The National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill was approved by the National Council of Provinces today and is due to be signed into law by the president shortly after. The Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) is deeply disappointed. We are not happy with the various sections of the Bill. Despite submissions to government in this regard, the recommendations of the BHF and other stakeholders have largely been ignored and the bill is being passed virtually unchanged from its originally drafted form.
While the BHF fully supports the concept of universal health coverage (UHC) as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and believes that it must be a strategic imperative for all those directly or indirectly involved in healthcare, it does not support the NHI Bill in its current form. The bill restricts medical schemes to the provision of complementary cover potentially rendering them unsustainable, further to which the enormous economic value that medical schemes currently add to the health sector would be lost to South Africa if the bill goes ahead unchanged, BHF strongly believes this section should be removed as well as all references to complementary cover contained in the bill.
Additionally, a number of the Bill’s provisions are unconstitutional. These were detailed in the BHF’s submission to government. South Africa needs a strong, vibrant private health sector because government resources will never be unlimited. . The incredibly wide powers it bestows on the Minister of Health grossly undermine the board of the NHI fund and its accountability. The power of the Benefit Advisory Committee to determine health benefits under NHI similarly undermines this accountability. In addition, the BHF is perturbed by the demonstrated inability of the state to adequately operate national public entities and state-owned enterprises, as well as the endless levels of relentless corruption in the public sector.
Other concerns
The Bill allows the Minister of Health and the NHI fund to issue directives that override all other legislation, except the PFMA and the Constitution, including legislation specifically mandated by the Constitution.
There are proposed amendments to the Medical Schemes Act that unfairly discriminate against pregnant women.
In many instances, the language of the bill creates significant legal uncertainty, which is itself unconstitutional due to the principle of the rule of law upheld by the Constitution. The BHF provided specific examples of this in the body of its submission.
The NHI Bill allows the national sphere of government to encroach on the geographical, functional and institutional integrity of provincial governments. This is not permitted by Section 41 of the Constitution.
The bill tries to dictate to the President in Cabinet (the National Executive) what new legislation must be made or how to amend existing legislation. This is also unconstitutional, as the Constitution itself grants the National Executive its powers. Nothing can change this except an amendment to the Constitution.
The registration system proposed by the bill creates unconstitutional barriers to access to health care that do not currently exist. The certification, accreditation and contracting system proposed by the bill is unwieldy, and it too will create unconstitutional barriers to access to health care that currently do not exist. Both these points are explained further in the body of the BHF’s submission.
Dr Katlego Mothudi, BHF CEO, underscores these serious implications of the bill’s being passed unchanged. “We have consistently given input into this proposed law and are disappointed that our concerns and those of other stakeholders appear not to have been considered or even tested. The bill in its current form will have a negative impact on healthcare access for everyone. There are many areas of uncertainty that have not been clarified, not least with regard to funding and affordability. We are also concerned specifically that the bill may prejudice the rights of women,” he says. “The proposed amendments to the Medical Schemes Act exclude access to pregnancy-related healthcare services for women who are medical scheme members. This means that these women would have to access reproductive health care from the public sector at their own cost, which is in conflict with the provisions of the National Health Act.
“The bill also has the potential for a wider negative economic impact. There is still uncertainty around how the NHI will be funded, but it will very likely be through additional taxation, something that will unavoidably have a detrimental effect on the economy at large – companies, individual employees and the general public – in the form of job losses. This phenomenon has already been discussed in various papers, including one published by the World Bank in 2001. It cited Colombia’s experience in this regard. A 10% increase in payroll taxes resulted in a 4.9% reduction in employment. Those who remained employed experienced a reduction in their disposable income, while the decrease in the overall number of employees saw a reduction in revenue from personal tax. Should the bill pass in its current form, South Africa will almost certainly experience something very similar.
“More specifically, this phenomenon will also impact the health sector. With medical schemes reduced to providing only complementary cover, not only will the schemes industry itself shrink, but all the other private entities it does business with, including hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and health practitioners,” he concludes.
Provided by the Board of Healthcare Funders
