THE CURRENT controversy over the public-sector health-insurance scheme is indicative of the country's sick state of affairs at various levels. At its simplest, it points to the precarious state of the country's finances and at another level, to the poor communication among government agencies and bodies.

Amid the contention and confusion over the health scheme benefiting some 67,000 public-service workers, it is important to follow the trail of events which has led to the present situation.

Some 20 years ago, the scheme was initiated and the contract was awarded to Blue Cross of Jamaica. The contract should have come up for review in 1997, but it did not. According to the Contractor General, the Government violated its own policies by allowing the contract to remain with Blue Cross without putting it to competitive tender. Blue Cross continued to supply the service using its short-term investments and bank overdrafts to keep it going. The Government is now reported to owe the scheme some $200 million.

A full 10 years later than the stipulated time for the contract to have been put up for renewal and also to facilitate other interested parties as the rules of contract require, the process is resumed. Blue Cross bids and so does a competing company - Life of Jamaica (LoJ). LoJ is deemed to be the most suitable bidder.

At news of the impending change from Blue Cross, public-sector interest groups go into protest mode. Teachers, nurses, public-sector workers, as well as trade unions, predict dire consequences should the change take place. The Contractor General, never one to mince words, warns against the Government even considering overturning the decision to replace Blue Cross.

Amid reports of the bank's likely terminating its overdraft facility, beneficiaries of the health scheme fear finding themselves devoid of their hard-won benefits. A groundswell of protest begins and continue even now as ministry officials huddle to verify the claim of what is owed. Payment to the bank is promised to avert (yet another) crisis. It was optimistically hoped that the matter would have been settled yesterday. The ongoing drama remains unresolved.

Is this any way for Government to do business? Is there another way by which the current impasse could have been avoided? If so, then why wasn't it used? The public needs to know. Questions raised in the present debacle need to be answered: Why did it take all of 10 years for the contract to be put to tender, as the law requires? Does the new contract with LoJ offer savings and how much? If it is true that the stakeholders - the various public-sector workers - were not apprised of the bid to open the tender to others besides Blue Cross, why not? What would it have taken to avoid the contention and ill-will which has been generated?

As the Ministry of Finance meets with stakeholders today in the continued quest for a resolution, perhaps the most significant question of the day is: Why must Government do business this way? This is sloppy.