MP says patients have traveled abroad alone and calls for a closed-door meeting with SZV after Minister Connor outlines companion approvals and nursing arrangements.

PHILIPSBURG:--- MP Veronica Jansen-Webster challenged the account presented to Parliament about support for patients referred abroad by Social and Health Insurances SZV, saying she personally knew of patients who had traveled without someone to assist them and warning that vulnerable patients could struggle with even basic needs while receiving treatment overseas.

The exchange followed Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Claret Connor’s explanation of SZV’s companion policy during deliberations on the proposed 2027 budget. While the minister described arrangements intended to ensure patients receive support, Jansen-Webster questioned whether those arrangements consistently translate into adequate assistance in practice.

She renewed her request for a closed-door meeting with the minister and SZV, where they could discuss specific patient experiences.

Approval for a Companion Does Not Guarantee One Is Available

Connor told Parliament that patients aged 65 and older, as well as minors, are automatically approved for a companion when SZV refers them abroad.

However, he acknowledged practical limitations: not every patient has someone available to travel, and not every companion can remain overseas for the entire treatment period.

To accommodate those circumstances, SZV allows companions to change every 30 days, he explained, enabling relatives or other support persons to take turns.

Where a patient does not have a companion, Connor said SZV arranges nursing support through the treating healthcare institution. According to the minister, that arrangement is intended to ensure patients traveling without companions are not left without care and support.

Connor also said SZV does not keep a separate record of patients who travel without a companion.

That limits the information available to Parliament about how frequently patients make these journeys alone and how often alternative support must be arranged.

Jansen-Webster Cites Personal Knowledge

Jansen-Webster was not satisfied that the minister’s explanation addressed the experiences she had raised.

She told Parliament that she had personally encountered a patient in Colombia who was there alone. She also said she knew someone who had recently been sent abroad without a companion.

Her concern extended beyond the medical procedure itself. A patient receiving treatment overseas, she argued, may be unable to manage ordinary tasks independently, particularly when complications arise.

She warned that even getting a meal at night could become difficult.

Jansen-Webster characterized the information conveyed through the minister as suggesting that patients were not being sent alone and firmly disputed that interpretation.

“I know for a fact that it happened,” she said.

The distinction between the two accounts is important. Connor’s explanation did acknowledge that some patients travel without companions. He said nursing support is arranged in those circumstances. Jansen-Webster’s intervention questioned whether patients’ actual experiences matched the assurance of adequate support.

The exchange therefore left unresolved whether the cases she cited involved missing arrangements, insufficient assistance, communication failures or other circumstances requiring investigation.

Demand for Accountability in Individual Cases

Jansen-Webster said that if patients had been left in such circumstances through an error, SZV should acknowledge what happened and apologize.

She objected to any suggestion that the experiences she described had not occurred.

Her intervention focused on whether the institution’s response to Parliament adequately addressed specific patients, rather than simply explaining the general policy.

Approval for a companion, the availability of someone to travel and the provision of alternative nursing assistance are separate matters. The exchange did not establish what support was arranged in the individual cases Jansen-Webster referenced, whether it was delivered or whether patients knew how to access it.

No patient files, treatment records or case-specific findings were presented publicly during the discussion.

Closed-Door Meeting Requested

Speaking as chair of Parliament’s VSA Committee, Jansen-Webster said she had asked the minister to attend a closed-door meeting with SZV so the committee could examine these concerns directly.

Such a meeting would allow MPs to raise individual experiences without publicly disclosing sensitive medical information.

Her request also reflected dissatisfaction with relying on general assurances when she believed concrete examples required an institutional response.

The discussion did not produce a confirmed date for that meeting. The recorded exchange also did not include a completed response from Connor to the specific cases raised during her clarification.

Parliament subsequently adjourned briefly to allow the minister to prepare answers to the outstanding questions.

Complications and Liability Also Raised

The wider discussion included questions about what happens when treatment abroad results in complications or suspected medical wrongdoing.

Connor said SZV covers the cost of treating complications arising from authorized overseas treatment. Where medical wrongdoing is established, he said liability rests with the treating facility, which has its own liability insurance.

He also described annual evaluations of overseas healthcare services and feedback to the institutions concerned.

Those explanations addressed treatment coverage and institutional responsibility. They did not resolve Jansen-Webster’s separate concern about the practical assistance available to an individual patient navigating treatment in another country.

A patient may have an authorized referral and medical coverage while still requiring help with meals, communication, mobility, and other daily needs.

