Tag: NHI

Categories : Expert OpinionTags : Leave a comment

Navigating the Road to Universal Health Coverage in South Africa

On By ModernMedia

By Dr Reno Morar, Director: Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Nelson Mandela University

Dr Reno Morar

Johannesburg, 20 November: As Director of the newly established Medical School in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Nelson Mandela University, I am honoured to lead South Africa’s tenth and youngest medical school. Our medical students exude an infectious spirit of hope and enthusiasm as we progress toward graduating our first cohort of Mandela Doctors in 2026.

As we navigate our journey at the medical school and within the Faculty, our goal is to successfully graduate composite health professionals who are equipped to serve our communities.

This journey is inextricably linked to a larger national goal: achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) for South Africa.

With the signing of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law, South Africa stands at a pivotal moment in its healthcare journey. Achieving UHC promises equitable access to quality healthcare for all South Africans, regardless of income or location. But transforming this vision of UHC into reality requires much more than policy reflected in the NHI, it calls for robust planning, thoughtful resource allocation, and, above all, collaboration across sectors.

Our nation’s medical schools and higher education and training institutions are essential to the UHC journey in their support of South African’s human resources for health strategy. This strategy provides a foundation for advancing universal health coverage by ensuring healthcare professionals are appropriately trained to meet the demands of a redefined healthcare system.

These institutions play an instrumental role in building a workforce ready to support the NHI system. Lessons from our response to the recent COVID-19 pandemic have already shown us the power of unity; as we move forward, this spirit of collaboration between the public and private sectors will be crucial in shaping a resilient and inclusive healthcare system that can achieve UHC.

The NHI Act sets out to provide universal access to quality healthcare services, bridging disparities and delivering equitable access to essential services for all South Africans. However, the path to UHC is about more than access, it requires quality, efficiency, and sustainability across a restructured healthcare landscape.

Photo by Hush Naidoo Jade Photography on Unsplash

The government’s role here is pivotal – responsible leadership, resource allocation, and effective oversight are critical to building public confidence. This transition poses complex governance and constitutional challenges.

Implementing the NHI Act requires establishing new accountability mechanisms, redefining roles, and reassessing funding streams. Addressing these structural challenges – especially in under-resourced and underserved regions – demands both strategic mindset and practical capacity to adapt quickly to evolving needs.

Many of South Africa’s rural and township communities face significant shortages in healthcare resources and access to quality services. For NHI to succeed in these settings, dedicated efforts in providing adequate healthcare infrastructure and equipment, staffing, and strong governance and leadership are essential.

Achieving the ambitious goals of NHI without a solid foundation in governance and accountability would be a costly misstep. The success of NHI demands careful, evidence-based planning with clear goals and accountability.

This approach will require decades of commitment, with the understanding that universal healthcare frameworks often take generations to mature fully. NHI will not be a quick fix, but with meticulous preparation, it has the potential to become a sustainable, far-reaching health system intervention.  

Government planning must also account for the rapidly changing landscape of healthcare needs and technology. South Africa’s healthcare system must prepare not only for current demands but also for future challenges, including digital healthcare infrastructure and data security.

Protecting patient information and ensuring uninterrupted services is paramount in a digital age where data breaches are a constant risk. Recent experiences with cybersecurity issues in the National Health Laboratory Services underscore the importance of proactive measures in this domain.

The pandemic has taught us the power of unity in times of crisis. During COVID-19, South Africa’s public and private healthcare sectors demonstrated resilience, adaptability, and a shared commitment to public health. This partnership was instrumental in resource-sharing, patient care, and vaccine distribution.

It serves as a powerful reminder that as the NHI system is implemented over the next 10 to15 years, the system will benefit from a collaborative model where the expertise and resources of the private and public sectors complement each other in the public interest and wider community access.  

Collaboration between the public and private sectors must focus on expanding healthcare infrastructure, enhancing service delivery in underserved areas, and integrating innovative technologies for more efficient patient care. By working together, public and private sectors can foster a healthcare environment that maximises strengths and mitigates gaps in service. 

To sustain the implementation of the NHI system, South Africa needs healthcare professionals equipped to handle both the scope and scale of this vision. Medical and health professions education must adapt and evolve to meet these challenges, training future healthcare providers not only in clinical skills but also in adaptability, empathy, and resilience.

At Nelson Mandela University’s Faculty of Health Sciences, we prioritise these qualities, embedding community-based learning and problem-solving into our curriculum to prepare graduates for a diverse and demanding healthcare landscape.

Students experience firsthand the disparities within South Africa’s healthcare system, and this allows our students to develop the necessary understanding of the realities their future patients face.

Our programme equips them to work in a wide array of settings – from rural clinics with limited resources to state-of-the-art urban facilities. This holistic training ensures our graduates are capable of addressing the multifaceted healthcare challenges with the empathy and innovation necessary to serve our communities across South Africa.

The journey toward UHC and the implementation of NHI system is both inspiring and challenging. It is a bold declaration of South Africa’s commitment to affordable universal access to quality health care services, healthcare equity – and must be approached with open eyes and a steady hand.

Our success will depend on a combination of strategic planning, effective governance, and a commitment to collaboration across sectors.

South Africa has a unique opportunity to build a healthcare system that is equitable and resilient. By prioritising these foundational steps, we can pave the way for a healthcare system that genuinely serves all South Africans, one that fulfils the promise of our constitution and reflects the spirit of our democracy. The future of our healthcare system is within our hands, but only if we approach it with responsibility, collaboration, and a deep commitment to the well-being of all our people.

It will be an intensely proud South African moment when we graduate our first 45 Mandela Doctors from our medical school in 2026! As South Africans, we also want to be proudly South African about the health system we build for and with our people. 

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags : Leave a comment

The NHI Act: a Flawed Execution of a Laudable Idea

On By ModernMedia

By Prelisha Singh, Partner, Martin Versfeld, Partner and Alexandra Rees, Senior Associate, Webber Wentzel

Robust contestation on how to best fulfil the fundamental rights of South Africans complements and strengthens our constitutional democracy. Recent debate has centred on the effective realisation of the right to access healthcare, which the state is required progressively to realise for all South Africans, irrespective of their background and income.

The right to access healthcare came into sharp focus on 15 May 2024, when President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law, prompting the initiation of constitutional challenges by concerned stakeholders. The most recent of these was filed on 1 October 2024 in the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria by the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF), represented by Webber Wentzel.

According to the government, the NHI Act is intended to generate efficiency, affordability and quality for the benefit of South Africa’s healthcare sector.

An assessment of South Africa’s current healthcare landscape shows a stark difference between private and public healthcare. The country has a high quality, effective private healthcare offering. However, it is currently inaccessible to the many South Africans who cannot afford private care or medical aid payments. Public healthcare, on the other hand, is understaffed, poorly managed and plagued by maladministration and limited facilities.

The NHI Act has been positioned as the vehicle to address this disparity and a desire to take steps towards achieving universal healthcare in South Africa. But a closer reading of the Act highlights numerous problems with its content and implementation design. The absence of clarity, detail or guidance contained in the Act makes it impossible to assess how the Act will actually be implemented (or, by extension, what the effects of this implementation will be).

