When a medical institution loses its license, the logic is straightforward: the contract with the National Health Service of Ukraine (NHSU) is terminated, and budget financing stops. But in the case of the Odesa Odrex network, this logic appears to have failed.
One of the legal entities that is part of the Odrex structure lost its medical license. At the same time, contracts with the NHSU — and along with them the flow of budget funds — did not disappear. According to available data, they effectively transferred to another legal entity within the same network. Without public explanation, without an open tender, without any visible control mechanism.
What is Odrex and why does it matter
Odrex is one of the largest private medical networks in southern Ukraine. The clinic positions itself as a modern alternative to state medicine and actively operates under the medical guarantees program — that is, it receives money from the NHSU for treating patients at state tariffs. For an average patient, this means: part of the services he receives for free, and the bill is sent to the state.
That is why the status of the license and the legal integrity of contracts is not a formality. It is a question of who and on what grounds manages public money.
Annulled license — not the end of the contract?
The annulment of a license for one legal entity of the network should have automatically entailed the termination of the contract with the NHSU. Instead, financing was not interrupted — it continued through another legal entity affiliated with the same network.
This is not necessarily illegal — the NHSU has the right to conclude contracts with any licensed provider. But the question is different: was this transition transparent? Was it announced publicly? Did the NHSU verify that the new legal entity actually meets all requirements, rather than simply being a "backup" registration number of the same structure?
There are no answers to these questions in the public domain.
Criminal cases as background
Parallel to questions about licenses, criminal proceedings are pending around Odrex structures. The details of the cases have not been fully disclosed publicly, but the very fact of their existence adds weight to the question: how does the NHSU verify providers who have open criminal proceedings, and is there even such a verification mechanism?
According to the current NHSU rules, the existence of a criminal proceeding is not in itself grounds for terminating a contract — a conviction is required. This is legally correct, but it creates a situation where the state continues to pay a structure that is under investigation until a final court decision, which can take years.
A systemic problem, not an exception
The Odrex case illustrates a broader vulnerability in the medical guarantees system. The NHSU has concluded thousands of contracts with private providers across the country. The mechanism for monitoring what happens to legal entities after the contract is signed — mergers, restructuring, loss of licenses — remains opaque to the public.
This does not mean the system does not work. But it means it operates without sufficient external audit. And in the conditions of wartime, when budget priorities are under pressure, every hryvnia of medical financing must be accountable.
What's next
The NHSU has yet to publish an explanation of how the transition of contracts between Odrex network legal entities actually occurred and what checks preceded this decision. RazomUA's editorial office sent a corresponding request to the service.
If it turns out that the procedure was fully and transparently observed — this is important to record publicly. If not — a specific question arises: how many other similar contract "inheritances" have occurred across the country and is the NHSU aware of them?