Missing Figures Leave Questions Open

Connor’s statement that SZV does not keep a separate record of patients traveling without companions left Parliament without a numerical picture of the issue.

The exchange did not establish how many patients traveled alone, how many received alternative nursing assistance or how many complaints were made about inadequate support.

Without those figures, the discussion could not determine whether Jansen-Webster’s examples reflected isolated failures or a broader problem.

For patients and their families, the central question remains whether the support described in policy is reliably available throughout an overseas referral.

Jansen-Webster’s challenge placed that question directly before the minister and SZV. The next step she requested was a detailed examination of actual cases, with an explanation of what happened and what action would follow where assistance fell short.

VSA minister acknowledges longstanding concerns about successive contracts but gives no timetable for the amendment raised by MP Sjamira Roseburg.

PHILIPSBURG:---  Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Claret Connor told Parliament that his ministry had been unable to obtain an advisory document concerning proposed changes to temporary employment legislation and asked MP Sjamira Roseburg to forward a copy for review.

The disclosure came during follow-up questions on the proposed 2027 budget, after Roseburg sought a specific update on a draft amendment she said had already been prepared and submitted to the Social Economic Council, known as the SER.

Connor acknowledged the longstanding concerns surrounding the repeated use of successive temporary contracts. However, his response did not establish the current location or status of the draft Roseburg referenced, whether it would be placed on the ministry’s legislative priority agenda, or when Parliament could expect further action.

Roseburg Seeks Status of Existing Draft

Roseburg’s question focused on work she said had already progressed beyond the changes introduced through the Civil Code in 2022.

During the earlier clarification exchange, she explained that she had drafted legislation herself but understood that another proposal addressing short-term employment contracts was already within the ministry.

She referred to a subsequent draft amendment to Book 7 of the Civil Code and said the SER had provided advice. She also referenced a December 19, 2025, presentation involving former VSA Minister Richinel Brug.

She asked whether that existing proposal was being examined and whether it formed part of the government’s legislative priorities. If it was not on the agenda, she asked that its inclusion be considered.

That distinction mattered because the minister’s initial answer had described the 2022 Civil Code changes and the monitoring of those provisions, rather than identifying the status of the later proposal she was asking about.

Searches Had Not Produced the Advice

Returning to Parliament with his clarification, Connor said the ministry had previously been informed about the advisory document.

He explained that attempts had been made to obtain it through the SER website, where advice is generally published, and through another channel. Those attempts had not been successful.

Connor then asked whether a copy could be forwarded to the ministry for review.

His answer established that the ministry had not obtained the advice through those efforts. It did not establish that the advice or draft legislation had been lost, nor did it confirm whether the document was held elsewhere within government.

The minister did not announce a deadline to obtain and review the document.

Monitoring the 2022 Changes

Connor reiterated that the ministry recognizes concerns about the repeated use of successive temporary contracts and the need to balance labor-market flexibility with adequate worker protection.

He referred to changes made in 2022 under Book 7, Title 10 of the Civil Code, which governs employment agreements.

According to the minister, those provisions are being monitored and will subsequently be evaluated against existing labor legislation, relevant court decisions, discussions with social partners and international labor standards.

However, he did not present findings from that monitoring or identify when the evaluation would be completed.

He also did not specify whether the later draft referenced by Roseburg would proceed independently or be considered as part of that broader evaluation.

For Parliament, the outstanding issue remains the status of an identifiable legislative proposal that Roseburg said had already received advice, rather than a general commitment to continue examining temporary employment practices.

Elderly Council Still Under Review

Connor’s follow-up responses also clarified that the proposed Elderly Council had not yet reached the establishment stage.

Responding to MP Sarah Wescot-Williams, he said the ministry had completed research into the feasibility of potentially establishing the council.

That research is undergoing review and approval to determine the appropriate next steps, he explained.

The response did not include an establishment date, proposed membership or an implementation schedule. Nor did Connor announce a timetable for the comprehensive elderly policy Wescot-Williams had requested.

He also reported a recently signed stakeholder agreement involving the Freegan Food Foundation and a division within his ministry, as well as collaboration connected to the St. Maarten Crisis Care website and app. He said he could provide further details during the second round.

SZV Meeting Promised After Patient Concerns

Connor also committed to honoring MP Veronica Jansen-Webster’s request for a closed-door meeting concerning SZV.

Jansen-Webster had challenged whether the support described for patients referred abroad reflected the experiences of people who traveled without companions.

Connor assured her that the requested meeting would take place and that the SZV concerns could be discussed there.

