Tag: private healthcare

In-depth | Will the Latest Private Health Reforms Bring Down Prices?

Photo by cottonbro studio

The government took its first steps towards the implementation of the recommendation of Health Market Inquiry into the private healthcare sector.

By Chris Bateman

Medical aid schemes will be given collective power to negotiate prices, according to draft regulations published last week. While some see the move as an important step toward reining in private healthcare prices, others argue that they do not go far enough and are legally unsound. We spoke to several leading experts about the proposed reforms.

Complaints about the high cost of private healthcare services in South Africa are nothing new. For the last two decades, above inflation increases to medical aid scheme premiums have been the norm. Added to this, many of the 16 or so percent of the population who are members of a scheme will have been asked to pay unexpected out-of-pocket co-payments at some point.

To understand why all this is happening, the Competition Commission launched a Health Market Inquiry (HMI) in 2014. The final HMI report, published in 2019, found that government had failed in its duty to regulate the private health sector, which it described as “neither efficient [nor] competitive”.

This failure in regulation has resulted in a private healthcare market that is “highly concentrated”, “characterised by high and rising costs of healthcare and medical scheme cover, and significant over utilisation without stakeholders being able to demonstrate associated improvements in health outcomes”, Justice Sandile Ngcobo, chairperson of the HMI panel, said at the time.

A key regulatory failure identified by the HMI  was the absence of any effective mechanisms to keep prices under control. Medical aid schemes would set a price that they would cover – but there is nothing stopping healthcare providers from charging much higher prices. This is particularly a problem for prescribed minimum benefits (PMBs) – a set of healthcare services that schemes have to cover in full.

The HMI recommended the establishment of a supply side regulatory authority (SSRA) that would be independent from both government and the private sector. Among others, the SSRA would set maximum tariffs for PMBs as well as reference tariffs for all other health services.

In September 2020, around a year after the HMI report was released, the Competition Commission published a notice that seemed to set the ball rolling on establishing a new tariff negotiating framework along the lines of the HMI recommendation. Their proposed multilateral negotiating forum would have been governed by the Council for Medical Schemes until the SSRA could be established.  But things then largely went silent, until earlier this month.

A new tariff-setting framework

On 14 February 2025, draft regulations published by the Minister of Trade Industry and Competition, Parks Tau, set out a new tariff determination framework for private healthcare in South Africa. At its core are two structures. The Tariffs Governing Body (TGB), consisting mainly of experts responsible for providing oversight in the tariff determination process, and the Multilateral Negotiating Forum (MLNF) made up of multiple stakeholders “which shall serve as the primary forum for collectively determining the maximum tariffs for prescribed and non-prescribed minimum benefits for healthcare services”.

In short, the work of negotiating and determining tariffs will be done by the MLNF, with the TGB providing some oversight and support. The TGB is also empowered to make a tariff determination when the MLNF fails to reach agreement.

The National Department of Health will have substantial control over both structures. Members of the MLNF will be appointed by the Director General of Health, and will include representatives of government, associations representing healthcare practitioners, healthcare funders, civil society, patient and consumer rights organisations, and any other regulatory body within the healthcare sector. The TGB will be located in the National Department of Health and will be chaired by an official of the department.

The regulations came in the form of a draft interim “block exemption” from certain provisions in the Competition Act. Such an exemption is required in order to enable the tariff governing body and the multilateral negotiating forum to function legally. The stated purpose of the exemption is to “contribute to the affordability of quality healthcare services…reduce costs and prevent the overutilization of healthcare services”.

In addition to the “collective determination of healthcare services tariffs”, the exemption also provides for “the collective determination of standardised diagnosis, procedure, medical device and treatment codes”, and “the collective determination of quality measurements/metrics, medicines formularies and treatment protocols/guidelines with the purpose of contributing to affordability of quality healthcare services across both PMBs and non-PMBs, contributing to reducing costs and contributing to the prevention of overutilization of healthcare services”.

The exemption doesn’t apply to everyone in the health sector. While healthcare providers like GPs and specialists are included, hospitals are not included.

Not an independent entity

While generally in favour of implementing the HMI recommendations, several experts Spotlight consulted are critical of how the government is going about it.

One line of criticism has been that the new framework is not sufficiently independent from the health department, as recommended in the HMI report.

