Disease screening funds are earmarked for depreciation

Special equipment, reagent cold chain systems and other fixed assets that are in line with the ownership of public health service assets and are directly used in disease screening projects can be depreciated according to specified proportions within the scope of use of special funds for screening, and must also meet the three prerequisites of "the assets are 100% serving the screening project, the depreciation accrual cycle matches the project execution cycle, and the accounts are verified and there are no mixed records." There is no one-size-fits-all "can" or "can't". It all depends on whether the actual operation scenario meets the regulatory red line.

Last year, I followed the audit team to audit the two cancer screening projects in a district and county. As soon as I entered the financial department, I was grabbed by Sister Li and complained, saying that I had just purchased a 3.2 million special-purpose color ultrasound machine for breast cancer screening for rural women. The project period is three years. I asked around if depreciation could be allocated to the annual special projects. People from three different departments gave three completely opposite answers. I dared not touch the account after hanging it for two months, and a handful of my hair fell out.

In fact, this matter has been controversial for several years. Most people in charge of financial supervision are inclined to "not list it casually" - after all, screening funds are real people's livelihood funds. When budget approval is made, they are mostly calculated based on person-time, consumable costs, and personnel subsidies. If large amounts of depreciation of fixed assets are included, it will look like a lot of money has been spent, and the actual services provided to the people will shrink. There was a district and county in the north that directly counted the entire price of a 2.8 million mobile screening vehicle into the special fund for lung cancer screening that year. As a result, it planned to screen 20,000 people that year, but only completed 12,000. When the audit was reported, they complained that the vehicle could be used in the following years, but the budget was approved on an annual basis, and the money for that year had to correspond to the services for that year. There is nothing wrong with this.

But people working in public health at the grassroots level expressed bitterness when talking about this matter, feeling that "those who meet the conditions should be listed." Many special screenings now have a cycle of 3-5 years. The specially equipped mobile CT, low-temperature storage cabinets, and genetic testing equipment are either reserved for subsequent similar screenings after the project is completed, or they are directly transferred to primary health centers for preliminary screening of related diseases. If the general equipment procurement budget is used, the process can be as fast as three months or as slow as half a year. The projects have been equipped with equipment and are still on the way, and the samples can only be saved and sent to third parties. The time of ordinary people's screening is delayed. Last year, when a city in the Yangtze River Delta conducted bowel cancer screening, the three-year depreciation of special testing equipment was fully included in the special budget when applying for the project. Finance and health signed a confirmation letter in advance, and the equipment was in place half a month in advance. The number of screenings that year exceeded the quota by 15%, and the follow-up rate was 20% higher than in previous years, because there was no need to wait for a third-party test report, and the preliminary screening results could be obtained on-site.

I have conducted nearly 30 audits of public health projects myself, and I have seen many mistakes that were made, and I have also seen some that were handled extremely smoothly. The core is actually the three conditions mentioned at the beginning. Anything short of one is prone to problems. There used to be a community health service center that wanted to apply the depreciation of B-ultrasound used in routine outpatient clinics to liver cancer screening, but could not get the usage ledger of the equipment. Finally, it was found that this equipment was used for general outpatient examinations 80% of the time. In the end, not only was all the depreciation shared, but the performance appraisal points for the year were deducted. Some units calculate the depreciation period based on the 10-year service life of the equipment, but the project only lasts for 3 years, and the remaining 7 years of depreciation are allocated to special items, which is equivalent to using the project money to buy the unit's general assets. This is definitely illegal.

A little practical tip, if you are not sure whether it can be listed, don’t just keep doing the accounting by yourself. When declaring the project, clearly write down the list of equipment that will be depreciated, the calculation basis, and the use commitment. Go to the finance and health business departments to confirm the signature in advance, keep the filing record, and just bring it out during the subsequent audit, so as to avoid wrangling afterwards.

In the final analysis, the core purpose of screening funds is to provide services to the people. Whether it is to buy equipment or pay for consumables, as long as the ultimate goal is to screen more people and identify the right people, do not keep it in your own pocket, and keep accounts clear. In fact, there are not so many black and white rules. But conversely, we cannot allocate costs randomly in the name of the project, turning people's livelihood funds into "equipment purchase funds" for the unit. Only when both ends are protected can the money be spent wisely.