He did not provide a meeting date or present findings on the individual patient experiences raised by the MP.

The commitment therefore opens a forum for examining those cases, while leaving their circumstances and any necessary corrective action to be addressed.

Outstanding Information Requested Before Second Round

On questions raised by MP Darryl York concerning St. Maarten Medical Center, Connor said he had requested the information before the second round of debate.

York had previously objected to a tentative delivery date that could fall after the next stage of deliberations had begun.

Connor’s follow-up confirmed that an earlier delivery had been requested; it did not confirm that the answers had already been received.

The minister also promised Jansen-Webster more specific information about consultancy entries classified as “other.”

She had questioned why several companies appeared under that description when separate legal consultancy categories already existed. Connor said the information would be updated as requested and provided before the second round.

Health Insurance Start Still Depends on Legislation

Connor maintained that a timetable for implementing general health insurance could not be settled before the ordinance is passed.

Jansen-Webster had sought a month or quarter to submit and clarify whether phased implementation could still begin in January 2027.

The minister acknowledged the urgency but said the implementation trajectory could be discussed and identified once the legislation is approved.

He did not commit to a January start.

Connor also told Roseburg that the ministry would review the 2025 motion she raised on school breakfast support and get back to her afterward. He did not announce an additional allocation or specify an amount for a potential amendment.

The clarification round closed with several commitments to provide information, review documents and arrange further discussion. On temporary contracts, the minister identified the immediate next step as obtaining the advice Roseburg said had already been issued—before the ministry could give Parliament a substantive response on the proposal’s future.

Minister Patrice Gumbs Jr. relays utility’s defense of lubricant charges; Ottley argues consumers should not carry operational shortfalls through the fuel clause.

PHILIPSBURG:---  MP Omar Ottley interrupted Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs Jr. during the 2027 budget deliberations to sharply challenge GEBE’s explanation of its fuel clause, declaring that shifting costs into the charge because the company’s base rate is insufficient would be “absolutely wrong.”

The intervention came as Gumbs presented information supplied by GEBE explaining the distinction between its base electricity rate and fuel clause, including why it incorporated lubricants into the latter.

For Ottley, the explanation touched the central issue he had repeatedly raised: whether consumers were being charged through the fuel clause for expenses that should be addressed within the company’s operational cost structure.

“Nothing against you, Minister,” Ottley said, thanking Gumbs for bringing the explanation before Parliament while directing his criticism at the practice he believed it described.

GEBE Defends two separate charges

According to the explanation Gumbs read, GEBE recovers its electricity costs through two mechanisms.

The fuel clause covers heavy fuel oil, light fuel oil and lubricants, which the company described as products derived from crude oil.

The base rate covers other expenses, including maintenance, personnel, general costs, depreciation, financing and a reasonable profit.

GEBE’s position, as presented by the minister, is that the base rate no longer adequately covers those other costs because expenses have increased with inflation while the rate has not increased since 2011.

The company argued that removing lubricants from the fuel clause and placing them within the base rate would worsen its financial position because the base rate already fails to recover its existing costs.

That financial explanation did not satisfy Ottley.

Ottley: Reassess the Company’s Costs

Ottley said he had repeatedly argued that operational expenses belong within the base rate and that this position had been disputed during previous discussions with personnel.

He interpreted the explanation presented to Parliament as confirmation that insufficient recovery through the base rate was being used to justify costs remaining within the fuel clause.

“That is wrong. That is absolutely wrong,” he said.

Ottley argued that a company unable to maintain its costs must reassess and readjust its operations rather than shift the problem into the fuel clause.

His interruption was a political challenge to the explanation presented. It did not establish, through an audit or regulatory finding, that unrelated operational expenses had actually been inserted into the formula.

GEBE's explanation identified lubricants as a fuel-clause component and defended their classification as petroleum-derived inputs. The disagreement centered on whether that classification and the financial justification offered were appropriate.

Minister Traces Lubricants to 2010 Changes

Gumbs also relayed GEBE’s account of how the present arrangement developed.

According to that account, the company previously used a formula dating from the 1970s that was no longer functioning properly. A tariff study initiated in 2010 led to changes intended to simplify and correct the calculation, including incorporating lubricants into the fuel clause.

The explanation also referred to conditional approval by then-TEATT Minister Franklin Meyers and a reduction in the residential base rate.

These were historical claims presented on GEBE’s behalf. The exchange did not include the underlying study, approval documents or a detailed calculation showing the present financial effect of the lubricant component.