This is particularly concerning given that years have passed since the economic assessments, on which the Act was based, were undertaken. Also problematic is the apparent lack of consideration given by the government to submissions made by affected stakeholders during multiple rounds of constitutionally required public participation.

SAPPF underscores these deficits in seeking both to have the President’s decision to assent to the Act reviewed and set aside, and the Act itself declared unconstitutional.

President Ramaphosa was obliged, in terms of sections 79 and 84(2)(a) to (c) of the Constitution, not to assent to the Act in its current form. Section 79 requires the President to refer back to Parliament any bill that he or she believes may lack constitutionality. In this case, it is difficult to conceive how the President, or any reasonable person in the President’s position could not have had doubts regarding the constitutionality of the NHI Bill. The decision by the President to sign unconstitutional legislation into law, instead of referring it back to Parliament for correction, is also irrational.

The President’s duty properly to have referred the NHI Bill back to Parliament is affirmed by the fact that the President is enjoined, by section 7(2) of the Constitution, to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.

SAPPF’s application demonstrates that the NHI Act, in its current form, infringes upon the rights to access healthcare services, to practice a trade, and to own property. Patients, including those using private healthcare, will be forced to use a public healthcare system that currently fails to meet its key constituents’ needs. Practitioners’ rights to freedom of trade and profession will be infringed upon, and the property rights of medical schemes, practitioners, and financial providers will be unjustifiably limited.

On its current text, the Act could make South Africa the only open and democratic jurisdiction worldwide to impose a national health system that excludes by legislation private healthcare cover for those services offered by the state – notwithstanding the level or quality of case.

Concerns regarding the rights infringements in the NHI Act are exacerbated by its lack of clarity and the fact that crucial aspects of its implementation are relegated to regulations, with no clear guidance provided in the Act itself.

For example, section 49 provides that the NHI will be funded by money appropriated by Parliament, from the general tax revenue, payroll tax, and surcharge to personal tax. However, this stance does not reconcile with section 2, which provides that the NHI will be funded through ‘mandatory prepayment’, a compulsory payment for health services in accordance with income level. Crucially, the extent of the benefits covered by the NHI’s funding mechanism and its rate of reimbursement, which impact affordability and the provision of quality healthcare, remain unknown.

The Act is, at best, a skeleton framework, seemingly assented to in haste. It is conceptually vague to the extent that the rights it seeks to promote will, in fact, be infringed if implemented. This renders the Act irrational, in addition to its other constitutional defects.

The NHI Act represents a radical shift of unprecedented magnitude in the South African health care landscape. This should be – and is required to be – underpinned by meaningful public participation, up-to-date socio-economic impact assessments and affordability analyses and final provisions that provide a clear and workable framework for implementation.

It is not sufficient for these vital issues to be addressed after the fact. Further engagements with stakeholders and the solicitation of proposals by the government cannot be used to splint broken laws. Collaborative engagement, including the solicitation of inputs for meaningful consideration, should take place during the law-making process, not after its conclusion.

A shift of the magnitude proposed by the Act, absent compliance with the structures of the law-making process and adherence by the state to constitutional standards, including rights protections, would be detrimental to the entire healthcare sector – public and private – and not in the best interests of patients and practitioners.

Notwithstanding the legal contestation surrounding the Act, it and the laudable goals underlying it can also be a watershed. The achievement of universal health coverage is an opportunity for the different stakeholders in South Africa’s healthcare system to meaningfully collaborate and inform well-supported, factually informed, rational and genuinely progressive legislative steps by the state.

Given the questions surrounding the Act and the evident need it seeks to address, the space exists for healthcare stakeholders to align around shared goals and values. They can leverage their available resources to design a healthcare system that serves all of South Africa’s people fairly and equitably, using the significant existing resources invested in the country’s healthcare sector.

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

NHI Offers an Opportunity to Boost Primary Healthcare – We Must Seize it

On By ModernMedia

By Russell Rensburg

To see National Health Insurance primarily as the setting up of a state-run medical aid scheme risks underplaying its massive potential to restructure how public healthcare services are organised and funded, and with that, its potential to boost the delivery of primary healthcare services in South Africa, argues Russell Rensburg.

It has been 30 years since South Africa emerged from centuries long racial suppression and state-sponsored apartheid and took her place among the community of sovereign, democratic nations. In 1996, we adopted the final Constitution, in which we committed to addressing the injustices of the past and building a society based on social justice and human dignity. That promise is carried through in the Bill of Rights, which under Section 27 includes the right to healthcare, food, and social assistance. The right to access healthcare services, like many socio-economic rights, is subject to the state taking reasonable legislative and other measures within available resources to progressively realise the right.

Pursuant to this, the National Health Act, which provides the framework for a structured uniform health system within the country, was adopted in 2003. The Act assigns the minister of health the obligation to ensure the provision of essential health services, which must include primary healthcare services. But, to date, no health minister has published regulations that define the exact scope of essential health services, nor has a framework been offered for the development of a defined package of care to be provided within the resources available.

The result is that, despite significant investments in public funded healthcare, the system and the services it provides has largely been shaped by existing infrastructure inequity. Put differently, health investments have typically gone where the infrastructure exists, rather than being guided by providing a defined package of primary healthcare services in all the places where it is most needed.

In the near term, the health system faces several immediate challenges. Per capita spending is declining. Spending is biased towards hospitals, with 42% of the national health budget spent on central and provincial hospitals. Another problem is that health service planning and budgets do not sufficiently account for our changing demographic profile –  life expectancy has increased and we have a growing population of young people.

The National Health Insurance (NHI) Act is an attempt to address this through the establishment of the national health insurance fund, which initially will be the only purchaser of public sector healthcare services. Broadly, the NHI aims to pool funds to provide access to good quality, affordable healthcare services for all South Africans and certain foreign nationals, based on their health needs and irrespective of their socio-economic status.

This shift marks a substantial change from the existing setup, where 85% of the national health budget is allocated at the provincial level. In South Africa, the share provinces get of the national budget is largely determined by the equitable share formula. The health component of the formula includes a number of variables to account for healthcare need, including premature mortality (as a proxy for unmet need ), multi index deprivation (to account for social determinants of health such as poverty ), income, housing, and measures of sparsity (to account for rurality). But the biggest driver of funding is historical utilisation, which shapes resource allocation at the provincial level. The result is that the funding is overly focused on providing care under the existing systems, rather than progressively expanding access to healthcare, and boosting access to primary care in particular.

In short, NHI represents a major shift away from this paradigm by which provinces receive healthcare funds via the equitable share and based on historic spending.

How it will work

Under NHI, the public sector will budget according to level of care, initially prioritising the district health system through the establishment of district health management offices. These offices will support contracting units for primary care, which will comprise a district hospital, community health centres , primary healthcare clinics, and ward based outreach teams as well as provisions for integrated practice comprising GPs, pharmacists, dentists, and rehab professionals (occupational health, physiotherapy, and speech therapy). The district health management offices will be responsible for the achievement of health outcomes in districts.

