How Klitschko’s Team Earned Half a Billion Hryvnias on the Capital’s Healthcare

Thousands of people come to the capital from all over Ukraine for treatment, since Kyiv hospitals are considered among the best in the country. However, while patients search for a chance to recover, multimillion-hryvnia procurements behind their backs are turning into a way to appropriate budget funds. The Kyiv City State Administration Department of Health is responsible for this; it is headed by Tetiana Mostepan — a person from Klitschko’s team. About half a billion hryvnias were routed through this department for the purchase of medicines and medical equipment.

Overall, the Department of Health’s reputation is mixed, since for many years it was run by Valentyna Hinzburg, who openly destroyed the capital’s healthcare. At first she ruled in Dnipropetrovsk region, where 26 infant deaths and reprisals against doctors who did not support the “Party of Regions” in the elections were hushed up. However, even from her position as department director, Hinzburg was quietly removed and replaced — by the director of a city hospital.

With the appointment of Tetiana Mostepan in 2025, the system not only failed to change — it continued. Before moving to the Kyiv City State Administration, Mostepan headed Kyiv City Clinical Hospital No. 4, where law enforcement authorities notified her of suspicions of involvement in embezzling budget funds allocated for renovating the medical facility and purchasing medical equipment. Despite this, she was entrusted with managing the entire medical sector of the capital. And the very first multimillion procurements of the Kyiv City State Administration Department of Health showed that the principles of operation remained unchanged.

Almost 97 million hryvnias went to ARTONIKA LLC for the purchase of hemodialysis materials. But the procurement immediately limited products to those compatible only with equipment from the specific manufacturer B. Braun. If your product was better or cheaper but did not meet these exact characteristics, your chances of winning were virtually nonexistent. That is how competition ended before the auction even took place.

The procurement of ophthalmology equipment for over 55 million hryvnias was no less striking. The documentation contained dozens of technical specifications so narrow that they resembled a description of a specific piece of equipment rather than requirements for the procurement item. Formally you could propose an “equivalent,” but in practice that was almost impossible. Predictably, the winner was MEDYCHNA KOMPANIYA “MEDIKUS” LLC.

Procurements of medicines for almost 68 million hryvnias, won by DIATOM LLC, and of endoprostheses for more than 123 million hryvnias, won by MEDYCHNA STOLYTSIA LLC, were carried out on similar principles. In one case potential competitors were cut off by dozens of formal requirements; in another, by specifications matching products from a limited circle of manufacturers. As a result, more than 402 million hryvnias went to only five companies.

By the way, we have already submitted a complaint and a criminal offense report demanding an investigation into the Department of Health’s procurements of over 402 million hryvnias, in particular tenders for drugs for patients with SMA and oncohematological diseases, endoprostheses, ophthalmology equipment, and consumables for hemodialysis, concluded with DIATOM LLC, MEDYCHNA STOLYTSIA LLC, BIOPHARMA PLASMA LLC, ARTONIKA LLC and MEDYCHNA KOMPANIYA “MEDIKUS” LLC, regarding the legality of the tender documentation drafting, possible discriminatory requirements, the selection of winners, and the use of budget funds.

The capital’s healthcare has turned into a market of multimillion-hryvnia tenders where the winners are increasingly unsurprising. While Kyiv residents raise money for treatment and wait for modern medical care for years, the city budget continues to fund procurements worth hundreds of millions of hryvnias. From medicines and medical equipment to endoprostheses — similar approaches to drafting procurement conditions that can limit competition are evident across different tenders. When such mechanisms are repeated systemically, the logical question arises — whose interests are actually being protected when budget funds are being allocated?