South Africa’s population is ageing, yet government funding for community-based elder care services is not increasing to meet the demand.
This is a key finding by Family Caregiving, a programme at the University of Cape Town focused on the needs of older people, which has released two reports on funding for old age care and how care is experienced by older people in South Africa.
“We want to work with the government and make useful suggestions about what is needed,” says Dr Elena Moore, who led the research together with Dr Gabrielle Kelly.
There are nearly 6 million people over the age of 60 in South Africa, about 10% of the population. The older population is expected to grow to over 15% of the total population by 2050. Also, 40% of older people have a significant need for care, says Moore.
The government currently provides subsidies to non-profit organisations that provide health and social services for older people. But according to Family Caregiving’s research, the overall amount spent on these subsidies by provincial governments, when adjusted for inflation and the growing ageing population, has decreased by 13% since 2007.
A lack of sufficient care for older people means that family members, often women, carry the burden of caring for older family members. The government does provide a Grant-in-Aid social grant of R510 a month, but few people who qualify for it know about it and the amount is too little to cover the cost of a full-time carer, according to the Family Caregiving report.
Family Caregiving is calling on the departments of social development and health to expand the implementation of the Older Persons Act of 2006. The Act provides for community-based care services, ensuring that older people can stay within their households and access the care they need in their communities.
According to the report, approximately 80 000 older people in South Africa receive care at a community centre and about 18 000 people receive state subsidies in care homes. But the report found that the subsidies do not come close to covering the running costs of these programmes and that existing programmes do not meet the growing demand.
Underfunding
Neighbourhood Old Age Home (NOAH), a non-profit organisation in the Western Cape, provides a variety of services. Its housing programme provides 94 beds. For this, it receives R440 000 from the provincial department for social development. But the actual cost of running the programme is nearly R850 000, so the organisation has to absorb almost half the running costs.
In Khayelitsha, NOAH runs a service centre that provides community-based care and support services to nearly 90 older people. The centre operates five days a week and offers meals, educational and skills development programmes, health and social services, and recreational opportunities.
The centre qualifies for an R2230 subsidy per person per year. It receives R190 000 from the government, but it costs R540 000 to run.
In Woodstock, the NOAH service centre has 29 beneficiaries. It operates three days a week and qualifies for a subsidy of R1419 per person per year. It received R59 300 in government funding, but it costs over R600 000 to run.
In KwaZulu-Natal, non-profit organisation The Association For The Aged (TAFTA) runs a variety of services for older persons. Its frail care services rely on a subsidy as well as the beneficiaries’ monthly old age grants, but this makes up only 40% of its running costs, creating a monthly shortfall of R6600 per person.
TAFTA’s assisted living programme is not subsidised. Beneficiaries contribute their old age grant (R2080) towards food and accommodation and TAFTA contributes another R2500 per person. TAFTA service centres receive R18 per person per day, leaving a shortfall of R35 per person per day.
According to Family Caregiving, smaller organisations that do not have the institutional networks of NOAH and TAFTA are often not able to absorb these shortfalls.
Esther Lewis, spokesperson for the Western Cape Department of Social Development, says the province subsidises 186 service centres, catering for 12 000 people. The province also supports financially struggling organisations with mentoring and training. This year, the Western Cape department provided additional grants to organisations for operational costs.
Although funding has increased in the Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal since 2007, in most provinces subsidies are not paid or are not reported, Family Caregiving found.
Looking forward
Family Caregiving is calling for more funding for old-age care, from subsidies for care organisations to increased funding for health facilities for old age care.
Moore says a multi-disciplinary team is needed to address the challenges facing older people. The team should include representatives from the government departments and organisations as well as a range of experts, from economists to healthcare practitioners.
The Family Caregiving report recommends that the government take steps to ensure that all provinces provide subsidies for old age care and that subsidies increase to meet the growing demand. It recommends that while subsidies focus on service centres and residential care, government support for home-based care services be expanded. Also, existing healthcare facilities, such as clinics and hospitals, can be better optimised to care for older people. Health workers should receive training and information on caring for older people, the report says.
The NHI Bill does not contain any clarity on how South Africa’s large and complex medical schemes and insurance industry will be affected.
Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash
By Lenee Green, Partner, Mateen Memon, Associate & Mariam Ismail, Trainee Attorney at Webber Wentzel
On 12 June 2023, the National Health Insurance Bill (the Bill) was passed by the National Assembly and is currently with the National Council of Provinces for consideration. Its laudable aim is to make primary healthcare widely accessible.
The Bill has been closely scrutinised by various stakeholders in the healthcare sector. Concerns have been raised by medical schemes and insurers about the effect the Bill will have on their current businesses.
