Report on the Performance of Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2017 during involuntary detention or accommodation. The Institute provided us with the data regarding the total number of people covered by the cost-sharing scheme, which includes those staying in the institutions of their own free will. Persons suffering from acute psychiatric disorder who do not have supplemental health insurance plan still have to take part in cost sharing during involuntary detention and accommodation because the diagnosis they were given is not covered by the CHII List of Diagnoses eligible for funding through mandatory health insurance. In accordance with the Act on Mandatory Health Insurance, CHII fully covers the costs of treatment of chronic psychiatric diseases only. Such a practice is unacceptable in cases of involuntary detention and accommodation. Regardless of the diagnosis, treatment costs should be covered by the CHII in full. In that respect, in our previous reports we called for amendments to the Act on Mandatory Health Insurance. Despite our efforts, the amendments have not been made yet and this puts some patients in an absurd situation whereby they are partially charged costs of treatment that they cannot terminate of their own will. During our visits, we did not register instances of inhuman treatment, but we did observe some cases of degrading behaviour. As a rule, patients were satisfied with the approach of nurses/technicians and doctors. In particular, patients of the Psychiatric Clinic of the Rebro University Hospital Centre praised the quality of treatment. On the other hand, high security psychiatric ward does not meet the Ordinance on Minimum Standards of Space, Workers and Medical Equipment for Providing Healthcare to Persons Deprived of Their Liberty. For example, some rooms are equipped with as many as six beds. Of all the psychiatric institutions visited by the NPM, the psychiatric ward of the Dubrovnik General Hospital has the best accommodation arrangements. Inter alia, windows are without bars and made of shatter resistant glass and this creates positive environment for therapeutic engagement in treatment. In both of these institutions, patients in the high security psychiatric ward cannot spend time outdoors. Use of means of coercion against persons with mental disorders is allowed in exceptional circumstance only, if very urgent cases of serious and direct threat to the person’s own or someone else’s life, health and safety occur. In these cases, in line with the Ordinance on Types and Methods of Use of Means of Coercion against Persons with Mental Disorders, all patients are entitled to protection from restricted movements or isolation, if unjustified from a medical point of view. For this reason, data on frequency of In line with the Ordinance on Types and Methods of Use of Means of Coercion against Persons with Mental Disorders, all patients are entitled to protection from restricted movements or isolation, if unjustified from a medical point of view. use of means of coercion and justification thereof from a medical point of view are extremely important to determine to what degree their rights are being respected. Yet, none of the psychiatric institutions made the data fully available. Despite the recommendation in the 2016 Report, institutions have not kept special records on the use of means of coercion that would allow for assessment of the frequency thereof. Also, despite the fact Some of the healthcare staff applying the means of coercion are not at all familiar with provisions of the APPMD and Ordinance so all psychiatric institutions should establish and regularly keep records on the applied means of coercion. 29 that, in accordance with the APPMD, psychiatric institutions are obliged to submit a report to the Commission for Protection of Persons with Mental Disorders (CPPMD) on the use of means of coercion, they do not