Professor Alex van den Heever, Chair of Social Security Systems Administration and Management Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), said the regulations deviate from the requirement for independence of any price regulator from political interference – which he points out is expressly addressed by the HMI.

In a media conference on Monday, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi cited financial constraints for failing to set up an independent regulatory body. He also said that the department had a “mandate to manage healthcare systems”.

“We’re still looking at various options on an independent regulator, but National Treasury has severe constraints,” he said.

The exemption is for a period of three years and has been described as an interim measure.

Piecemeal implementation?

Another line of criticism is that only some HMI recommendations are being implemented, whereas the HMI stressed the need for an “inter-related” approach. While the tariff-determinations may bring down prices, it will not prevent doctors from, for example, sending people for medically unnecessary scans (a form of overutilisation).

Sharon Fonn, a professor in the School of Public Health at Wits and who was part of the HMI panel, said implementing aspects of the HMI piecemeal will neither foster competition nor protect the consumer.

“Controlling prices achieves little in the absence of the recommended holistic framework, which addresses the incentives of schemes to contract on cost, quality and demand,” she said.

Costs are influenced by both price and demand. The HMI did extensive work to show that supplier-induced demand was a problem – clearly indicating that price controls would achieve nothing in the absence of broader interventions, said Van den Heever.

“You’ll be hard pressed to find tariffs rising much faster than CPI (Consumer Price Index),” said Van den Heever. “Costs rise because of claims volumes, not the tariffs. This is because the frequency of patient consultations or in-patient days can rise in response to a fixing of prices. Providers are in a position to influence this demand. Annually you could have a 3% actual cost increase, with only a third of the increase (one percentage point) due to original price (tariff) changes. This is fully addressed in the HMI,” he added.

In response to criticism over the piecemeal implementation of HMI recommendations, Motsoaledi stressed that the HMI conceded that its recommendations would be implemented in phases.

Questions of scope

Elsabe Klink, an independent healthcare legal consultant and former advisor to the South African Medical Association, said government is mixing up the coding, protocols and Health Technology Assessments (HTA) which, on the HMI recommendations, are not up for negotiation in the MNLF.

“The HMI recommended that those functions be separate. How on earth can people negotiate on how a diabetic patient can be treated. That is a scientific question,” she said.

Klink said the HTA seems to be a veiled attempt at price control, directly for healthcare professionals and indirectly, to bar from the market devices and medications that did not make it onto the protocols or formularies.

“It [the draft regulations] purports to implement Health Market Inquiry recommendations but seems to stray into issues that are integral to NHI implementation as well, notably the HTA Committee,” said Dr Andy Gray, pharmaceutical sciences expert at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and Co-Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Pharmaceutical Policy and Evidence Based Practice.

Justifying the HTA measures, Motsoaledi said it was to prevent “the medical arms race” where healthcare practitioners prioritised patient volumes to enable them to beat their opponents in offering the latest technology. “This behaviour ruled by a medical arms race must end,” he said. He did not specifically explain why HTA was included in the exemption and not addressed through other regulations.

Questions of legality

Questions have also been raised over the legality of the regulations and whether or not they’d be vulnerable to litigation.

Van den Heever described the new regulations as “quite strange and extremely untidy, exposing the entire enterprise to legal challenge from the outset”. He said that the exemption bypasses normal legislative processes, that require evidence-based motivations and wide consultation.

He said the exemption went beyond competition concerns by establishing new governance structures that resembled a regulatory framework rather than a competition-related exemption.

“Furthermore, the structures and framework apply to a different minister (Health) – who has the legal authority to establish such a framework – not the Minister of Trade Industry and Competition. The Competition Act provides for exemptions, but only to facilitate competition-related objectives,” he said.

Dr Rajesh Patel, the Head of the Health System Strengthening Department at the Board of Healthcare Funders, had similar concerns. He said he finds it strange that “you need the Department of Trade Industry and Competition to tell the Department of Health to do their work”.

Could providers opt out?

Another contentious, and not entirely clear, aspect of the new framework is whether healthcare providers will be able to charge higher prices than those agreed through the MLNF.

“Perhaps one of the most problematic elements is that to protect patients, there needs to be some system to prevent opting out. It is likely that providers will opt out of this system and pass on additional costs to patients,” warned Fonn.