The Bill, among other things, covers:
who will be able to access health care services;
how these services will be funded;
the establishment of a board and advisory committees to achieve the objectives of the Bill;
general provisions applicable to how the fund will operate;
complaints about and appeals of decisions made by the fund; and
the source of income of the Fund and transitional arrangements.
Clause 33 of the Bill states that once the National Health Insurance (NHI) is fully implemented, medical schemes can only offer complementary coverage for services not reimbursed by the NHI. Clause 6(o) of the Bill allows individuals to purchase services not covered by the NHI through voluntary medical insurance schemes. This means medical schemes cannot cover services already covered by the NHI, potentially jeopardising their existence. This approach may face constitutional challenges related to the right to access healthcare, property rights of medical schemes, and freedom of trade and profession.
It is contemplated that the Minister of Health will introduce regulations limiting benefits to services not reimbursable by the Fund. We have not yet seen any indication when these regulations will be published.
Current regime
Broadly, four main categories of business will be impacted by the Bill:
business of a medical scheme as defined in the Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998 (MSA);
insurers licensed to conduct insurance business pursuant to the Insurance Act 18 of 2017 (the Insurance Act);
insurers who offer products pursuant to section 8(h) of the MSA (the Exemption Framework); and
insurers who offer products pursuant to the regulations published under each of the Long-Term Insurance Act 52 of 1998 and the Short-Term Insurance Act 53 of 1998 (the Demarcation Regulations).
Medical schemes
Presently, only medical schemes may carry on the “business of a medical scheme” as defined in the MSA. The “business of a medical scheme” involves undertaking liability for the provision of obtaining “relevant health services”, defraying expenditure for “relevant health services” or rendering health services by the medical scheme itself or by any supplier of a “relevant health service” in return for a premium or contribution.
A “relevant health service” under the MSA is very wide. It includes “any health care treatment of any person by any person registered in terms of any law, which treatment has as its object…” The objects include a broad range of medical services, including the physical or mental examination of a person, the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any physical or mental defect, illness, or deficiency, ambulance services and hospital or similar accommodation.
Insurers
Medical schemes must be distinguished from medical insurance provided by insurers. Insurers may provide medical insurance under, among other dispensations, the Insurance Act. Schedule 2 to the Insurance Act provides for various classes and sub-classes of insurance business for which life insurance companies and non-life insurance companies may be licensed. Schedule 2 allows insurers to provide health and disability benefits under the risk class of business for life insurance and accident and health and travel insurance under the classes for non-life insurance.
Health insurance is provided upon the happening of a health event. A health event is defined in the Insurance Act as one that relates to the health, mind or body of a person or an unborn, other than a disability event. The disability event is defined and includes circumstances where a person loses a limb or becomes physically or mentally impaired. It is apparent that there is an overlap of products provided for in the Insurance Act and offered under the MSA.
The Demarcation Regulations provide for the demarcation between insurance business and medical schemes business. The regulations provide that a benefit that would otherwise have been a medical scheme benefit, but meets the exact requirements (definitions) set out in the tables in the Demarcation Regulations, is classified as an insurance product.
In March 2017, the Counsel for Medical Schemes (CMS) issued an exemption framework for insurers as a transitional arrangement while the development of a low-cost benefit option (LCBO) for medical schemes was developed (Exemption Framework). To the extent that an exemption was granted to an insurer in terms of section 8(h) of the MSA, and subject to the conditions of the exemption, the insurer was permitted to continue to underwrite those products until the expiry of the exemption. On 25 January 2022, the CMS granted insurers that had previously been granted an exemption in terms of the Exemption Framework an extension of a further two years.
The background to the LCBO is that a ministerial task team on social health insurance launched the low-income medical scheme consultative process in 2005. In 2015, the CMS issued a circular that considered introducing a guideline to allow medical schemes to introduce LCBOs in response to the growing number of working South Africans who did not have medical scheme coverage because they could not afford it. Following various engagement processes, the LCBO Framework Advisory Committee issued a Report in May 2022 (the Report). The Report states that LCBOs still have the potential to “alleviate pressure in the public healthcare system and allow resources to be redirected to the poor”. This process has progressed quite slowly, and it remains to be seen what comes of it if anything.
While the Bill is a piece of framework legislation, it does not provide clarity on what will become of insurance under the current regime. The fate of medical schemes is dealt with in a very cursory manner, without considering the nuances of the current regime.
The LCBO could have been a path to make healthcare more accessible, but the process has become stifled, and it may never come to fruition. What is left in the wake of the Bill is a great deal of uncertainty. Industry participants and stakeholders will have to keep abreast of the process and ensure that their comments are taken into account as the system evolves.
The National Treasury’s Cost Containment Letter sent to government departments instructing, among others, the freezing of posts was one of the big themes underlying talks about building South Africa’s healthcare worker capacity during the Public Health Association of South Africa’s (PHASA) conference held recently in Gqeberha.
With Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana expected to deliver the medium-term budget policy statement on 1 November, the freezing of posts will further hamstrung already strained health services, some presenters at the conference warned.
An oversight visit to TB hospitals by members of the provincial legislature (MPLs) in the Eastern Cape in the first week of September (5 to 8 September) showed just how bad the staff shortages are. The only remaining hospital in Nelson Mandela Bay dedicated to TB services, Jose Pearson Hospital in Bethelsdorp, has had staff vacancies hovering around 20% since 2019. The hospital provides dedicated TB services to the western part of the province. MPLs heard that in some other hospitals, vacancy rates are even higher, and non-filling of critical posts in some cases results in further medico-legal claims against the department, as the current staff buckles under massive patient loads.
Last year, in response to a parliamentary question, figures the health department released showed that there were 3 892 vacant healthcare worker posts in the province. In the nursing categories, there was a vacancy rate of 15.3%. For paramedics (EMS) the vacancy rate was 10.7%, medical practitioners 8.4%, and pharmacists 13.7%. By June this year, in another response relating to specialist nurses, the vacancy rate in the province had dropped to 13%.
Dr Prudence Ditlopo Senior Researcher at the University of the Witwatersrand, was presenting her research on the impact of nurse workloads and professional support on healthcare outcomes at the PHASA conference. Ditlopo said nurses already have a huge workload and issues around budget cuts impact morale. “I am sure they are asking themselves what will happen to [them] when we [they’re] already understaffed.
“This is not the first time that this monotonous cycle has been happening. Yes, we understand the economic side of it, but at the very same time, what does it say about the well-being of the nurse practice environment, the patients, and the quality of patient care? If nurses see that they are overwhelmed by the workload, they will make sure to find ways that will enable them to cope.
“Enable them to cope” means nurses will find a way that works for them. If what works for them is only seeing ten patients per day, they will do that and they will be gatekeepers for other patients who are coming to the facility. That alone will influence the quality and standard of care in primary care in South Africa,” said Ditlopo.
‘Will create more problems’
Dr Busisiwe Matiwane of the University of The Witwatersrand’s School of Public Health also weighed in on the implications of the Treasury letter.
“In the current system, health professionals have to work for the government to fulfil their community service obligations. However, it can be challenging for them to be assigned to specific hospitals when it is time for their community service. Additionally, with the government announcing a freeze on posts, many individuals who are not government-funded may be compelled to seek employment outside of the government after completing their community service,” Matiwane told delegates.
“If these posts are indeed frozen, does that mean that the government will also halt the placement of individuals who are required to complete community service? The current structure dictates that if you fail to fulfil your community service, you will not be recognised by the statutory bodies as an independent practitioner.
“The implication of this proposal by the government will create more problems, as we already face the challenge of health professionals’ placement or their community services,” she said. “The main concern is whether the posts will be frozen and what will be done. I think this concern has raised questions for many people, who wonder what it means if they are unable to complete their community service or the internship. Does it mean they cannot work?” she asked.
‘protect what is already there’
Speaking on the sidelines of the three-day conference, director of the Rural Health Advocacy Project, Russell Rensburg, said the wage agreement on a 4.5% increase for the public sector had Treasury’s back against the wall since that was not budgeted for in their February budget.
“Treasury is playing hardball and the provinces must decide what they need. The national government must also decide what they need. If they follow through on this, they won’t be able to sustain the public health system. There is concern that doctors will leave as part of cost containment measures, and you can’t run a healthcare system without healthcare workers. But we will only know the true position of the Treasury when they publish the medium-term budget policy statement,” said Rensburg.
“I believe at the moment they are just testing the market. They are saying we must have one thing, but we can’t have both, so that is the game they are playing. Our position is clear on this issue. Before any salary cuts or job freezes, we need to protect what is already there. We need to retain this year’s cohort of community service doctors, pharmacists, and nurses because these people helped us during COVID-19. Some were interns during COVID-19 and they are the core that can build the health service in the post-COVID-19 era. So, the immediate priority is to retain those posts because we don’t know if there will still be community service going forward,” said Rensburg.
‘working with what we have’
Several speakers and presenters at the PHASA conference raised concerns about the existing scarcity of healthcare workers and urged the Department of Health to take action. The experts, academics, researchers, students, non-governmental organisations, and civil society members all agree that healthcare is a fundamental human right, but that right won’t be fulfilled without healthcare workers, as there cannot be health services without workers. The government’s key policy document on human resources for health warned as far back as 2020 that the country is facing a critical shortage of healthcare workers.
Dr Krish Vallabhjee, former Chief Director of Strategy and Health Support in the Western Cape Health Department, believes that management must use whatever resources are available to achieve good results.