In theory, this will allow for healthcare priorities to be shaped at the district level and for services to be more responsive to the healthcare needs of communities. For example, a district like OR Tambo could prioritise more resources towards addressing maternal mortality by expanding ante-natal services or developing responses to address the health access gaps for older people in rural areas. In urban districts, like the City of Johannesburg, it could prioritise expanding access to reproductive health services by contracting in private health providers who are better placed to respond to the needs of working women. Ultimately, such a shift to a more responsive and more localised health system could also help increase uptake of TB and HIV prevention and treatment services across the board.

How to get the ball rolling

Reorientating our health system towards primary healthcare will be a difficult and time-consuming process, given the complex nature of health systems. But, there are things we can do right away to get things moving. We don’t have to wait for full implementation of NHI.

The current District Health Programme Grant can be expanded to enable provinces to increase primary healthcare services. The grant currently focuses on resourcing the country’s response to HIV, which seems to have reached a plateau with fewer people initiated on treatment. Contracting in private providers using this grant could improve service accessibility for testing, reproductive health services and routine healthcare for the working poor. Indeed, contracting in non-state healthcare providers, such as healthcare NGOs, pharmacies, and GPs, can significantly improve the patient experience and help build the public trust that is needed for NHI. As we repurpose the District Health Programme Grant, we can also start building the systems we will need for the district health management offices envisaged under NHI, thus helping to ease the transition when it comes.

The biggest immediate opportunity however lies in improving the accessibility and acceptability of district health services for the working poor. A study by the Bureau of Market Research at UNISA estimated that around 75% of working people in South Africa earn less than R6 000 a month. The current structure of publicly funded primary healthcare services do not respond to their routine needs, which include accessing family planning, seeing a GP when ill, a dentist to address oral health issues or access to rehab services. Apart from meeting the needs of these people, expanding service points, particularly in urban areas, can also improve disease surveillance through increased testing, and increased uptake of HIV prevention and treatment services.

There are more areas where we can make progress now that will ease the transition to NHI. For example, the current National Tertiary Services Grant, with an allocation of R15 billion, can be used to support a deep dive into what services our hospitals offer, what resources they are allocated and why, and how all of that lines up with the health need in our districts. The data isn’t currently there to really know whether we are getting value for money from our public hospitals. As with primary care, we need to get a clearer understanding of the need and start re-engineering the system so that we are in a better position to meet that need as we start implementing NHI.

Ultimately then, it is limiting to think of NHI exclusively as the establishment of a state-run medical aid scheme – as it is often portrayed in the media. A public discourse dominated by debates over the future of medical schemes risks obscuring the substantial potential NHI offers for improving and restructuring how public health services are organised and funded. The reality is that with NHI, we have an opportunity to shift the focus of our healthcare system toward primary healthcare and in the process to make our health system much more efficient and equitable. It is imperative that we do whatever is needed to deliver on that potential.

*Rensburg is Director of the Rural Health Advocacy Project.

Note: Spotlight aims to deepen public understanding of important health issues by publishing a variety of views on its opinion pages. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily shared by the Spotlight editors.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical IndustryTags :

NHI Act Offers no Answer to High Medicines Prices

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Gustavo Fring:

By Fatima Hassan

The National Health Insurance Act does not deal with the systemic issues that cause high prices and inequity in medicine access, and government is not listening, argues Fatima Hassan.

As the department of health lunges forward with implementing a system of National Health Insurance (NHI), with business and other interests trying to thwart that, what lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic can help us to ensure health equity for all – for both users of the public and private health sectors?

A few key themes come to mind: market power, secrecy, transparency, accountability, timely access, and affordability.

COVID’s lessons

The human cost of COVID-19 globally was at least fourteen million people who died in just two years. In South Africa, COVID was the leading cause of death in 2020 and 2021, outstripping deaths due to other diseases in those years.

To mitigate the COVID pandemic and to move forward, we needed vaccines. Then, the creed of intellectual property fundamentalism preached to us by the ultra-wealthy and by pharmaceutical corporations was to tell us to monopolise and privatise the manufacture and supply of publicly created vaccines and medicines, while relying on voluntary market measures – not effective regulation or compulsory measures – to ensure access. That creed failed us.

At the time, agreements with private manufacturers for the supply of vaccines were entered into, and at the request of a very powerful industry, treated as a secret. The Health Justice Initiative (HJI) litigated to compel disclosure, and we won.

Our analysis showed a set of one-sided terms, including conditions that required Non-Disclosure Agreements with significant advance payments without legal obligations on suppliers in terms of delivery volumes or dates. The contracts provided sweeping indemnity terms, limits on international redistribution/donations, and overly broad intellectual property protections. We also found that in several instances, South Africa overpaid for vaccines compared to higher middle income countries.

Where we live

We live in a country with worsening health outcomes, a high burden of HIV and TB, and alarmingly high levels of gender-based violence.

Politically, we have had multiple health ministers in the space of just five years – even during a pandemic – due in part to corruption allegations and now, a new Government of National Unity (GNU). We have an unaccountable rotating door system for appointing ministers, deputy ministers, and health Portfolio Committee members, seriously blurring the Legislature’s oversight function. This is not good governance.

We have outstanding laws and regulations that could address some of the “now” issues but which are not being prioritised. For example, we are still subject to an apartheid-era Patent Law that is deferential to patent seekers, resulting in over patenting or evergreening. Vested interests, we believe, are blocking key amendments that would limit patent protection in favour of the public interest.

We do not have a robust local, properly state-subsidised health manufacturing industry in South Africa, often making us reliant on external manufacturers. We have xenophobia seeping into our health system, where patients have been attacked in state hospitals because of their nationality.

And on top of all of that, we have growing reports not just of provincial health product stockouts but also reports of widespread health sector tender corruption, and targeted assassinations of whistleblowers. Finally, given, among other things, our outdated patent system and inability to reign in medicine prices, our medicine costs are astronomical, needlessly (even when compared to other BRICS countries).

The NHI as the GNU’s test (and ours)

It is in this context, that even before the 2024 national elections, NHI has become a lightning rod of disagreement even within the GNU, including for business, creating a hostile climate for civic engagement. Sadly, the political gamesmanship over NHI especially at the Executive level, is coming across as unaccountable, arrogant, and non-engaging. This will not build our health system. In this debate, government has rarely admitted it made any mistakes so that is why it was surprising that in a recent Bhekisisa interview, the health minister conceded that restricting NHI basic health services (so non-emergency care) to South African ID holders may be self-defeating for public health. He said that that is a “mistake” that needs to be “rectified” in the NHI Act.

NHI and state-led procurement

The NHI Act envisages a single state procurement entity for all health products for NHI users (as selected by a benefits committee). In theory, this should provide greater negotiating power and leverage.

With the lessons of COVID and more recently Mpox, we can expect that may not be so. Even under NHI, there will be a scramble for much needed supplies, where South Africa will have to compete on the international market for often scarce and high priced supplies.

Thus, addressing the pharmaceutical industry’s power, and by virtue of that, the global and local medicine patent (reward) system and its abuse matters – but we need to do it now, not incrementally or at some later or undefined point.

