NSHU again signed an agreement with the controversial Odrex hospital: what are the threats to patients

The National Health Service of Ukraine signed a contract with the controversial Odrex clinic for the “40+ Health Screening” initiative, despite open criminal investigations and complaints of patients. This step raises doubts about the safety of people and the rationality of using public money.

The State Health Service of Ukraine signed another agreement with the private clinic “Odreks”, which has an ambiguous reputation, regarding the provision of medical services within the framework of the state program for citizens aged 40 and older. This decision was made despite the fact that the Odrex clinic is the object of many criminal cases under articles of fraud, improper performance of medical duties and intentional loss of life, as well as receiving numerous complaints from patients and facing the public protest movement of victims StopOdrex. Learn about the potential threats of cooperation between the National Health Service and the mentioned medical facility for Ukrainian patients from the material UNN.

The “40+ Health Screening” program is a state initiative financed from the state budget and provides for every citizen of Ukraine over the age of 40 to receive an amount of 2,000 hryvnias for a preventive examination. As part of the program, it is planned to assess the risks of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes and mental health disorders. Formally, we are talking about diagnostics and preventive measures, however, in fact, it is at this stage that the state transfers responsibility for the first contact with the patient to a specific medical institution. In addition, if any risks or deviations are detected, further consultations, additional examinations and treatment (mainly at the expense of the patient) are usually carried out in the same medical institution.

Therefore, the decision of the NSHU to enter into another contract with the “Odrex” clinic raises questions, given the well-known reputation of this medical institution. The “Odrex” clinic is the subject of 10 criminal proceedings, and patients publicly report deterioration of their condition after receiving treatment there, possible inaccuracies in the diagnosis of diseases, intra-hospital infections and serious consequences for life and health. But even these circumstances did not become a reason for the Ministry of Health of Ukraine to refuse this clinic cooperation with state funds.

Importantly! The requirements of the Ministry of Health and the National Health Service for the participants of the “40+ Health Screening” program are mostly formal in nature and focus on the availability of a permit for activities, personnel and equipment. They lack provisions that would take into account the reputation of the medical institution, the number of complaints from patients or the presence of criminal cases. Under such circumstances, the opportunity to participate in the program can be obtained by clinics that formally meet the specified requirements, but at the same time raise reasonable doubts about the safety of patients in society and the professional community.

StopOdrex: public pressure and fear of people to speak frankly In fact, the state is now directing budget funds and citizens to a clinic with a dubious reputation, which is the subject of criminal investigations and around which a community of affected StopOdrex patients has already formed.

This movement was started by families of deceased patients and persons who consider themselves affected by treatment in this clinic. Initially, activists created the StopOdrex website, where you could find reviews of the clinic’s treatment from former patients, follow the “Odrex Case” and support each other. However, after three cases of blocking the StopOdrex website, activists were forced to launch a Telegram channel as a “safer way of communication”. According to platform co-founder Christina Totkailo, all stories are published anonymously because people are afraid of pressure and harassment.

And the widow of a former patient of the clinic, Svitlana Huk, comments UNN openly reported her fears about further increasing pressure. However, the clinic’s lawyers deny any involvement in blocking the site. In particular, the lawyer Masi Nayem claimed: “We don’t know anything about this site.”

Despite the controversy, “Odrex” remains one of the largest private partners of the NSZU. According to the results of 2025, the clinic provided medical services within eight packages of the Medical Guarantee Program, including the treatment of strokes, heart attacks, rehabilitation and primary care. The management of the clinic declares that it is the packages for the treatment of acute conditions that are most in demand.

The story of a woman who became a person with a disability after being treated at Odrex under the NHSHU program One of these stories is Oleksandr’s story, which was published on the StopOdrex website. In August 2025, his mother was taken to “Odreks” by ambulance with a stroke within the framework of the NSHU program. Three days later, the woman was unexpectedly discharged. Already at home, her health deteriorated sharply. Re-hospitalization in other hospitals was complicated by the fact that Odrex, according to the documents, allegedly completed the treatment.

When Oleksandr managed to get her mother to another hospital, the doctors there, according to the family, directly stated: they had no right to discharge the patient so early.

“The result of treatment at Odrex is lifelong disability,” concludes the woman’s son.

Responsibility of the Ministry of Health for “Odrex” The story of this family is not an isolated one. It is against the background of such cases that the decision of the NSHU to continue cooperation with the “Odrex” clinic, which has a dubious reputation, raises more and more questions.

After all, the medical guarantee program is not only a financing mechanism, but also the responsibility of the state to ensure the safety of patients. When state funds are directed to a medical institution that appears in criminal proceedings and receives public complaints from patients, the very principle of protecting citizens is called into question.