The global challenges faced by public health have given rise to a worldwide debate on the issue. I have had the opportunity to participate in many forums invited by governments, universities, and multilateral institutions to contribute with our vision, experience, and strategies. Personally, I am not aware of how many persons from the Community of Valencia have been called to No. 10 Downing Street, the Casa Rosada, or the World Bank, or have received government Ministers from Saudi Arabia or the United Kingdom and missions sent by the governments of Norway and Denmark, among others.
It has been an honour for me to represent this community, which is pioneer in management models, innovation, and business entrepreneurship, as well as a worldwide reference in health thanks to the Modelo created and developed by Ribera Salud.
The debate about the challenges in health should be depoliticized, as the pressure of aging, pensions, technological developments, new diseases and medicines have nothing to do with ideology, not to mention sectarianism. The true protagonist must be a professional scientific debate, based on results, as was the case in the early 1990s with the Informe Abril (April Report), which was unanimously supported by all the political parties.
The parliamentary session of November 10 at Les Corts (Valencian Parliament) witnessed the worst of the political debate. Accusations and threats were made: “It is a disastrous model which has not been implanted in any other autonomous community”; “It hasn’t functioned. It is neither socially or economically profitable”; “It puts at risk the public health system and the quality of service”; “There was collusion between previous autonomous governments and the companies in charge of the hospitals”… unsubstantiated falsehoods, a mockery of the work carried out by national, international, and Valencian companies, which are committed to the citizens and institutions and the future of our Community.
I wish to categorically position myself on the side of our professionals. In an open and democratic society, one cannot cross red lines under the protection of parliamentary immunity; such behaviour spoils the image of our Community and transmits to the outside world the idea that, in this land, the law of “anything goes” applies. Legal uncertainty, the lack of dialogue and rigorous arguments are not our sign of identity.
I have always appealed for a serene professional debate, whereby consensus is reached on the basis of data. From now on, I will add “with respect and manners, without persecution or sectarianism”.