But, when asked about healthcare providers potentially opting out, Motsoaledi said that if that happened, “we’d be back to square one where everybody can charge whatever they want. I don’t think the HMI wanted that.” He didn’t specifically clarify how the current reforms would prevent healthcare professionals from opting out.

According to the draft regulations, the tariffs determined by the MLNF are “binding on all parties to the agreement”. It does however leave the door open for bilateral negotiations outside of the MLNF, but “only for the purpose of concluding an agreement on reductions, but not increases, on the tariffs for PMBs and non-PMBs as determined by the MLNF process”. There appears to be nothing in the regulations that would prevent healthcare providers from opting out altogether and charging what they like – although it is unclear to what extent, if at all, schemes would reimburse in such instances.

Concerns over timing

On timing, there are both concerns over how long the process has taken so far, and how long it might take going forward. This month’s draft regulations were published roughly five and a half years after the publication of the HMI report. For most of this period, Motsoaledi was not health minister.

Motsoaledi blamed the COVID-19 pandemic and the national elections that followed shortly afterward for the delay.

Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi. (Photo: Kopano Tlape/GCIS)

Patel expressed serious reservations about the ability of the health department to implement the block exemption process. “If their history is anything to go by, we will see similar delays and consequently, rising healthcare costs,” he said.

Patel said that the quickest solution to render private healthcare more affordable would be if the Competition Commission granted exemptions to allow medical schemes to collectively negotiate tariffs with willing healthcare providers. The health department, he said, need not be involved at all.

“We have serious reservations about the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition putting the power in the Department of Health’s hands to manage the block exemption process. They have actively kept private healthcare expensive and inaccessible to justify the implementation of the NHI,” he claimed.

Spotlight sent written questions to the Department of Health last week and during Monday’s media conference. Though some of our questions were addressed in the media conference, others had not been responded to by the time of publication.

– Additional reporting by Marcus Low.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Pressure Grows for NHI Compromise Ahead of Cabinet Lekgotla

By Chris Bateman

Whether or not the ANC and DA can find common ground on the future of medical schemes is set to be a major test of South Africa’s Government of National Unity. Ahead of a Cabinet lekgotla where the issue is expected to be on the agenda, momentum has been gathering behind a compromise option. 

Little more than a month after President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law in May last year, the ANC entered into a government of national unity (GNU) following a large drop in their share of the vote in South Africa’s 2024 elections. This raised questions over the future of NHI, given that the second largest party in the GNU, the DA, is vehemently opposed to NHI.

The NHI Act has not yet been promulgated and could be amended if the ANC and DA agree to do so. But whether the parties can agree to a compromise remains unclear, especially since there appears to be a hardline faction in the ANC that is committed to NHI as currently encapsulated in the NHI Act. As it stands, the Act foresees a dramatically reduced role for medical schemes whereby they will not be allowed to cover services that are already covered by the NHI fund.

Also in play are at least four High Court challenges to NHI legislation – by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) challenging Ramaphosa’s assent to the NHI Bill just before the elections last year, Solidarity, and the SA Private Practitioners Forum, both claiming government overreach which impacts on people’s right to choose their own health cover and run their own businesses. The South African Medical Association (SAMA) is also preparing a legal challenge.

Two proposals

Meanwhile, momentum has been growing with two compromise proposals: one from Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), the country’s apex business organisation broadly representing the banking, mining and retail sectors, but more pertinently here, the Health Funders Association, the Hospital Association of South Africa, and the Innovative Pharmaceuticals Association of SA. The other is from the United Healthcare Access Coalition (UHAC), a large coalition of healthcare worker groups including, among others, SAMA, the South African Private Practitioners Forum, and the Progressive Healthcare Forum.

BUSA last year met with Ramaphosa and, on his request, provided a detailed yet currently “confidential” proposal, wanting key sections of the NHI Act amended and/or thrown out to enable medical schemes to remain in play by punting mandatory health insurance.

“The BUSA proposal is being processed by the Department of Health and National Treasury. Once processed, a response to BUSA will be formulated accordingly,” presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Spotlight this week.

The fundamental difference between the two objecting groups is that the UHAC thinks the NHI Act should be thrown out completely and replaced with their detailed blueprint, while BUSA wants the existing Act amended to accommodate private funders. In its proposal, the UHAC urges implementation of long delayed fundamental systemic reform in both healthcare sectors to enable what they say would be efficient, pragmatic and more politically neutral, consultation-driven universal healthcare measures.

