logo
Leaked contract shows how Cuba pockets money Bahamas pays for medical services

Leaked contract shows how Cuba pockets money Bahamas pays for medical services

Miami Herald06-05-2025

The Bahamian government appears to have signed off on a contract that directs most of the money paid for the services of four Cuban health professionals to a Cuban government entity while giving away its legal authority on key issues to the communist-ruled island, according to a copy obtained by a group monitoring Havana's medical missions abroad.
Bolstering the United States' allegations of unfair labor practices in Cuba's government-run medical missions, the 2023 contract required the Bahamian Ministry of Health and Wellness to pay $22,000 in monthly fees for the four workers' services directly to the Cuban state company Comercializadora de Servicios Médicos Cubanos, or Trading Company of Cuba's Medical Services.
But the four workers themselves — two medical specialists advisers, one computer sciences engineer and a health data specialist— only received a monthly allowance between $990 and $1,200, for a total cost of $4,380, paid directly to them by Bahamian health authorities. Those stipends hover around the country's minimum salary of $250 per week and were deemed enough to cover rent in the expensive islands, which The Bahamas did not provide for the Cuban workers.
The leaked contract was published by Cuba Archive, a Miami-based non-profit group that monitors Cuba's medical missions. The U.S. State Department has used the group's work to put together its annual human trafficking report. Last year, the State Department celebrated the group's director, María Werlau, as one of 'outstanding individuals around the world who are fighting to end human trafficking.'
'Forced labor'
The Miami Herald has not independently verified the contents of the contract, which appeared to bear the signature of Bahamian Health Minister Michael Darville. The one-year contract appeared to have been signed in Havana in 2023, but the month and day were left blank in the copy obtained by Cuba Archive, which Werlau believes indicates the agreement is still in place. Four copies of the documents were signed.
While Cuba has promoted the medical brigades as a show of solidarity with other nations, the health workers have become a major source of foreign revenue in recent years. The purported agreement with The Bahamas had Cuba receiving between 84% and 92% of the money the Bahamas paid for the services of the Cuban workers. The Cuban state company also collected 50% of the overtime and bonuses paid by The Bahamas to the Cuban staffers.
Since 2020, the State Department has kept Cuba on the blacklist of countries that do not do enough to fight human trafficking and has cited the Cuban medical missions as an example of 'forced labor.' Defectors from those missions have said their Cuban handlers confiscate their passports, limit their movements and pressure them to do political work on behalf of the Cuban government.
Recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio expanded visa restrictions on Cuban officials involved with the medical missions to also apply to third-country officials contracting those services. That measure has created friction between U.S. and Caribbean leaders, many of whom have come to rely on Cuban doctors to fill critical gaps in their healthcare systems.
'Concerns'
The leaked document has added even more tensions ahead of a visit by Bahamas Prime Minister Philip Davis to Washington. He is expected to be among seven Caribbean leaders meeting with State Department officials on Tuesday, and the Cuban medical brigade is among the topics expected to come up alongside discussions about countering illegal immigration, drugs and firearm trafficking, disaster relief and border security.
Bahamian officials have not disputed the contract's authenticity.
Davis, who previously acknowledged that 'a portion' of the salaries of the Cuban doctors is sent to a Cuban agency, told reporters last month after the leak that he was speaking to the Cuban government about the 'concerns.'
Bahamian Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell, responded by questioning the motivations behind the leak of the contract, which he said could be part of a broader effort to influence Bahamian public policy and undermine national sovereignty.
'The Bahamas government does not engage in any practice contrary to international labor norms. Let's make that abundantly clear,' Mitchell said. He told lawmakers the government must resist forming policy based on 'subjective interpretations of untested material.'
The Herald reached out to Darville and Mitchell. Mitchell said his comments were in the public domain and he had nothing more to add. Darville did not respond to a request for comment about whether Cuban professionals were indeed getting less than 20% of the funds the government was paying on their behalf and other legal details in the leaked contract.
