There is also the regional councilor for Health, Giovanna Volo, among those under investigation in the Carabinieri operation – which led to 9 precautionary measures for embezzlement and corruption – in Messina. A blitz arose from investigations started in 2019, after the complaint of a doctor who worked at the Messina Polyclinic: he had reported alleged irregularities in the management of the private clinical center “Nemosud”, established in 2012, for neurological rehabilitation activities also at the Polyclinic.
“This morning I learned that I was being investigated by the Messina Public Prosecutor’s Office. Although these are facts relating to a period prior to my role as councilor, I thought it appropriate to immediately inform the President of the Region. I am calm and aware that I have always acted in full compliance with the rules. I confirm my full trust in the work of the judiciary and I remain available to the investigators to quickly clarify my position”, this is how councilor Volo commented on the news.
Schifani’s reply is ready: “An investigation is not a conviction, neither criminal nor political. This morning councilor Volo correctly informed me of the incident and the facts that are contested against her. My trust in her remains unchanged”.
The investigations by the Carabinieri – as reported by the Dire agency – had a turning point thanks to the clarifications provided by a manager of the Messina Polyclinic on the agreements stipulated between the hospital and the private foundation constituting the clinical centre. According to the Messina Prosecutor’s Office, from 2012 to June 2021 (the year of closure of the clinical centre), through “increasingly advantageous” agreements for the private structure, “a private reality was allowed to operate in a public hospital with costs burden of the treasury”. All “in the absence of authorizations and accreditation from the Sicilian Region”.
Furthermore, it emerged that the managers of the Polyclinic at the time would have arbitrarily outsourced the neurorehabilitation services to the private centre, “reversing the reimbursement of expenses by the regional health service”. The suspects, therefore, would have diverted public funds “by allocating significant sums of money belonging to the public structure to the clinical center”. The Center would then have qualified the services provided with a code that provided for reimbursement by the Region, even though the latter had not scheduled that type of services by the Polyclinic.