We understand that in a meeting between the two groups, shortly before BUSA lodged its proposal with the Presidency, not enough common ground could be found to join forces.

But there are significant overlaps in their proposals. Both groupings embrace mandatory health insurance and dismiss a single central fund as envisaged under NHI as dangerous and financially unfeasible.

Related Posts

DA spokesperson for health, Michelle Clarke, said her party backs mandatory insurance. She also said the party agrees with the UHAC proposals – and would not hesitate to mount a legal challenge should the NHI go ahead without substantial amendments.

Mandatory health insurance was part of government’s longer term health reform plans until the pendulum swung in favour of NHI at the ANC’s national conference in Polokwane in 2007 when Jacob Zuma became president of the party. The idea was placed back in the spotlight last September when Dr Richard Friedland, immediate past CEO of the Netcare Hospital Group and a key member of BUSA’s health delegation, made the case for it at the HASA conference.

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, it is argued, would result in medical scheme membership swelling substantially and 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 taken care of by the public healthcare system, which would also take paying medical aid members.

Friedland said at the time that mandatory healthcare insurance would 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.

This week Friedland declined to reveal the contents of the BUSA proposal, saying it was with Ramaphosa and thus confidential.

Meanwhile, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi last week rubbished media reports that the cabinet lekgotla scheduled for month end would be taking on board the BUSA proposal. He did however confirm that he will shortly announce which of the far-ranging and long-outstanding recommendations of the Competition Commission’s Health Market Inquiry (HMI) into the private healthcare sector will be implemented, something many have been calling for in recent years.

Far-reaching reforms

Adjunct Professor Alex van den Heever, Chair of Social Security Systems Administration and Management Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand, who with Dr Aslam Dasoo, founder and chair of the Progressive Health Forum, forms part of the UHAC, said their fundamental point of departure is that the status quo is unacceptable.

According to the UHAC report, irregular provincial health expenditure levels provide a proxy indicator for corruption. The combined irregular expenditure for eight of the nine provinces from 2017/18 to 2022/23 consistently averages around 12.3% (around R9 billion per annum) of non-personnel expenditure compared to 0.1% for the DA-run Western Cape.

“The difference in performance between the Western Cape and the other eight provinces is reasonably attributable to governance differences,” the report reads.

Observes Van den Heever: “We’re losing an enormous amount of performance in the public sector because of political appointments into the system. It compromises leadership and results in a massive waste of resources. The Western Cape shows you the difference governance can make.”

He said that in the “dismally” regulated private sector, funding the pooling system was identified as a problem even before 1994, “but you don’t now disrupt the system to amalgamate into a monopoly fund to solve this (i.e. NHI). Risk equalisation would force medical schemes to compete on the value of what they cover, and nobody would be discriminated against in accessing healthcare.”

Van den Heever says the NHI intention to increase taxes and move funding money from the private to the public sector is “unworkable”.

He added: “The way to address pooling problems is to separate pooling from purchasing. The NHI process has pooling and purchasing in the same organisation, centralising everything – which is highly inefficient, unworkable and with negative consequences all the way through.

“The UHAC proposal separates them out with the provinces and medical schemes remaining as purchasers while strategic pooling or resource allocation is a national function. So, risk equalisation and taxation form part of strategic national pooling functions, while the purchasing and provision of health services are protected from political appointments – including national ministers and provincial MECs.”

Dasoo, who is also a founder member of trade union NEHAWU, said the UHAC collaborative proposal draws on all the research developed over several decades including the Taylor Commission, which made recommendations on an effective social security system for South Africa, the HMI, and numerous other official inquiries.

Dasoo described the UHAC report as “everything that the NHI is not. This health pathway requires easy legislative changes and is within current fiscal constraints. We can start the process immediately. It requires a change in governance structure of the provincial health systems where politicians relinquish all direct authority they have over health care institutions and instead focus on strategic policy.”

BHF hearing in March

A spokesperson for the BHF, Zola Mtshiya, confirmed their NHI legal challenge, set for hearing in March, but said the BHF was only invited to sign up to the UHAC proposal after it was made public. The BHF represents most medical aid schemes – except for the largest, Discovery Health.