In March, Darville told the Nassau Guardian newspaper that two ophthalmologists, one retina specialist, one cataract specialist and one optometrist from Cuba are in the country. He also said there are three nurses and other support staff from Cuba.
At the time, Darville said The Bahamas' Foreign Affairs Ministry was involved in ongoing negotiations with the U.S. over its concerns about the medical brigade, which some Caribbean leaders think were settled during Rubio's recent visit to Jamaica when the matter was raised with others in the region.
'The services they provide in the country [are] needed, and so the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is presently back and forth with their counterparts in the United States ... because they want more clarity on what we are doing with these workers, because it seems as if there is this cloud that [there] is forced labor, and we don't believe so,' Darville told the paper.
A month later, he traveled to Havana, where he met with Cuban Public Health Minister José Angel Portal to discuss their 20-year cooperation and the expansion of Cuba's medical services in The Bahamas.
'During the dialogue, the ministers will discuss new strategies to expand specialized care in priority areas such as ophthalmology, orthopedics, cardiology and oncology, identified as sectors with growing demand,' Cuban state outlet Cubadebate reported about the April 19 meeting.
The Trading Company of Cuba's Medical Services is the Health Ministry's firm in charge of exporting medical services and selling health tourism packages. Its affiliation with the ministry is public knowledge.
While Caribbean governments have pushed back on Rubio's assertion that the medical brigade program is a form of 'force labor,' the contract signed by The Bahamas reinforces the notion and shows that the relationship is lopsided and favors Cuba.
Withdrawing doctors
Not only did Bahamian authorities sign away rights to discipline the professionals, leaving it in the hands of the Cuban state agency. They also let Cuba off the hook if any legal disagreement arises, according to a contract provision giving the Cuban government discretion about whether to comply with Bahamian laws.
In case of disagreement, the law applicable to the contract is that of The Bahamas, the document says, but with a big caveat: 'provided that such legislation and its effects do not contravene the principles of the social, economic and political system of the Republic of Cuba.'
The Cuban entity also had the power to withdraw the doctors at any time, the document shows. And if The Bahamas were to agree to U.S. requests to move away from the current contract to negotiate better terms for the Cuban doctors, the language in the document would still make The Bahamas liable for payments to the Cuban government.
The Cuban government seems to have planned specifically for this scenario. The document includes language that would make the Bahamian government still liable for its obligations under the agreement in the face of 'any provisions, regulations, proclamations, orders or actions... of foreign governments to the parties or others that in any way prevent or attempt to prevent... the complete performance of this agreement.'
At least two other Caribbean governments that employ Cuban medical professionals say they do not have the same terms as the ones in The Bahamas' contract. However, because contracts are not made public, the claims cannot be independently verified. The Bahamas agreement includes a confidentiality provision prohibiting the disclosure of its details for two years after its completion.
Werlau told the Herald that it is not enough for governments to arrange to pay doctors in these missions directly, because Cuban authorities have concocted other schemes to confiscate most of the money. For example, in 2012, the head of a Cuban official educational mission in The Bahamas, another type of service offered by the Cuban government to other countries, sent an email detailing how the Cuban teachers were supposed to collect the salaries paid directly by Bahamian authorities and wire most of it back to Cuban authorities on the island.
Werlau said his organization had developed screening guidelines for foreign officials and human rights groups to discern whether Cuban doctors have been trafficked and urged foreign officials to publish the contracts.
If other nations need Cuban doctors, she said, 'they should hire them directly, as they do with any other foreign doctor who comes to practice in their country. They should pay them directly. The doctors should be able to bring their families. They should not be subject to all these restrictions through an intermediary that is a dictatorship.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

