It is only after a year that Vitals Global Healthcare took over the running of three hospitals that the country has finally learned of the key details of the agreement the government reached with the company. Right from the start, the deal raised key controversial issues, some of which have yet to be clarified, but what is perhaps most irksome is the way the government handled the partial privatisation.

Never mind for a moment the intricacies of the deal, the partial privatisation of such an essential service as healthcare represented a huge U-turn in Labour policy. Can anyone imagine what would have been Dom Mintoff’s reaction to any such idea in the heyday of his party’s socialist inroads into the economy? But times have changed and, as in the case of its original anti-EU membership stance, Labour has changed with them, to an extent that, today, it is seen to be cosying up to capitalists and, particularly, land developers.

There may be a strong case to argue in favour of partially privatising some sectors of the health service, such as geriatrics. But one would be justified in wondering why dispose of Gozo General Hospital too.

A few days ago, The Sunday Times of Malta, our sister newspaper, filled in the blank spaces in the contracts that were published after incessant calls for them to be released.

When the government finally tabled the contracts in Parliament, it did so in line with its shady brand of transparency – with substantial parts completely blanked out.

Now that more details have come out, it is only natural for taxpayers to feel that, since it is they who are paying for the VGH services, they should be kept fully informed of how the experiment in the running of the hospitals – St Luke’s, Karin Grech and the one in Gozo – is working out.

From the figures published, it looks like the cost of making use of the beds it would need in the three hospitals will be higher than that incurred last year. The Health Ministry has denied this, saying the cost is comparable. Besides, it argues, the government would not have to pay more for the “significant improvement” in infrastructure and medical equipment that VGH will install.

Since the contracts for the 30-year lease of the three hospitals are now being scrutinised by the Auditor General, taxpayers will hopefully soon learn if what has been agreed upon represents good value for money and if everything has been done according to the book.

The partial privatisation has spawned not only controversy but, also, anxiety, first among professional people working in the hospitals and, now, among suppliers who, according to reports, are being asked to submit supply bids through a competing firm. Is this ethically right?

Another disquieting issue, if confirmed, is that over the possible infringement of patients’ rights. Would the Ombudsman be able to investigate complaints raised against the service provider?

The matter over payment for “additional costs” of pharmaceuticals would also need to be fully clarified.

It remains to be seen whether the partial privatisation will deliver on the main goal – the attraction of medical tourism. Now that the deed has been done, taxpayers expect the improvement VGH promised when they took over the running of the hospitals.