For the NHI to financially sustain itself (and assuming here for a moment that it has sufficient funds to begin with), it will have to either overthrow or better regulate the current medicine over-patenting and pricing transparency system to survive, failing which, NHI money could dry up just on health products and medicine costs alone.

At present, South Africa on average pays more for medicines than comparator countries. Business is eerily silent about this aspect in its critique of NHI. Since medical schemes will continue to operate under NHI for some time, one would expect greater concern about the disproportionate use of scheme members’ resources in this respect too, from business.

On top of this, under an apartheid era drafted law (the Patents Act), South Africa is still also doling out patents allowing companies to evergreen their patents on several essential medicines including for TB and HIV, and cancer with limited regulatory and legal repercussions.

While the HJI vaccine procurement judgment should be having far-reaching implications, not just for the next set of pandemic procurement negotiations, but also for substantial state-led procurement due to take place under NHI, we would be naïve to think that the industry and powerful global and local actors in the pharmaceutical sector will change its ways for the better just because South Africa is implementing NHI.

The NHI, we are told, will be based on the principles of “universality and social solidarity” and will “unify” our health system. Yet, if we focus on just one aspect included in the Act – the medicine access system – it is a far cry from the promised system of unification. This is because it is drafted in a way that by our count and reading, creates at least four medicine access systems, operating in parallel (NHI for NHI users; Medical Schemes for scheme beneficiaries – while schemes are permitted to operate under NHI (could be decades); complementary cover via insurance coverage for NHI users; over the counter via out of pocket payments/insurance coverage for non-NHI users such as foreign workers, foreign students, resident non-nationals, etc.).

Either way, for all of its admirable “equity” intent, NHI in South Africa will be fully dependent on the global medicines access market whether we like it or not because we are not operating in a neutral, access friendly global system. Nor are we operating in a context where the executive has any real, public, and committed plan to drive down medicine prices before or while NHI is implemented – and without business interests interfering in the execution – it is leaving that totally to the market, to whimsical unenforceable donations and voluntary business conduct. That is not sustainable.

The President is fully aware of how the latter affected our vaccine access and procurement strategy and costs in the COVID-19 pandemic. What is he going to do about it?

NHI and “top-ups”

Under NHI, the Act will allow top-up products and complementary cover via insurance offerings to presumably fill the gap for those health products, services or medicines that the state may not select or include in the NHI Formulary because of affordability constraints. So how will those complementary cover products and medicines be priced and regulated? Will the current imperfect and expensive system, called the Single Exit Price System, for non-state medicines be used?

Imperfect, because in South Africa, public sector medicines prices are largely determined by the bids companies submit in response to advertised government tenders. In the private sector, companies are free to launch a medicine at any price, although once launched, annual price increases are regulated – so that every drug in the private sector has a single exit price. In rare cases, excessively high medicine prices have been challenged using competition law, but this is the exception.

There have been moves toward reference pricing – where maximum prices for specific medicines would be determined by reference to prices for that medicine in a basket of other comparable countries – but none of several rounds of regulations proposing such a system have been implemented, mainly because pharmaceutical companies usually litigate against the state to prevent it from implementing such a comparator system – in other words, like elsewhere, while we face exorbitant medicine costs, we also face powerful corporate lobbies that do not want proper transparent systems for setting medicines prices. This only serves a profiteering agenda.

NHI and medicine access questions

Just on the narrow point of medicine access under NHI there are critical issues that need to be clarified. They include the following:

  • Whether we can be guaranteed transparency and information, including about the deliberations of the various NHI ministerial advisory, benefit and selection committees, and procurement structures under the NHI – or will we have to litigate every access to information request, as we did in COVID?
  • How will the NHI Fund (Office of Health Products Procurement) negotiate with the global pharmaceutical industry without, for example, the bullying we witnessed in the COVID-19 pandemic?
  • And specifically for medicines and health products:
    • Will manufacturers be permitted to sell to health providers other than the state? If so, how will this be done, and how will the maximum price be determined or regulated?
    • Which medicines and health products will be covered under NHI benefits as part of the NHI Formulary and how will the price of those not covered (top-ups/complementary cover) be regulated?
    • What role will the current private sector pricing system play including the single exit price system – and how and when will it be amended?

As our country pushes ahead with the NHI, there are some immediate concerns like these that we believe will affect implementation.

Of course, we all support the vision of a unified, equitable health system. But aspirations aside, the NHI Act does not deal with the systemic issues that cause high prices and inequity in access. Instead of investing effort into systems that control prices better at the outset, it is investing in systems to deal with the consequences of unaffordable drugs, hoping for self-correction, all while deferring to powerful vested interests including business lobbies that have the President on speed dial.

Regulatory bodies and civil society actors can only take on the tip of the medicine pricing iceberg – the question to the President is, while the Executive dithers on amending keys laws including the Patents Act, under NHI: who exactly will fight for every single patient and for every single medicine?

Since the NHI Bill was signed into law, the President (and his Cabinet) are now duty bound to take constitutional steps to remedy the deficiencies in the NHI Act, and at the very least, to listen to all sectors, not just business.

*Hassan is director of the Health Justice Initiative. This piece is drawn from her key note address at the 2024  Annual David Sanders Lecture in Public Health and Social Justice hosted by the University of Western Cape’s School of Public Health and Peoples Health Movement South Africa.

Note: Spotlight aims to deepen public understanding of important health issues by publishing a variety of views on its opinion pages. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily shared by the Spotlight editors.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Mandatory Health Insurance for SA is an ‘Upgrade’ on NHI, Proponents Say

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Hush Naidoo Jade Photography on Unsplash

By Chris Bateman

The idea of mandatory medical scheme coverage for employed people has made a comeback after the case for it was made at a recent conference. The policy move was previously on the cards in South Africa but faded after the ANC opted for National Health Insurance (NHI) at its 2007 national congress where Jacob Zuma was elected as the party’s new leader. Chris Bateman unpacks how a system with mandatory medical scheme membership for the employed might work and asked local experts whether it represents a viable alternative to government’s NHI plans.

A vigorous public debate has ensued since outgoing Netcare CEO, Dr Richard Friedland, on behalf of the Hospital Association of South Africa (HASA) delivered a strongly argued case for a return to what he described as the original ANC healthcare plan. He was speaking on “Viable and Near-term Opportunities to Providing Enhanced Healthcare in South Africa,” at HASA’s annual conference in Sandton held early in September.

Since then, the leadership of Business Unity SA (BUSA) met with President Cyril Ramaphosa and Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, and his deputy and other senior officials, in mid-September to discuss “matters of concern” related to the NHI. The President requested BUSA to put forward specific proposals on “the remaining matters of concern” as a basis for re-engagement.

Some observers have suggested to Spotlight that these consultations are a first sign of government openness to changing or tweaking its NHI plans. But whether this means the door is actually open for a system of mandatory health insurance, or for mandatory health insurance as a stepping-stone toward NHI, is still unclear.

The NHI Act, that was signed into law by Ramaphosa in May, envisages a single-payer system where medical schemes are only allowed to cover health services that are not covered by the NHI fund.