BHF Managing Director, Dr Katlego Mothudi, said his organisation is “engaging the association [UHAC] on the document”. he added: “We welcome the willingness to collaborate as an industry as strengthening health systems is everybody’s business.”

Cabinet lekgotla next week

Despite all these developments, whether the ANC is open to a potential compromise on NHI remains unclear. On the one hand, the presidency says they have asked Treasury and the Department of Health to consider the BUSA proposal, on the other, Motsoaledi has rubbished suggestions that the ANC’s position on NHI has shifted and appears committed to an NHI system that dramatically limits the role of medical schemes. His position is thus incompatible with that of the DA.

According to media reports, things got very heated between Motsoaledi and DA ministers when NHI and the future role of medical schemes were discussed at a Cabinet meeting last October.

The matter is likely to again be on the agenda at the Cabinet lekgotla set to take place next week.

Asked about how the GNU might eventually influence universal healthcare, Clarke said: “ANC arrogancy has tapered down a lot compared to what I’m used to. There’s a lot more transparency – but we cannot allow for a very badly written law with huge implications for people’s lives and the economy to go ahead.”

Foster Mohale, spokesperson for the national health department, declined to provide comment for this article, referring Spotlight to the Presidency and Motsoaledi. “What I can say is we’re still working on the Health Market Inquiry recommendations and will let you know when there’s an announcement,” he said.

Magwenya did not provide responses to most of Spotlight’s questions, other than saying that both Treasury and the health department are considering the BUSA proposal and confirming that the President had met with BUSA.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Netcare Reports Strong Growth in its 2023 Earnings Report

For the year ended 30 September 2023, the Netcare Group’s profit after tax and exceptional items increased by 27.2% to R1 336 million (FY 2022: R1 050 million) and adjusted HEPS increased by 27.0% to 105.7 cents (FY 2022: 83.2 cents). A sustained improvement in activity, off a largely organic base, supported revenue growth of 9.5%. Coupled with tight cost control notwithstanding the high inflationary environment, this has resulted in excellent operating leverage, reflected in the 23.9% growth in operating profit.

Group chief executive officer, Dr Richard Friedland commented, “We are encouraged by the ongoing normalisation and resilient demand for private healthcare services, allowing the Group to continue on the solid trajectory reported during the first half of this past financial year.”

Total paid patient days (PPDs), inclusive of acute and mental health, increased by 6.7% with improved occupancies of 64.4% for FY 2023 (FY 2022: 60.1%).

Dr Friedland continued, “It is also very pleasing that we have made excellent progress in implementing our key strategic projects. The CareOn digitisation project is nearing completion and has been successfully rolled out at 38 acute hospitals to date, covering 90% of beds. The project is delivering tangible benefits for patients across the Netcare ecosystem, and the gross financial benefits of R104 million in FY 2023 have exceeded expectations.”

Similarly, Netcare’s environmental sustainability strategy continued to deliver financial savings and plays a pivotal role in reducing exposure to the impacts of the instability of the national electricity grid. In line with the 2030 sustainability strategy, the Group concluded an agreement for a renewable energy (RE) supply arrangement with NOA Group Trading, a renewable energy trader. This agreement will increase the proportion of Netcare’s total energy consumption derived from RE sources to c26% and represents an important step towards Netcare’s goal of achieving 100% reliance on RE sources by 2030. Netcare is currently exploring further grid-wheeling opportunities that will potentially increase RE-derived energy to c.40%. 

In order to address the growing demand for mental healthcare services in South Africa, Netcare successfully commissioned Netcare Akeso Gqeberha (72 beds) in May 2023. Sales of NetcarePlus products to the retail and corporate segments continue to gain traction, contributing to the Netcare ecosystem through increased access to private healthcare beyond traditional medical schemes and the increased use of its services. Netcare Diagnostics progressed with the rollout of validated and quality assured point of care devices across Netcare’s intensive and high care units, theatres and emergency departments as well as Medicross medical and dental centres.

Dr Friedland said, “We remain committed to our Consistency of Care strategy, broadening the measurement of clinical outcomes and patient experience to ensure we deliver on our core purpose of providing the best and safest care to our patients.”

Cash generated from operations was strong, increasing to R4 135 million (FY 2022: R3 950 million), and the cash conversion ratio amounted to 100.5% (FY 2022: 113.0%). In line with the capital allocation strategy of returning excess cash to shareholders, the Group executed a share buyback programme that, collectively, entailed the repurchase of 33.7 million shares at a cost of R444 million.

