Reports from both opposition and government-aligned outlets concur that a controversy has erupted around the massive referral of cancer patients from Nueva EPS to the private provider Clinaltec, principally its Ibagué headquarters, for PET-CT scans and other oncology services. They agree that Representative Katherine Miranda filed formal complaints detailing that between 2023 and January 2026 there were roughly 3,374 PET-CT referrals to this provider, for a value exceeding 17.6 billion pesos, and that this represents an increase close to 950% compared with previous periods. Both sides acknowledge that many patients were sent from departments that already have oncology and imaging services, that some patients assumed their own travel and lodging costs to reach Ibagué, and that Miranda has asked oversight agencies to investigate possible irregularities in contracting, referral patterns, and decision-making inside Nueva EPS and national health authorities.

Coverage from both camps also situates the episode within Colombia’s strained health system, highlighting the central role of Nueva EPS as a major insurer and the regulatory framework for referral of high-complexity cancer services. They note that Clinaltec S.A.S. has operated since around 2014, provides high-complexity oncological and non-oncological services, and is habilitated to deliver PET-CT, chemotherapy, and other specialized procedures. Government-aligned and opposition media alike reference broader debates over possible "cartels" or concentration of specialized services, the need for transparent contracting and conflict-of-interest controls, and the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health and supervisory bodies to ensure that clinical and financial decisions prioritize patient welfare. Both sides mention that the controversy has become entangled with the ongoing discussion about health-sector reforms and the oversight of private IPS that handle large volumes of public resources.

Areas of disagreement

Responsibility and blame. Opposition outlets frame the episode primarily as a potential corruption scheme or "cancer cartel" in which Nueva EPS and actors close to the Ministry of Health allegedly engineered the redirection of oncology patients for financial gain. They stress the abnormal growth in referrals, the high aggregate cost, and patients’ travel burdens as evidence of deliberate steering. Government-aligned coverage, while recognizing the concentration of services, foregrounds Clinaltec’s denial of wrongdoing, presenting the clinic as a long-standing, high-capacity provider that legitimately attracts referrals. These outlets shift the emphasis from presumed malfeasance to the need to await investigations and consider technical criteria that might justify centralized care.

Role of the Ministry of Health and conflicts of interest. Opposition media highlight Miranda’s references to historical family ties between the Health Minister’s family and Clinaltec’s owner, casting this as a possible conflict of interest that could have influenced policy or contracting decisions. They give weight to the idea that this linkage may implicate top health authorities in a broader "patient carousel" that benefits specific private actors. Government-aligned outlets mention the allegation, if at all, in a more cautious way, avoiding explicit insinuations that the minister directly intervened in referral patterns. Instead, they tend to focus on institutional processes and insist that any personal or historical connections do not automatically prove improper influence.

Characterization of Clinaltec’s operations and impact on patients. Opposition-aligned sources describe Clinaltec primarily as the focal point of a suspicious concentration of cancer services, highlighting the 946–949% referral increase and surging billing as red flags incompatible with normal growth. Their narratives stress patients’ hardships, including long-distance travel and out-of-pocket expenses, portraying the clinic as a beneficiary of opaque decisions. Government-aligned coverage emphasizes Clinaltec’s scale and credentials, citing more than 45,000 annual procedures, over 13,000 chemotherapies, more than 80 habilitated services, and membership in international hospital networks. These outlets underscore the clinic’s job creation and charitable foundation to argue that it fulfills an important social and healthcare role rather than operating as a predatory cartel.

Systemic explanation and reform implications. Opposition reporting links the case to a pattern of capture and abuse within the health system, using the "cancer cartel" label to argue that powerful actors exploit regulatory gaps and centralized referral mechanisms. It uses the controversy to question Nueva EPS’s management, demand aggressive intervention by watchdog agencies, and cast doubt on the government’s stewardship of health reform. Government-aligned sources, by contrast, tend to frame the controversy as a dispute that must be clarified within existing institutional channels, suggesting that concentration of complex oncology services can reflect efficiency or capacity constraints rather than criminal intent. They are more likely to argue that systemic problems require calibrated regulatory fixes and better coordination, without pre-judging the government’s broader reform agenda.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to portray the Nueva EPS–Clinaltec relationship as a likely corruption scheme tied to political power and harmful to patients, while government-aligned coverage tends to stress the clinic’s technical capacity, social contributions, and the need for due process before labeling the situation a "cancer cartel".