RFK says Starbucks is going to "further MAHA its menu"
RFK says Starbucks is going to "further MAHA its menu"

Axios

time3 hours ago

  • Axios

RFK says Starbucks is going to "further MAHA its menu"

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Wednesday that Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol has pledged to "further MAHA" the coffee chain's menu. Why it matters: A spokesperson with the Seattle-based company told Axios that RFK and Niccol met Tuesday in D.C., saying it was a productive meeting. The meeting comes a week after Starbucks unveiled it's testing a protein cold foam targeting health-conscious consumers looking to boost their intake. Starbucks updated its matcha in January to allow customers to adjust the level of sweetness and ditched its nondairy milk fee in November. Those actions, which were all previously announced, are part of the "Back to Starbucks" plan to revitalize the company by reestablishing cafes as community coffeehouses and simplifying its menu. The big picture: The food industry has been under pressure from Kennedy to ditch artificial dyes and colors from U.S. products. Kraft Heinz and General Mills announced plans Tuesday to eliminate artificial colors from their U.S. products. What they're saying: Kennedy said in a post on X that he "was pleased to learn that Starbucks' food and beverages already avoid artificial dyes, artificial flavors, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, and other additives," Kennedy said on X. "At Starbucks, we believe choice should come with confidence," the company said in a statement to Axios. "Our diverse menu of high-quality foods and beverages empowers customers to make informed nutritional decisions, with transparency on ingredients, calories, and more."

Supreme Court Upholds Gender-Affirming-Care Ban. Here's What to Know
Supreme Court Upholds Gender-Affirming-Care Ban. Here's What to Know

Time​ Magazine

time5 hours ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Supreme Court Upholds Gender-Affirming-Care Ban. Here's What to Know

The Supreme Court has delivered a major blow to transgender rights with its decision to uphold a Tennessee law that bars doctors from providing gender-affirming care including puberty blockers, hormones, and surgical procedures for trans minors in the state. The Wednesday decision in the landmark U.S. v. Skrmetti case is expected to upend access to healthcare for trans and nonbinary youth far beyond Tennessee. While the ruling does not ban gender-affirming care nationwide, it permits the at least 25 bans that states have passed against medical and surgical care for transgender youth. Some states, such as Florida, have similarly moved to restrict access to such care for adults. The opinion comes as the Trump Administration targets transgender Americans on the federal level as well, seeking to bar requests for updated gender markers on federal identification documents that align with the holder's gender identity and releasing a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report aiming to discredit gender-affirming care as treatment for individuals with gender dysphoria. The effort to bar accurate gender markers was blocked by a federal judge on Tuesday. The Supreme Court's decision will pose a significant obstacle for legal challenges to the mounting restrictions being placed on gender-affirming care across the country. In the ruling, the conservative majority rejected arguments that barring such care violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the court's 6-3 ruling. 'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.' Here's what to know about the decision and how it will impact care. What does the Supreme Court's decision mean for gender-affirming care? The lawsuit at the core of the U.S. v. Skrmetti, filed by the families of three transgender adolescents and a Memphis-based medical provider, challenged the Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors under the equal protection clause, citing sex discrimination. The state of Tennessee, meanwhile, argued that the ban would help protect children from what it referred to as 'experimental' medical treatment, though every major medical and mental health association supports gender-affirming care as a legitimate health practice, per GLAAD. The justices found that the law is a standard state regulation on medical care and does not discriminate on the basis of sex. 'The law does not prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing those same treatments for minors of the opposite sex,' the majority opinion reads. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissented. 'Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,' Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined in full by Jackson and in part by Kagan. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.' The state of Tennessee is home to about 3,000 transgender youth, according to UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute. Nationwide, there are an estimated 300,000 transgender adolescents. The Supreme Court's ruling will also allow gender-affirming-care bans in states beyond Tennessee to go into effect, though it does not enact a nationwide ban. That means transgender minors living in a state with a ban will have to seek care in other states in order to continue receiving medication or other gender-affirming treatments. It is still unclear how the ruling could affect potential gender-affirming-care bans for adults, according to Alex Reinert, a constitutional law and civil rights professor at Cardozo School of Law. 'The court doesn't address that,' he says. 'But I think the reasoning that the court has provided would apply to attempts to regulate gender-affirming care for adults as well.' Many activists are lamenting the decision due to its potential effect on transgender youth. 'The biggest human tragedy here are the trans kids whose lives are going to be irrevocably changed as a result of not being able to get the best practice healthcare that their parents want them to get, [and] that their doctors want them to get,' says Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, a nonprofit advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. A 2022 study published in the National Library of Medicine found that gender-affirming care was associated with lower odds of depression and suicidality. A 2024 peer-reviewed study in Nature Human Behaviour in collaboration with Trevor Project researchers found that anti-transgender state laws caused an uptick in suicide attempts among transgender youth by as much as 72%. 'Today's ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution,' said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project who argued the case before the court, becoming the first out trans attorney to do so. 'We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.' What legal challenges could come next Legal experts say the decision will make it difficult to battle other gender-affirming-care bans, though not impossible. 'The question presented to the Supreme Court was pretty narrow. It was very specifically this question of whether or not discrimination against trans people constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex,' says Oakley. Cases that pertain to protected classes, such as sex and gender, are typically reviewed under the lens of heightened scrutiny. The level of scrutiny matters because it dictates the type of rationale the government must have for passing a law, says Reinert. The majority ruled on Skrmetti with a rational review, meaning that they believed the Tennessee law did not deal with those issues but instead with matters of age and 'the medical purpose for which the treatment is being sought,' Reinert says. 'The plaintiffs argue that SB1 warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications. But neither of the above classifications turns on sex,' the majority opinion reads. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex. While SB1's prohibitions reference sex, the Court has never suggested that mere reference to sex is sufficient to trigger heightened scrutiny.' In cases regarding the rational basis reviews of the law, 'the state almost always wins,' Reinert says. Oakley says it's possible future plaintiffs could contest state laws based on parental rights over their child's medical treatment. Reinert concurs that additional legal challenges can be brought in the court system depending on the way other state laws are phrased or organized. But, he adds, the decision 'almost certainly makes those challenges much harder to succeed at.' What medical groups say about gender-affirming care Gender-affirming care is espoused as a medically accepted treatment by every major medical association in the U.S., including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and more. The American College of Pediatricians, which has been identified as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, filed an amicus brief in support of the state of Tennessee. The group was first founded in 2002 by members who opposed the American Academy of Pediatrics's endorsement of adoption by same-sex couples. Beyond the U.S., several European countries are assessing best practices for patients with gender dysphoria. The U.K. moved to ban puberty blocker prescriptions for youth in March 2024, citing a lack of evidence. Some doctors who treat patients with gender dysphoria have expressed disappointment with the court's ruling. 'Today's decision codifies the patchwork of state laws banning vs. allowing medically necessary healthcare for a singular group of young people into federal law,' Morissa Ladinsky, a professor at Stanford University School of Medicine and Child Health told TIME in an emailed statement. 'This emboldens a more sinister reality. Providers can now discriminate in the delivery of health care. We can treat patients differently on the basis of age, sex and gender. Because we can, does not mean we must.'