Similarly, in line with the dividend policy, which aims to provide shareholders with a sustainable dividend of 50% – 70% of earnings, the Board declared a final dividend of 35.0 cents per share. This, together with an interim dividend of 30.0 cents per share represents 61.5 % of adjusted HEPS and an increase of 30.0% over FY 2022.

Netcare is encouraged by the ongoing improvement in the Group’s financial performance as demand continues to normalise from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The higher activity levels, coupled with ongoing efficiencies, resulted in strong operating leverage and an improvement in Group EBITDA margins of 120 basis points to 17.4%, from 16.2% in FY 2022.

Total capex, including strategic projects, amounted to R1.5 billion for the year, of which R136 million related to expansionary projects, including the completion of construction of the new Netcare Akeso Gqeberha facility and R82 million invested in the hospital digitisation project.

The Group incurred operational costs relating to strategic projects of R258 million (FY 2022: R249 million).

Netcare experienced an average of Stage 3.6 loadshedding across its facilities during the year, resulting in a sharp increase in generator diesel costs to R124 million from R37 million in FY 2022.

At 30 September 2023, the Group‘s cash resources and available undrawn committed facilities amounted to R3.7 billion.

DIVISIONAL REVIEW

Hospital and emergency services

The segment delivered a steady performance for FY 2023, driven by continued recovery in demand and further normalisation of the post COVID-19 operating environment.

Revenue for the segment increased by 9.6% to R23 050 million (FY 2022: R21 024 million) and total patient days increased by 6.7% to 2 447 494 days in FY 2023 (FY 2022: 2 293 344 days). The steady increase in activity contributed to higher occupancy levels with total occupancy of 64.4% (FY 2022: 60.1%).

Notwithstanding the changes in various networks that were effective from January 2023, a milder flu season and extended vacations by specialists, acute hospital patient days increased by a solid 6.1% against FY 2022, equating to 95.1% of FY 2019 with ICU and high care PPDs being 10.1% higher than pre-pandemic levels.

In line with the trend reported in H1 2023, year-to-date growth in medical PPDs of 8.5% continued to outpace surgical PPD growth of 3.9%. Medical PPDs have recovered to 99.0% of 2019 levels, while surgical PPDs continue to be impacted by sector trends, inter alia, declining maternity cases, as well as an outmigration of lower margin day cases, and have recovered to 91.7% of pre-pandemic levels. Total surgical cases comprised 51.5% of patient days (FY 2022: 52.6%; pre-pandemic levels: 53.4%) and medical cases 48.5% (FY 2022: 47.4%; pre-pandemic levels: 46.6%). Surgical cases continue to contribute more than 70% of revenue.

Demand for mental healthcare remains strong with mental health patient days increasing by 12.7% compared to FY 2022. The newly opened Netcare Akeso Gqeberha facility contributed 2.3% of this growth. Activity has surpassed pre-pandemic levels by 5.4% (same store) and 11.6% inclusive of the 36-bed Netcare Akeso Richards Bay facility (commissioned in May 2022) and the 72-bed Netcare Akeso Gqeberha facility (commissioned in May 2023).

The strong increase in mental healthcare activity has resulted in occupancies improving to 72.7% (73.5% excluding Netcare Akeso Gqeberha) in FY 2023 from 68.1% in FY 2022 (FY 2019: 71.6%).

In 2023, Netcare Christiaan Barnard Memorial Hospital received Level 1 trauma accreditation from the Trauma Society of South Africa, which is aligned to the American Trauma Society accreditation principles. There are only four hospitals in South Africa that have achieved this status, all of which are in the Netcare Group.

Netcare’s geographic footprint, electronic medical records (EMR) offering, and highly accredited facilities, allow the Group to continue attracting specialists and a net 124 doctors were granted admission rights at acute and mental healthcare facilities during FY 2023.

Primary care

Total GP and dental visits decreased by 3.1% in FY 2023 compared to FY 2022. The decline in visits is predominantly attributable to the higher base in FY 2022, which was boosted by increased COVID-19 GP visits during the Omicron-driven fourth wave. Revenue increased by 4.6% to R663 million. EBITDA margins were adversely impacted by diesel fuel costs.

