Mário Cruz / Lusa
Santa Maria Hospital, Lisbon
The conclusion was drawn from the report of the General Inspection of Health Activities, which also blames the successive administrations of Santa Maria.
The dermatologist Miguel Alpalhãofrom Santa Maria Hospital, will have to return more than 800 thousand euros received unduly for surgeries carried out between 2021 and 2025, as concluded by the General Inspection of Health Activities (IGAS).
According to the IGAS report, the doctor earned a total of 901,851.17 euros relating to 511 surgeries. However, the inspection determined that 818,756.11 euros were paid without a legal basis, and now need to be returned. The case became public after a TVI investigation revealed that Alpalhão received 400 thousand euros in just 10 Saturdays, accumulating almost one million euros in four years.
At issue is the Integrated Surgery Registration Management System (SIGIC), a mechanism created to reduce waiting lists in public hospitals by giving doctors greater incentives. The surgeries performed were, for the most part, simple procedures such as removal of cysts and benign moleswith an average duration of just 10 minutes. Despite this, they were classified as “outpatient surgeries”, a category that requires the presence of an anesthetist and monitoring, which, according to the television report, did not occur.
According to , IGAS concluded that the undue payments resulted from authorizations granted by the successive hospital boards of directors between 2021 and 2025. Among those responsible is current Minister of HealthAna Paula Martins, who chaired the board of directors in 2023. Although she did not respond directly to recent questions, the government official stated in parliament, in September 2025, that, despite being unusual, it would be possible to achieve high values with additional work.
The current administration, led by Carlos Martins, refused to comment directly on the IGAS conclusions, but assured that it had implemented control measures since 2024, including internal audits and the suspension of additional surgeries following the disclosure of the case.
Despite the IGAS decision, the doctor still did not return any amount. In response to CNN, the clinician disputes the inspection’s conclusions, refusing the obligation to refund and arguing that the amounts received correspond to work actually carried out.