Review Continues, but no Reduction Announced

Asked what government was waiting for before acting on recommendations to amend the fuel clause, Gumbs said BTP was finalizing its review of the calculations.

He said the Minister of TEATT was also examining which recommendations could be implemented.

The objective, he explained, was to ensure that changes are substantiated, legally sound and beneficial to customers.

Gumbs also expressed support for regulating electricity through an LBHAM and said discussions with BTP were already taking place. Details would be shared with Parliament once finalized.

However, the response did not announce a revised formula, a confirmed reduction, a refund or an implementation date.

Ottley’s intervention sharpened the distinction Parliament must now examine: GEBE’s need to recover legitimate production costs, and the justification for recovering particular expenses through a fluctuating fuel clause.

For customers, the outstanding question is what the regulatory review will establish—and whether its conclusions will produce a measurable change on their electricity bills.

VROMI minister says broad residential subsidy requires an identified funding source; estimate places fuel costs above the energy-charge component.

PHILIPSBURG:--- Covering the first 200 kilowatt-hours of monthly electricity consumption for GEBE’s residential customers would cost approximately 35.29 million guilders annually, Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs Jr. told Parliament in response to questions from MP Omar Ottley.

The estimate gave Parliament a concrete price for a proposal to reduce household electricity expenses. It also exposed the financial obstacle the government says must be addressed before such assistance could proceed.

Gumbs said the government’s current financial position could not accommodate a subsidy of that size without a budget adjustment identifying how it would be funded.

No subsidy was approved or announced during the exchange.

Approximately 148 Guilders per Customer Monthly

The calculation presented by Gumbs used a residential customer base of 19,871 and assumed that every customer would qualify and consume at least 200 kWh each month.

It included both the energy charge and fuel-cost charge.

The figures were presented as estimates. The actual cost would depend on consumption, prevailing tariffs and the eligibility conditions established for any eventual program.

The fuel-cost component was the larger part of the projected monthly expenditure, placing the fuel clause at the center of both the relief discussion and the broader debate over electricity affordability.

Government Says Funding Must Be Identified

Ottley asked whether government could temporarily subsidize residential consumption or fix the electricity charge for residential customers.

Gumbs responded that the estimated annual requirement exceeded 35 million guilders and that government was not positioned to provide that amount within its current financial circumstances.

He left open the possibility of an amendment from Parliament or another budget adjustment, but said it would need to specify realistically how and where the money could be provided.

The response did not identify an alternative allocation, a reduced subsidy level or a date for presenting a government-funded proposal.

It therefore established the estimated cost of the broad approach without committing government to implement it.

Universal Estimate Leaves Targeting Questions Open

The calculation assumed coverage for the full residential customer base used in the estimate.

That is a significant condition. A program restricted by income, vulnerability or another eligibility test could have a different cost, while households consuming less than 200 kWh would also affect the actual expenditure.

Gumbs acknowledged that eligibility and individual consumption would influence the final financial requirement.

However, he did not present a separate calculation for a targeted program or identify how many households would qualify under different criteria.

Parliament was therefore given a broad estimate rather than a fully developed subsidy design.

Questions remain about eligibility, administration, duration and the treatment of residential accounts serving more than one household.

GEBE Figures Require Careful Distinction

In answering Ottley’s wider questions about the utility’s customer base, Gumbs reported that GEBE had 20,071 unique active customers as of October 1, 2026.

He distinguished those customers from 26,279 active contract accounts and 46,166 active utility services.

Those categories are not interchangeable: a customer can hold more than one account or receive more than one utility service.

For the electricity subsidy estimate, the relevant figure presented was the residential electricity customer base of 19,871.

The minister also reported growth in electricity contract accounts from 21,207 in 2022 to 23,282 in 2026, alongside an increase in water contracts from 20,825 to 22,876.

The figures illustrate why any relief proposal requires a clearly defined beneficiary group and a consistent basis for calculating its cost.

Subsidy and Tariff Reform Are Separate Decisions

The debate over a government subsidy unfolded alongside Ottley’s challenge to GEBE’s fuel-clause explanation.

A subsidy would determine who pays part of the customer’s bill. A change to the tariff or fuel-clause calculation would address how that bill is constructed.

Gumbs said BTP’s review of the fuel-clause calculations was being finalized and that the TEATT minister was examining implementable recommendations. He did not announce an immediate tariff adjustment.

The 35.29 million-guilder estimate consequently puts a major funding decision before Parliament, while leaving the underlying pricing review unresolved.

For households seeking relief, neither discussion had yet produced a confirmed reduction in what they would pay.