Clalit and Health Ministry Clash in Supreme Court Over Committee Testimonies
Clalit and the Ministry of Health are locked in a Supreme Court battle over confidential testimonies compiled by an investigative committee examining governance flaws at the healthcare provider.
The standoff between Clalit Health Services and the Ministry of Health regarding the HMO's investigative committee has reached an impasse. After roughly two months of negotiations and Supreme Court intervention, the state has agreed to transfer nearly all the material on which the committee based its findings to Clalit—specifically 31 out of 35 testimonies. However, the state refuses to hand over the remaining four testimonies, arguing that their disclosure would expose individuals who explicitly requested anonymity due to fears of professional retaliation.
Clalit responded that even after the Supreme Court petition and the transfer of additional materials, its right to a fair hearing is compromised. Without access to these four testimonies, Clalit argues it cannot mount a genuine defense and therefore demands that the report not be published. This marks the second round of a battle lasting over a year. In the first round, Clalit attempted to block the formation of the committee itself, which was initiated by the Ministry of Health following the departures of three CEOs and several senior VPs within a five-year span.
Committee Findings and Corporate Governance
The committee was established to examine the relationship between Clalit's management and its board of directors, headed by Yohanan Locker. Although Health Minister Haim Katz initially froze the committee established by his predecessor, Uriel Busso, he later became convinced that deep corporate governance flaws exist within the HMO and demanded significant structural changes.
The current dispute no longer centers on whether the Ministry of Health has the authority to investigate Clalit, but rather on how much of the collected material must be shared with the audited body, particularly concerning witnesses who requested confidentiality. Seven witnesses explicitly demanded that the content of their testimony remain secret and conditioned their cooperation on non-disclosure of their identity.
The Confidentiality Dilemma
Following a reassessment, the committee managed to hand over three of these testimonies to Clalit ahead of the hearing, redacting names, titles, events, and identifying details. Regarding the remaining four testimonies, the state concluded that redaction would be insufficient and that the content itself would immediately reveal the speakers' identities.
Government representatives warned the Supreme Court that Clalit provides healthcare services to over half of Israel's population and operates roughly 30% of the national hospitalization array. The Israeli healthcare market is small and closed, and professionals—including past and present Clalit employees—often maintain direct or indirect professional dependence on the organization, fostering genuine career fears.
The state acknowledges that the right to inspect materials is important, but not absolute, and must be balanced against the ability to conduct regulatory oversight and investigations in the future.
The Supreme Court will now have to decide whether a proper hearing mandates the disclosure of all testimonies, including those delivered under strict confidentiality. Meanwhile, the state warns that delaying the publication of the committee's conclusions prevents the resolution of ongoing deep-seated issues regarding management-board relations at the country's largest healthcare provider.