Strategic update

Netcare has made excellent progress in the implementation of its key strategic projects and is now well placed to benefit from the rapidly changing dynamics driving demand in the healthcare sector.

Digitisation: Significant progress has been made in the implementation of the CareOn hospital EMR offering, which is a major focus of the digitisation strategy. This new way of care has been successfully implemented at 38 of the 45 Netcare hospitals to date, comprising 8 645 beds (90% of registered beds). In addition, over 28 000 healthcare professionals, comprising nurses, doctors, allied health professionals and pharmacists are actively using the system. Rollout to the final seven hospitals (943 beds) will be completed by April 2024. Dr Friedland said, “We remain confident that this investment will create a sustainable competitive advantage for the Group and will prove pivotal in laying the foundations in achieving our strategy of person centred health and care that is digitally enabled and data driven.” Digitisation has now been completed across all ancillary businesses in the Netcare ecosystem spanning across Netcare Akeso, Netcare Medicross, Netcare 911, National Renal Care and Netcare Cancer Care radiotherapy.

Netcare App: Netcare successfully launched its App in July 2023, which represents the next phase of the strategy to enable digital engagement with patients and clients. There has been a robust take-up of this App, which allows online pre-admissions, doctor appointments, the ability for Netcare 911 to geolocate someone in an emergency, access to a Summary of Care, and the ability to purchase NetcarePlus policies, with further services to be added in future.

Promoting access to healthcare: NetcarePlus has a portfolio of innovative healthcare products and funding solutions that promote access to affordable, quality healthcare in South Africa. In FY 2023, Netcare launched additional pre-paid procedures, completed enhancements to NetcarePlus GapCare and NetcarePlus Accident Cover, and also launched a new primary care offering.

Netcare Diagnostics: Netcare Diagnostics, which supports a Black female owned pathology service provider, Dr Esihle Nomlomo Inc., is gaining traction and made a positive contribution to EBITDA. The first stage rollout of 122 blood gas analysers at Netcare’s intensive care and high care units has been completed, with a further 70 point of care devices commissioned at ten emergency departments. Additionally, the service has been rolled out at ten Medicross facilities to date and will be extended to further sites in FY 2024.

Environmental sustainability: The first phase of the Group’s environmental sustainability strategy commenced in 2013. Since then, energy intensity per bed has reduced by 39%, exceeding the initial 10-year target. Similarly, the Group has exceeded its 2023 financial targets, achieving cumulative operational savings and benefits of more than R1.5 billion to date, yielding an IRR of 40%. In FY 2021, Netcare embarked on the second phase of its strategy, with a primary target of reducing Scope 2 emissions to zero by 2030 and Scope 1 and 3 emissions by a combined 84%. The Group’s 2030 strategy aims to achieve 100% utilisation from renewable sources, with zero waste to landfill and an additional 20% reduction of impact on water sources.

Outlook and guidance

Although the macro environment remains impacted by national power grid load shedding, global supply chain limitations, constrained consumers, and high levels of unemployment, Netcare has a number of measures in place to mitigate these challenges and remains focused on optimising the progress made in FY 2023. Furthermore, the environmental sustainability projects will continue to mitigate the significant escalation in costs associated with increased reliance on diesel powered generators resulting from the instability of the national electricity grid.

Although there has been limited growth in medical scheme membership, the pool of covered lives remains resilient and underscores the sustainable demand for quality private healthcare, which is exacerbated by the growing disease burden and ageing insured population.

For FY 2024, the Group expects revenue growth of between 7.5% and 9.5%. Total patient days are expected to grow by between 2.5% and 3.5% off a largely normalised base. The increased activity will drive further EBITDA margin expansion, improved earnings and a higher ROIC.

Netcare will continue to maintain an optimal capital structure, and the strength of the statement of financial position and the ongoing improvement in operational performance in the underlying businesses will continue to support dividend payments in line with the Group’s dividend policy.  Netcare will also continue to return excess cash to shareholders by way of share buybacks or special dividends.

Dr Friedland concluded, “We are confident that our strategy remains relevant, and we are firmly committed to realising growth opportunities, improving returns and the successful execution and completion of our key strategic projects. Notwithstanding the fluid economic environment, we expect ongoing improvements in the operational and financial performance of the business in FY 2024 and beyond.”