHC Board of Directors, Doreen de Caires that he borrowed the television. However, there was no record that the item was loaned. As such it could not be determined when the television was taken out of the office and when it was returned.
This, the Auditor General’s Office concluded, was a serious breach of procedure by such a senior official of the hospital. Removal of assets from the GPHC without first ensuring that the asset was brought to account in the stores records and in the case of the removal of the television set by the CEO was an abuse of his authority, the report said.
The television set is now located in the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department.
The television was bought, according to the CEO, on the instructions of the minister for the Waiting Area of the GPHC Intensive Care Unit. The item was taken from Reaaz Trading Enterprise on January 11 by the CEO and delivered to his office by the expeditor. No documentation on the item was prepared at the time by the Stores personnel. The purchase order was only written up in April, 2002 on the CEO’s instructions.
The hospital’s Finance Section, the Auditor General’s report said, made a payment to a supplier for a television set on May 10, but the payment voucher was not presented for audit examination despite repeated requests. An examination of the stores received note (SRN) revealed that the TV was received on January 11, 2002 but the SRN appeared to have been tampered with. It was not determined why the date of the SRN read January 11, when the CEO by his own admission said he had forgotten to inform the stores about the purchase.
Injection
On the allegation that a special type of injection (Clopixol Acuphase) was purchased by the GPHC for $1,100 per vial from a particular pharmacy while the same injection could be bought over the counter for $900 per vial, the Auditor General’s Office report said the allegation made by Pertab could not be substantiated.
Enquiries, the report said, revealed that the particular medication cannot be obtained over the counter as claimed by Pertab.
In his response to the allegation, the CEO attached nine letters indicating that quotations were sent to several pharmacies for the same medication. However, an examination of the quotation letters revealed that two letters were sent to Medicare Pharmacy. Only one copy of the letters was issued on a GPHC letterhead.
The other letter for Medicare along with the other seven from the other pharmacies were not issued on the GPHC letterhead.
The CEO said that the bids were opened on January 14 and only Medicare Pharmacy responded. The price quoted was $1,100 per vial. A photocopy of the bid showed that it was initialled by Pertab and two other officers. Meanwhile, the doctor who had used four boxes of his personal medication after he found that the GPHC had none in stock was reimbursed the sum of $18,000 by the hospital. The injections consisting of 20 vials had been bought by the doctor from Medicare Pharmacy at $900 per vial.
This incident, the Auditor General’s report said, means that all was not well with the procurement of drugs for the institution and it reflected sadly on the hospital’s administration.
The report said that the stores accounting procedures need to be improved as a matter of urgency and that measures should be put in place to ensure that adequate supplies of drugs were always available for the proper treatment of patients. (Miranda La Rose)