Diabetomics Inc. Changes Name to Modality Dx Amid New Innovation and Expansion of Molecular Signature Diagnosis Products
Diabetomics Inc. Changes Name to Modality Dx Amid New Innovation and Expansion of Molecular Signature Diagnosis Products

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Diabetomics Inc. Changes Name to Modality Dx Amid New Innovation and Expansion of Molecular Signature Diagnosis Products

PORTLAND, Ore., June 18, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Diabetomics has been rebranded Modality Dx. Founded by Dr. Srinivasa Nagalla, Modality Dx is an innovator in rapid test technologies for risk assessment and diagnosis in maternal health, diabetes and autoimmune disease. "Throughout my career, I've seen firsthand the great need for more preventive healthcare solutions," said Dr. Nagalla. "Too often doctors see patients after disease has already taken hold. My goal is to develop diagnostic tools that can assist in prevention and early intervention." Modality Dx has developed products that can identify molecular Signatures, provide rapid diagnostic testing, smart device technology and oral fluid technology. Robert Gootee, Board Chair of Modality Dx, said, "The goal of our research is to develop products that help healthcare professionals identify and treat disease early and accurately, thus enabling them to focus on effective disease prevention." Currently, Modality Dx holds patents for rapid test products that enable disease diagnosis in maternal health, diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. These patented science and technology products enhance the measurement of treatment efficacy, thus improving the pharmaceutical industry's ability to identify precision targets that support drug development. About Modality Dx Modality Dx, a privately-held Oregon-based company founded in 2010, is focused on the rapid diagnosis of disease in the maternal health, diabetes and autoimmune sectors. Through science and business excellence, they are pioneering a quantitative precision-based approach to diseases diagnosis and treatment. View source version on Contacts Katie Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store