How mandatory health insurance would work

Under mandatory health insurance, everyone who is in formal employment, or who earns above a certain threshold, would be forced by law to be a member of a medical scheme. This will result in medical scheme membership swelling substantially and some pressure being taken off the public healthcare system. It is also expected to result in medical scheme premiums being reduced because more healthy, younger people will join the schemes. People who are unemployed or who cannot afford health insurance will still be dependent on the public healthcare system.

Friedland said such mandatory healthcare insurance will triple the medical scheme market from 9.2 million to potentially 27.5 million beneficiaries over time and reduce those dependent on the state from 53.8 million to 35.5 million. In so doing, it would boost public healthcare per capita spending by 52%, (from R5 054 to R7 659), without any additional funding of the public sector budget, alleviate the strain on public hospitals and clinics, shorten waiting lists, and free up money to hire more staff and improve infrastructure. He said it is a “far faster and more efficient tool” for achieving health equity.

Responding to the counter argument that a mandatory health insurance system would entrench existing health inequalities, Professor Alex van den Heever, Chair of Social Security Systems Administration and Management Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand, said the opposite is true. “It accelerates convergence between the two systems faster than the NHI proposals,” he told Spotlight.

The relief for people who can afford medical scheme cover could also be significant. Friedland said mandatory medical scheme membership would bring more young and healthy people into the system, thus reducing the cost of monthly premiums by 25% to 30%.

Mandatory contribution schemes for civil servants have been implemented in more than half of the countries in Africa, while Thailand and many other Asian countries have started with mandatory cover for the formal sector before expanding to the non-formal sector. Such systems with what amounts to many medical schemes, rather than a single large fund, are also in place in several European countries, including the Netherlands and Germany.

Not a new idea

Mandatory health insurance, or an expanded role for medical schemes, are by no means new ideas in South Africa. Friedland told Spotlight that the ANC government’s own broad ranging 2002 inquiry into the various social security aspects of the South African health system concluded that national health insurance or the complete nationalisation of the private sector, could not be seriously considered as a reasonable option. (The inquiry itself was based on the Health Subcommittee Findings of the Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security.)

That 2002 report concluded: “National health insurance is not an option that emerges overnight as an alternative to social health insurance. Instead, it becomes feasible within market economies where formal employment levels are high. Prior to this, mixed systems are inevitable.”

One indication of how committed government was to such a mixed system with an expanded role for medical schemes in the early and mid-2000s, is the fact that the legislative framework to enable the expansion of medical scheme coverage was incorporated into the 2008 Medical Schemes Amendment Bill. That bill did not go as far as making scheme membership mandatory, but a mandatory system was clearly a next step on the reform agenda, as outlined in the very wide-ranging 2002 Taylor report on social security in South Africa. But presumably because of the NHI proposals, the 2008 amendments were allowed to lapse – and the scaffolding for a progressive expansion of medical scheme coverage collapsed.

There have since been several committees of inquiry and technical processes that validated an ongoing role for medical schemes, of which the Competition Commission’s Health Market Inquiry (HMI), that ran for five years (2014 to 2019), was the most technically detailed, consultative and authoritative. The HMI report did not recommend that medical scheme membership be made mandatory for people who are employed, but it did recommend a continued role for medical schemes and suggested that the most viable path to NHI may well involve first fixing the regulation of medical schemes.

Van den Heever said South Africa needs to quickly return to the pre-2008 reform trajectory to help stabilise the health system, “before more harm is done”. Government needs to summon up the political will to address the systemic governance failures of the public health system, removing the “bad actors and provincial cabals” that were destroying the integrity of South Africa’s free public health services, he added.

Better regulation also needed

For a system of mandatory health insurance to work, medical schemes will have to be more effectively regulated. Here the HMI report found that government had dropped the ball. It attributed the private health market failure and rampant medical inflation directly to government neglecting to regulate the private healthcare industry.

Health actuarial consultant, Barry Childs, joint CEO of Insight Actuaries and Consultants, told Spotlight private healthcare sector reforms urged by the HMI were ignored, resulting in ongoing confusion, high costs, complicated products and waste, among other problems. “Our incomplete medical scheme regulation keeps costs up, (for example anti selection, Prescribed Minimum Benefits), with benefits out of reach of most. We still don’t have a proper framework for lower cost-lower benefit products for those who cannot afford medical schemes,” he said.

The HMI report recommended a framework that went “way beyond naïve approaches to price control”, said Van den Heever, and addressed the powerful incentive structures driving unproductive forms of competition. In addition, he said, the industry-wide pooling approaches (risk equalisation and social reinsurance) followed international best practice and fully addressed issues of pooling fragmentation.

In the five years since the publication of the Commission’s HMI report, none of its major recommendations have been implemented.

Jobs and taxes

One common thread running back to the 2002 report, is the idea that South Africa is not economically ready for NHI and that a mixed system, possibly with mandatory health insurance, is more compatible with the current realities of high unemployment and a relatively small tax base.

“The root cause of inequity and inequality is not just a new form of apartheid. The real reason is the catastrophic level of unemployment. Until we address that, we will not solve an entire range of inequities, including food security, housing, education, and healthcare,” said Friedland.

On joblessness, Childs said South Africa was on track with the rest of the world’s growth up to 2008 but thereafter flat lined for over a decade. “We have dramatically underperformed the rest of the world and our peer group of middle-income countries in long term economic growth.”

In South Africa, unemployment is at an extremely high 33.5%, while in 2002 it was at 26%.

“If an NHI was unaffordable in 2002, how much more so is it today?” Friedland asked. He said that in this context, strong partnership, collaboration, and co-operation between the public and private sector is needed to bridge the polarisation that has arisen.

Analysis commissioned by BUSA found that raising the extra R200bn the health department says it needs to fund NHI would entail unrealistic and unaffordable tax hikes. It would either increase personal income tax by 31%, push VAT from 15% to 21.5%, or require the collection of a payroll tax of R1 565 per month from everyone in formal employment.

Van den Heever said that while government has a discretion to increase tax rates to any level it chooses, it cannot control the resulting amount of funds raised. He said that once tax capacity is reached, a hard ceiling on government revenue results at any given level of economic growth. The only way to grow revenues thereafter is through economic growth, failing which, revenues stagnate beyond government control.

The “big idea”, he said, was that new taxes would fund the move of medical scheme members to the public sector, in the form of a single NHI Fund, such that both public sector and medical scheme populations were covered in the same system – with net gains in coverage for both.

However, contrary to what was “correctly understood” from 1994 to the 2002 Taylor Commission, “the maths for such an approach, just does not add up”, said Van den Heever.

“The fastest way to de-segment the system is to allocate all new government revenues arising from economic growth to the people who need it most. This is not what the NHI proposals envisage. They want to dilute the public spend by trying to cover higher income groups. It is dangerous magical thinking that allows government to avoid dealing with the complex problems of the health system. Government needs to get back to its day job and do the heavy lifting needed to get our health system working again.”

