The analysis

Waiting lists: only three regions meet the targets for appointments and two for tests

Overall progress seen in just 11 regions: Salutequità’s analysis of Agenas data as at 30 September

Adobestock

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

Only three regions meet the guarantee threshold of 90 per cent compliance with maximum waiting times across all priority categories monitored for first appointments; this figure drops to two for diagnostic tests. This is highlighted in the latest independent analysis by Salutequità, based on public data as at 30 September from the National Waiting Lists Platform managed by Agenas. Specifically, the three regions that meet the 90 per cent guarantee threshold for compliance with maximum waiting times across all monitored priority categories for first appointments are Basilicata (which, however, does not report figures for emergency cases), Marche and Lazio, which joins the first two. In total, these regions have just over 7.7 million inhabitants, representing 13.1 per cent of the Italian population. As regards diagnostic tests, the only regions to meet the target across all categories are Basilicata (again, excluding data on urgent cases) and Veneto, with a combined population of approximately 5.4 million, representing 9.1 per cent of the population.

There’s no turning point

“We are not looking for league tables, but for real answers for the public,” says Tonino Aceti, president of Salutequità, “and the partial improvement recorded does not mean that the Region is meeting the maximum waiting times: even the 90 per cent threshold, as stipulated by the legislation, leaves people waiting beyond the timeframes deemed appropriate for their health condition. For initial consultations, seven areas have seen a deterioration and twelve an improvement, out of the nineteen that can be compared. It is difficult to speak of a turning point. Unfortunately, as things stand, the reality is that citizens’ right to have the maximum waiting times laid down by law respected is guaranteed in only three regions for consultations and in two for tests, thereby undermining the right of access to treatment.”

Loading...

Who’s improving and who’s getting worse

A comparison with June confirms, in fact, a worrying picture. For first visits, including emergency cases, 12 out of 19 comparable areas have improved their average rate of compliance with maximum waiting times, whilst 7 have seen a deterioration. For diagnostic tests, there were 12 improvements and 8 deteriorations out of 20 comparable regions. Taking appointments and tests together, 11 regions improved and 8 deteriorated, out of the 19 comparable regions. The comparison includes 19 regions because data on emergency cases (class U) is missing for Basilicata – for both consultations and diagnostic tests – and for the Autonomous Province of Bolzano for consultations only. For diagnostic tests, therefore, the number of comparable regions rises to 20.

The improvement in waiting lists compared with 2025, as documented in the latest Agenas bulletin, is a positive sign. However, Salutequità’s new analysis of data from the National Waiting Lists Platform offers an additional and more nuanced perspective. ‘The September figures,’ continues Aceti, ‘tell us that we cannot yet speak of a reversal in the trend regarding waiting lists. The improvement recorded in diagnostic tests is a sign worth noting, but it cannot mask the deterioration affecting seven regions in terms of first consultations. And when we combine the two types of services, progress is limited to just eleven regions.”

RISPETTO DEI TEMPI MASSIMI DI ATTESA – ANNO 2026 – GENNAIO-SETTEMBRE *

Dati anno 2026 (gennaio - settembre)*

Loading...

The personal node

“The picture that emerges relates to September and is probably also affected by staff availability, which, as we know, always deteriorates in the summer,” explains Aceti, “and which the Court of Auditors highlights as a critical issue. But for members of the public, this still means that the right to an appointment or a test within the timeframe specified in the doctor’s referral continues not to be guaranteed in the manner provided for by law and consistently across the country.”

The results fit within the picture painted by the Court of Auditors’ report, which last week highlighted staff shortages, organisational difficulties, incomplete regional data and funds that had not been fully utilised. In the period 2022–2025, out of approximately 1.845 billion allocated, around 1.580 billion has been utilised, albeit with the caveats associated with inconsistencies in reporting.

Those 300 million euros left unspent

“The Court confirms our concerns,” adds Aceti. “It is unacceptable to leave public funds – around 300 million euros – unused, whilst citizens are left waiting or having to dig into their own pockets, especially at a difficult time like this, characterised by rising fuel prices and the cost of other goods. And without comprehensive data, we cannot even see the full extent of those who are unable to book appointments or are foregoing treatment. The platform must become a genuine tool of government, not merely a snapshot.”

What to do

Salutequità is calling for the National Waiting List Platform to publish data – at least at regional level – on the number of referrals that do not result in appointments, and on the monitoring of protection pathways, the level of service they guarantee, and the actual level of protection afforded to citizens, as required by law. Data for each Local Health Authority (ASL) should also be published on the Platform. Furthermore, it is necessary to ensure that the Central Booking Service (CUP) has all integrated appointment systems, adequate staffing and timely, effective controls over the use of funds. There is also a need for effective accountability, sanctions and the practical exercise of substitute powers in the cases provided for.

“Waiting lists must ‘truly’ become the litmus test for the Regions in guaranteeing the Essential Levels of Care (LEA),” concludes Aceti. “We are now beginning to gather a great deal of data, but this must also be used for ‘evaluation’ purposes and not merely for information, as is still the case today. For this reason, we must strengthen the indicators within the New Guarantee System – which currently provides for only one core indicator on waiting times – and ensure effective and timely monitoring. Transferring the responsibility for monitoring from the Verification Body back to the offices of the Ministry of Health does not meet the need to strengthen these controls.”

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti