President Gustavo Petro has publicly ordered the liquidation of all bankrupt Health Promoting Entities (EPS) in Colombia, following the collapse of his health reform in Congress. Both opposition and government-aligned coverage agree that the measure could directly affect around 20–24 million affiliates, mainly concentrated in a group of seven or eight intervened EPS including Nueva EPS, Asmet Salud, and Famisanar, which report multi-trillion-peso accumulated losses and negative net worth. They concur that the government intends to move these users to other entities — with Nueva EPS as the main destination — and that the order has triggered strong reactions from sector associations such as Acemi and Pacientes Colombia, which warn of risks to continuity of care, delayed medications, and operational overload. Both sides also report that experts are questioning what exactly counts as a “bankrupt” EPS, and that industry representatives argue only the already intervened EPS currently fulfill the technical criteria for liquidation.

Across both camps, coverage situates Petro’s announcement within a broader, long-running financial and structural crisis of Colombia’s health system, marked by mounting EPS debts to providers, repeated state interventions, and ongoing disputes over funding flows. There is shared acknowledgment that the government’s plan is tied to a shift toward a territorial, preventive care model, with direct payments from Adres to hospitals and clinics and centralized drug purchasing through open reverse auctions. Both perspectives note that Petro has vowed not to leave affiliates without coverage, that he wants to reorganize Nueva EPS under tighter control of the Health and Finance ministries, and that he intends to refile both his health reform and a tax reform around July 20 to give the new model legal and fiscal backing. They also agree that sector actors fear the current moves could effectively advance a de facto reform by administrative means, even before Congress debates a new bill.

Areas of disagreement

Responsibility and blame. Opposition-aligned outlets frame Petro’s order as a politically driven escalation that puts the health system “in check” and risks deepening an already fragile situation, emphasizing his insistence on liquidation after Congress rejected his reform. Government-aligned outlets, quoting Pacientes Colombia and Acemi, blame the government more sharply for creating chaos and panic, accusing it of “playing with the lives of Colombians” and issuing technically unsupported directives. While opposition media underline the dangers of an improvised structural change, government-aligned reporting amplifies direct sector accusations that Petro’s move is reckless and could trigger systemic collapse.

Legal and technical feasibility. Opposition coverage stresses that, although liquidating bankrupt EPS is legally possible, it is a high-risk path whose feasibility depends on how “bankruptcy” is defined and on the state’s capacity to manage transitions for millions of users. Government-aligned sources focus more on technical criteria, relaying Acemi’s view that only the already intervened EPS actually meet liquidation thresholds and warning that the broad order lacks solid actuarial and operational justification. Opposition outlets tend to treat the measure as an overextension of presidential power but still within the legal framework, whereas government-aligned reports highlight the absence of clear technical parameters and operational planning as evidence the decision is premature.

Interpretation of motives. Opposition-aligned media generally suggest that Petro is doubling down on liquidation to force or prepare the terrain for reintroducing his health and tax reforms in July, using the sector’s crisis as justification. Government-aligned outlets go further, presenting Pacientes Colombia’s and Acemi’s suspicion that the liquidation order is a tactic to circumvent Congress and impose healthcare reform administratively by collapsing the existing EPS model. While opposition coverage portrays the move as aggressive but still primarily policy-driven, government-aligned coverage more explicitly casts it as a pressure mechanism and a backdoor reform strategy.

Impact on patients and Nueva EPS. Opposition outlets warn in broad terms that liquidating EPS could disrupt services for up to 24 million users and generate major financial risks, but they leave more room for the possibility of an orderly transition if well managed. Government-aligned coverage is more alarmist about immediate effects, stressing that transferring millions of affiliates to Nueva EPS — which already posts massive losses — is operationally unviable and could lead to a drastic deterioration of care and a near “total chaos” scenario. The opposition perspective underscores systemic risk and legal uncertainty, while the government-aligned perspective centers on concrete bottlenecks in Nueva EPS and the likelihood of treatment interruptions and delayed medications.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to frame Petro’s liquidation order as legally imaginable but politically risky and operationally fragile, focusing on institutional overreach and systemic uncertainty, while government-aligned coverage tends to portray it as a technically baseless, potentially chaotic maneuver that weaponizes the health crisis to push through a de facto reform and dangerously overloads Nueva EPS.