Government response

Spotlight shared an earlier draft of this article with the National Department of Health for comment. While the department did not comment directly on mandatory health insurance, Foster Mohale, the department’s Director of Communications, emphatically reiterated their support for NHI and the NHI Act that was signed into law in May.

“There is no better time than now to reform South Africa’s health system. It is time to do away with the apartheid type of health system, and to reconfigure it into one that ensures that every South African gets the health care that they need, when they need, where they need and without incurring financial hardship. With the enactment of the NHI Act, the time for piecemeal approaches that retain benefits for the few and leave the majority to the whims of the market is no more,” Mohale told Spotlight.

He said that many countries, including Japan and the United Kingdom, have implemented health system reforms directed at achieving universal health coverage during times of crisis and low economic growth. “Therefore, to say that South Africa must sit and wait for some oracle numbers to emerge before instituting NHI is merely to argue that we must consciously let those that are carving profits and dividends from the anomalies that characterise our health system to continue. This is an irresponsible position that the Department cannot adopt as health is a constitutionally enshrined right for every South African, not just a privileged few,” he said.

On the questions of taxes, Mohale said: “We will not delve into the projected tax implications because we believe this is a matter that squarely falls under the purview of the National Treasury and the Minister of Finance. Suffice to say at the right time, and after necessary deliberations through formal government structures and processes, any information relating to this will be communicated to the public for comments prior to finalisation.”

Note: The 2002 Tailor report titled ‘Transforming the present – Protecting the future’ is not readily available online. There is this PDF version (unfortunately not searchable and with poor accessibility). For ease of use, we have created a Word version of the document that you can access here. Health is discussed in chapter 8.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Demand for Transparency Intensifies as Unanswered Questions around NHI Act Persist

On By ModernMedia

Craig Comrie, chairperson of the Health Funders Association

Wednesday, 25 September 2024, The passage of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill into an Act of law has set the stage for one of the most significant overhauls of South Africa’s healthcare system. As the government embarks on this ambitious plan, the stakes have never been higher. The NHI Act is more than a mere piece of legislation; it stands as a test of constitutional rights and the nation’s commitment to fostering a more inclusive and equitable society.

The Health Funders Association (HFA) welcomes the meeting between President Cyril Ramaphosa and Business Unity South Africa (BUSA) leadership on Tuesday, 17 September, to discuss the NHI as a positive step.

As a member of BUSA, we find it encouraging that the Minister and Deputy Minister of Health, along with other senior officials, were part of this constructive and forward-looking discussion. We can only hope that these recent discussions will mark the start of a series of engagements with key stakeholders, as the South African government must engage in open dialogue with all stakeholders, including private healthcare providers, medical schemes, and the general public. HFA will provide industry input to BUSA’s presentation to the President to help propose workable solutions to set South Africa’s healthcare train on the right track with inclusive mechanisms that will benefit all.

Constitutional rights and freedom of choice

The critical questions about the Act’s constitutional validity, economic feasibility, and potential impact on both public and private healthcare sectors, specifically the role of medical schemes, remain unanswered.

Recently, during a Q&A session, the President reaffirmed his belief that the Act is constitutionally sound but he declined to share specifics on how this conclusion was reached. In response, the Health Funders Association (HFA) will test various aspects of the NHI’s constitutionality, which is crucial for establishing a stable healthcare framework that delivers quality health services for all South Africans.

This is a critical juncture for politicians, policymakers and every South African who relies on the nation’s healthcare services – private and public sectors alike. Against this background, the HFA is seeking to strike a balance between much-needed healthcare reforms and the hard-hitting risks of the NHI Act that demand amendments.

Government has been adamant about the NHI’s transformative potential to address inequalities in healthcare access, contending that the NHI is aligned with Section 27(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to access healthcare services, including reproductive healthcare.

On the other hand, this part of the Act cannot be read without the consideration of Section 36 which indicates that existing rights should not be compromised if there are alternative ways to achieve, in this case, universal health coverage. This is a key part of responding to the President’s invitation for alternative proposals that stand a more realistic chance of achieving a partnership with the private sector for improving healthcare for consumers.  

Any alternative proposals provided by the private sector will come with the need to amend the current. The Act, if left unchallenged in its current form, can be likened to letting the healthcare train run on a single track of public sector inefficiency. By adding the private sector as a parallel track – both heading in the same direction towards universal healthcare coverage, we can stabilise and accelerate the journey.

The medical scheme sector effectively provides funding to the majority of services in the private sector with less than 10% of health consumers paying for services out of pocket in the private sector. This population group serves a significant portion of the taxpaying population, yet its role in the new system remains ambiguous. Will private healthcare consumers be forced to rely solely on centrally procured services, or will there be room for a coexistence that stands a better chance of laying the track towards a successful healthcare future that can benefit all South Africans?

Transparency and collaboration are essential in addressing the questions surrounding the NHI’s financial viability, human resource capacity, and broader economic impact. The future of South Africa’s healthcare system hinges on finding a balanced approach that ensures quality, accessibility, and economic sustainability for all citizens.

The government proposes funding the NHI through general taxes and mandatory payroll contributions. However, this plan has been met with scepticism as it raises considerable questions about the economic burden on taxpayers, particularly given the country’s high unemployment rate of 33.5% and sluggish economic growth rates of around 0.4% in the second quarter of this year. Critics argue that increasing tax rates to fund the NHI could backfire, reducing overall tax revenue, as highlighted by the Laffer Curve, which suggests that higher taxes can lead to lower revenue if they exceed an optimal rate.

Where will the healthcare professionals come from?

The public healthcare sector faces its own set of challenges. Reports indicate that the quality of care in public health facilities is often subpar, with systemic inefficiencies and resource constraints leading to poor health outcomes. The sector is grappling with high vacancy rates for healthcare professionals, exacerbating the strain on an already overburdened system. As it is, South Africa is already facing a severe shortage of medical personnel, with the vacancy rate for doctors ranging from 22.4% in the Free State to 5.5% in the Western Cape, while the national average vacancy rate for nurses stands at 14.7%.

The current system is struggling to fill thousands of vacancies for doctors, nurses and allied healthcare professionals, with over 2 000 unfunded vacant posts for medical doctors across nine provinces requiring an estimated R2.4 billion to fill them. Many provinces report alarming doctor vacancy rates: 18.5% in Mpumalanga, 17.6% in Limpopo, and 11.3% in KwaZulu-Natal, among others. The shortage is not just a numbers game; it affects the quality of healthcare that can be delivered. These figures raise serious concerns about the system’s capacity to deliver reliable and accessible healthcare services hampered by corruption and lack of proper leadership and management.

We must consider the strain this places on those simply trying to cope with the current healthcare demand from a growing population. The NHI aims to provide universal health coverage, but where will the necessary healthcare professionals come from?

The way forward

The NHI is not the only solution to South Africa’s healthcare challenges and is certainly not a panacea in its current form. The government must take a more collaborative approach, engaging with all stakeholders, including the private healthcare sector, medical schemes and the general public. Open dialogue is crucial to finding sustainable solutions that work for everyone. Critical decisions must be made, and these should not be taken behind closed doors. The nation’s healthcare needs are too important to be dictated by a select few without broader consultation.

The government has a constitutional obligation to ensure every South African has access to quality healthcare services. However, this must not come at the expense of freedom of choice, job losses and economic stability.

I urge President Cyril Ramaphosa to protect the constitutional rights of all South Africans and engage in meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders. The future of South Africa’s healthcare system depends on our collective ability to find innovative and inclusive solutions.

Categories : HospitalsTags :

Hospital Association Tables Proposal for Enhanced Healthcare through a Viable Proven Solution

On By ModernMedia
Netcare Christiaan Barnard Memorial Hospital

Monday, 2 September – Johannesburg, South Africa

Mandatory health cover of formally employed is tried and tested and if put to use in South Africa could reduce the public health burden, increase public per capita spend on health, and free up resources that could help address the country’s most pressing health crises.

With widespread concern that the National Health Insurance Fund is unaffordable and will take too long to implement while most South Africans already struggle to access quality healthcare services, Netcare Chief Executive Office Dr Richard Friedland has raised the possibility of near-term solutions including an under-explored alternative.

Speaking at the Hospital Association of South Africa Conference in Sandton, he stated that private hospitals wish to work with government to find solutions to our country’s healthcare problems. He pointed to mandatory medical cover for the formally employed as a potential solution that has been well-researched over two decades and is a “workable solution that if implemented will be quick to roll out and in a very short time provide enhanced healthcare to all South Africans.”

Friedland pointed out that the African National Congress’ 1994 Health Plan recommended mandatory cover for the formally employed and the National Department of Health Social Health Insurance Working Group in 1997 recommended that mandatory cover for formal sector employees should be confined to those above the income tax threshold, due to affordability concerns.

What this all offers, explained Friedland, is a middle ground option. If the government mandates those South Africans who are formally employed together with their families to be covered by some form of health insurance or medical aid, “This will enable public health sector resources to be dedicated to the informally employed, unemployed and indigent.”

“With a formally employed population of 11.5 million, together with the estimated number of dependants, based on a 2.4 beneficiary ratio, this could result in up to 27.5 million of our population that could potentially over time become covered, leaving the remaining 35.5 (56% of the population) people dependent on public health resources,” Friedland said.

Government public health per capita spend, he said, could increase over time by 52% without any additional funding of the public sector budget.

“In simple terms, if one considered the entire population in South Africa, government’s responsibility would reduce from the current 85% of the population covered by public health to 56%,” he said.

The latest per capita public expenditure based on a consolidated health budget of R271 billion works out to R5054, when considering the population and excluding medical scheme users. With formal employment coverage, that per capita public expenditure on public health users would increase 52% to R7 659, research shows.

Friedland also told the audience that getting the scheme off the ground could be done in three phases.

Phase one would involve including the formally employed and their dependants who are above the tax threshold. This would grow the medical scheme coverage from 9,2 to 15,4 million. The completion of Phase 1 would also expand public per capita spend by 12,9% at present day levels.

Phase 2 would include those formally employed and dependents who are below the tax threshold. This would push medical scheme coverage to 27,5 million and expand public per capita spend to 52%.

Phase 3, Friedland explained, will allow for the expansion of the economy through recovery and an increase in employment.

This will have further benefits to South Africa’s health care system with research showing that for every one million formal jobs created, the public health system would benefit with a reduction of approximately 2.4 million people, it will no longer have to serve. Additionally, this will add a 7% increase from Phase 2 on per capita public health spend.

“The health system stands to benefit in more immediate and visceral ways. The reduced load on the public sector will result in a reduced burdens on doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers, will reduce overcrowding, shorten queues and free up funding to fix infrastructure, fund unfunded medical posts, and grow our medical skills training capacity – remember, we have a shortage of 27 000 nurses in South Africa, and this is expected to grow to 70 000 by 2030.

Not only is the idea not new, says Friedland, but similar approaches are adopted elsewhere. In Africa 61% of countries have contributory mandatory programmes for civil servants and 50% of them programmes for sector employees.

The private hospital sector, says Friedland, stands ready to explore this idea and others that result in lessening the load on the shoulders of all South Africans who need accessible quality healthcare today.

“We stand ready to collaborate on further system strengthening, to more private public partnerships, to addressing public sector elective surgery waiting lists, to joint efforts on human resource training collaboration,” he says.

Categories : CancerTags :

Breakthrough Collaboration between Public and Private Sectors Points the Way for National Health

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Anna Shvets

As debate rages around the feasible application of NHI on a national scale, seemingly ad infinitum, the escalating cancer crisis in South Africa underscores the need for immediate action on the ground. Recent reports shed light on the distressing reality that individuals diagnosed with cancer, dependent on an overburdened public health system, often face extended waiting periods or impossible distances that prevent them from accessing life-saving treatment.

Yet in the Northern Cape, a remarkable success story has quietly unfolded over the last five years, impacting the lives of hundreds of cancer patients and demonstrating that the way to bring better health to the public on a macro scale may be to focus on practical micro solutions that, once proven, can be replicated around the country.

It arises out of a collaboration between the Northern Cape Department of Health, Kimberley’s Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe Hospital and private sector oncology service provider, Icon Oncology, with the shared goal of delivering the best possible care for patients needing radiotherapy services – which were previously far from home.

Jennifer Fuller, Regional Manager for Icon Oncology explains: “The average radiotherapy treatment journey spans between two to six weeks. Previously, the profound socio-economic and psycho-social toll of Northern Cape patients traveling far from their homes and families was immeasurable. During this period there was no radiation facility in the province, so patients had to travel to Bloemfontein for treatment. We collaborated with the Department of Health to treat radiation patients here in the Northern Cape. The result is a true example of how government and the private sector can work together when there is a shared focus on patient outcomes.”

Today, the province provides transport from far-off areas for treatment at Icon’s radiotherapy facility in Kimberley. If needed, accommodation is provided by the RMS Hospital for the duration of the radiotherapy treatment, which can sometimes last for six weeks.

Watch the video on Icon Oncology’s success story in the Northern Cape

Since the implementation of the project in October 2019, 511 cancer patients have completed radiation treatment. Previously all these patients would have had to travel to Bloemfontein to receive treatment. 

“It’s a major success”, says Dr Alastair Kantani, Clinical Manager for hospital services in the Northern Cape. “It’s actually more than a success; it’s a lifesaving partnership. Personally, as a clinician, I’m proud of the fact that we, as a tertiary hospital, can give access to therapy services. Since this partnership, we’ve saved a lot of lives.”

Dr Esme Olivier, acting CEO of Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe Hospital says, “For me this collaboration between Icon and the Department of Health, specifically this hospital, is one of the best things that could happen for the sake of our oncology patients.”

“This is truly a complete collaboration” adds Fuller. “It shows that it can work – and I do believe that this can be replicated further into other provinces.”

Dr Olivier agrees: “I would really encourage every province to get involved with this. Even if they have their own radiation therapy units, just the collaboration and the expertise that Icon brings on board – they can even assist with nursing, whatever need there is that is not immediately available in public hospitals.”

Governance is key and monthly meetings are held between the two management teams to discuss patient experience, statistics, billing and other operational matters.

“This has resulted in continuous improvement of the project delivery over the past five years.  This sharing of responsibility has led to the development of a very strong relationship and the interdependence has meant both parties have worked hard to make sure it works,” says Dr Olivier.

How it works – the patient journey:

  • The patient journey starts at the tertiary state facility, Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe Hospital, where the resident oncologist will consult with the patient once diagnosed by a surgeon or radiologist.  If radiotherapy is indicated, the patient is referred to the Icon Radiotherapy unit in Kimberley.

  • A planning CT-scan is done by an Icon radiotherapist at Robert Magaliso Sobukwe Hospital
  • The treating oncologist and the Icon planning department, draws a plan on the CT-scan to determine the dose and area of radiotherapy that the patient will receive, using a sophisticated, state of the art planning system. The oncologist can access Icon’s planning system remotely and can do this work from anywhere.
  • This constitutes a 15 min radiotherapy session every day on Icon’s linear accelerator, until the required dose is delivered, and treatment is completed. 

“The Northern Cape initiative exemplifies the potential inherent in bridging the gap between public and private healthcare sectors. It showcases how collaboration can transcend obstacles and provide specialised healthcare services and treatment to all citizens. As the country grapples with the challenges and concerns raised by the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill, this collaborative achievement stands as a testament that the seemingly daunting task of implementing universal healthcare coverage can indeed be navigated. We must commend the vision of the Northern Cape DoH, management from the Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe Hospital and all other stakeholders who have made this project such a success,” explains Dr Ernst Marais, COO of Icon Oncology. 

“It is through collaborations like this one, that we excel in providing the best possible treatment to our patients. Like Hellen Keller said: ‘Alone we can do so little, but together we can do so much’,” concludes Dr Olivier.

Categories : Ethics and Law Medical IndustryTags :

High Court Ruling Strikes Down Key Part of NHI Act

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

A key part of the National Health Insurance Act is the requirement of private healthcare facilities to obtain a Certificate of Need (CON) in order to practise. Now it, this component has been struck down by a Pretoria High Court judge. Judge Anthony Millar struck down the Act’s key section, saying that it was “akin to an attempt to indenture the private medical service in the service of the state”.

The case had been brought by the Solidarity Trade Union, the Alliance of South African Practitioner Associations, the South African Private Practitioner Forum, the Hospitals Association of South Africa (HASA) and a number of healthcare providers and owners of healthcare establishments.

Sections 36 to 40 of the NHI Act would introduce a Certificate of Need (CON) scheme, essentially tying down doctors to a specified geographical location, which would be the only location where they could render their services.

It is declared that sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Insurance Act 61 of 2003 are invalid in their entirety and are consequently severed from the Act.

Judge Anthony Millar’s ruling

Any new healthcare facility would have to apply for a CON, which would be valid for 20 years. Existing facilities would have two years’ grace period to apply. This would applicable to hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and even to private rooms set up within the home of the practitioner. Operating without one would be a criminal offence – punishable with a fine, five years in prison or both.

It had been argued that because the regulations for CON had not been promulgated, the applicants’ argument was “hypothetical” and not “crystallized”. In Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Millar cited previous rulings and the constitutionality of the matter was still worth testing.

The CON scheme was extensive, Judge Millar noted, and would impact not only healthcare practitioners who worked in healthcare facilities and their employees, but also “juristic persons“, ie corporations or other organisations that can be legally liable.

Read the judgment here

‘A blunt instrument’

In terms of its constitutionality, the applicants’ argument was that, “at least six constitutional rights are infringed. They say it tramples on their rights including where they want to reside, send their children to school and the communities they belong to.”

Judge Millar noted, would mean that setting up a hospital was a hefty investment of R500 million or so, and there was no provision any support. Taken together with the 20-year CON validity, would serve to discourage private investment and became a “blunt instrument” with which the Director-General of Health could control private healthcare in the country.

Even though this provision was ostensibly to serve many, this could not come at the cost of individual freedoms, among them Section 22 of the Constitution which provided for the freedom to choose an occupation within the rule of law.

“The scheme is silent on the extant rights of both the owners of private health establishments, private healthcare service providers and private healthcare workers. Such extant right include their integration and professional reputations in the communities which they presently serve together with the significant financial investments and commitments made by them to be able to render the services that they do.”

Since health establishments are purpose-built and hard to convert for other use, this constitutes a de facto deprivation, he wrote.

“It does not behove government in pursuing transformation, to trample upon the rights of some ostensibly for the benefit of the many.”

‘Effective indenture’ of private healthcare

While the legal teams for President Cyril Ramaphosa, the minister of health, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, and the director-general of health, Dr Sandile Buthelezi, argued that the public healthcare sector was overburdened, Judge Millar replied that this amounted to the effective indenture of the private healthcare system.

Among other problems, contesting CON issuance was without recourse and by turning down a certificate the DG could essentially deprive the affected parties of income, as doing so would see them prosecuted under Section 40.

The ruling was welcomed by healthcare professional associations.

As reported in the Daily Maverick, Solidarity chief executive Dr Dirk Hermann said, “This judgment is a major blow to the total NHI [National Health Insurance] idea, as the principle of central management is a core pillar of the NHI Act itself. A more extensive consequence of this ruling with regard to the certificate of need is that parts of the NHI Act are now probably also illegal in principle.

“The NHI in its current format cannot be implemented as the essence of the NHI is central planning – and this has now been found unconstitutional.” 

In a statement, HASA said that it regretted that the matter had to come to court. “We would have preferred achieving the objective of a stronger health system through a negotiated and collaborative effort to increase the number of medical students and nurses in medical training facilities to address the healthcare system’s needs,” the association stated.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

SAHPRA Counters ‘Falsehoods’ Circulating over Its Draft B-BBEE Policy

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

In a press release, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has hit back over what it terms “unfounded fallacies and misrepresentation” that has been “churned out by some media organisations without verification” over its draft B-BBEE Policy.

SAHPRA states that this policy “is proposed in order to comply with requirements of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 53 of 2003, in particular Section 10(1)(a), which demands of all state entities to enact policy that can encourage inclusive economic participation.”

It states that the draft B-BBEE policy does not set “racial requirements” for the registration of medicines, as the first falsehood suggests, stating that it is not reflected in any of the documents.

The second falsehood is that “SAHPRA will use the B-BBEE to assess medicine registration applications and thus affect access to medicines”, which it says is a deliberate misrepresentation. The product registration processes “would continue to solely rely on the safety, quality, efficacy, and performance of the health products.”

The third falsehood is that the draft policy is aligned with NHI, seeking to exclude certain persons from state procurement. SAHPRA says that the policy is a move develop sector codes and/or criteria to comply with the B-BBEE Act, as has been done in other sectors of the economy.

SAHPRA states that the fourth and final falsehood is that the policy will deny participation by pharmaceutical SMEs as they may be unable to get B-BBEE certificates. The agency contends that compliance affidavits will be an acceptable alternative, and that in any case, the B-BBEE level of a business does not affect the medicines registration process – which will remain the case even after policy implementation.