Vallabhjee said, “Budget cuts are a reality, so whatever we talk about here and in many of these conference sessions, we can’t be talking about wanting more and more. We need to work with what we have. How can we repurpose the people we have? Can’t we use them more effectively to achieve the same effect?” he asked.
“Managers need to work with their staff instead of just sitting in some corner and making budget cut decisions. Managers need to engage with staff to address the problem of not having enough budget. How do we work together? What are our priorities? As managers, we must listen to what people are saying on the ground. What are the doctors, nurses, and local managers saying? We must be united. [It should not be a thing that one hospital, clinic, and the district [are] fighting for their own piece. We are one department and we have this problem of a budget. How do we unite and do the best we can?”
Government will clarify
In a cabinet statement issued on 14 September, Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni said that Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana would clarify the cost-containment letter issued on August 31.
“Cabinet appreciates the current fiscal constraints which are not unique to South Africa but have resulted in budget shortfall. Cabinet has iterated that measures to address the budget shortfall must not impact negatively on service delivery. The Minister of Finance will shortly issue guidelines clarifying the unintended misunderstanding arising from the Cost Containment Letter issued on 31 August 2023. In addition, as part of the in-year performance review of progress in implementation priorities agreed to with Ministers, the President, and Deputy President will meet with individual Ministers to ensure that fiscal management does not derail the agreed to priorities.”
A group of activists for food access and affordability met yesterday (Thursday 21 September 2023) to discuss the worsening food crisis for children. Convened by the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund and the DG Murray Trust, the meeting sought to identify urgent measures to combat rising rates of severe acute malnutrition and child hunger.
The activist group includes representatives of COSATU, the South African Council of Churches, civil society groups and academics. It endorsed the proposal by the DG Murray Trust and the Grow Great Zero-Stunting Campaign for government and the food industry to contribute equally in making at least one product label of ten highly nutritious foods far more affordable to poorer households. This proposal requests food manufacturers and retailers to ‘double discount’ a list of ten best buy foods, with the amount of profit waived by industry matched by a retail subsidy by government.
“Data from the Department of Health shows that there were over 15 000 cases of severe acute malnutrition requiring hospitalisation in the 2022/3 financial year,” says Dr Linda Ncube Nkomo, CEO of the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund. “But that is just the tip of the iceberg”, she says. “Malnutrition is the underlying cause of about one-third of all child deaths in South Africa today, this despite Section 28 of the Constitution which guarantees the right of nutrition to every child”.
The problem of acute malnutrition worsens the chronically high levels of food insecurity in South Africa, with over a quarter of children under five nutritionally stunted. Poor physical growth is just one manifestation of much deeper damage being done to the life-long wellbeing of children, not least to their brain development,” says Dr Edzani Mphaphuli, Executive Director of the Grow Great zero-stunting campaign. “If we don’t stop stunting now,” Mphaphuli continues, “we shouldn’t expect learning outcomes to improve or our economy to grow.”
In addition to the double-discounted basket of ten best buys, the group called on the food formula industry to stop extracting massive profits from the poorest mothers, whose own malnutrition makes breastfeeding difficult. Given the high cost of infant formula, desperate mothers water down the milk to make it stretch further, which means that their babies don’t get enough protein and vitamins. It also called on government to ensure that every province has an effective programme in place to identify children at high risk and to provide nutritional supplementation to children failing to thrive.
The group undertook to monitor food prices actively and to challenge the food industry to make the third of young children who live below the food poverty line their responsibility too. “We are heartened that NEDLAC has tasked a multi-sectoral committee to review the viability of proposal to double-discount ten best buy foods”, says Dr David Harrison, CEO of the DG Murray Trust. “No sector of society – not government, not labour, not civil society nor industry – should be able to say that substantive proposals to feed South Africa’s children are too difficult, without putting a better option on the table.”
South Africa is not the only country faced with a flight of doctors over working conditions. According to a survey of UK medical students published by BMJ Open, one in three plan to leave the National Health Service (NHS) – either to practise abroad or to stop practising medicine entirely. Of those who plan to go abroad, nearly half plan on never returning.
The responses indicate that pay, work-life balance, and working conditions are the key drivers behind the decisions to leave.
The UK has 3.2 doctors for every 1000 people, ranking 25th among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. This figure also represents the lowest number of doctors per head among European countries in the OECD, note the researchers.
In response to the shortage of doctors amid rising healthcare demand, the British government has opened new medical schools and expanded the student capacity of existing ones. But without addressing the issue of retention, increasing the number of medical students is unlikely to provide a sustainable long-term solution, they point out.
In a bid to understand current career intentions after graduation and on completion of the 2-year Foundation Programme, the researchers surveyed 10 486 medical students, around 25.5% of the total, from across 44 UK medical schools between January and March 2023.
The survey included sections on intended career immediately after graduation and after foundation training (if applicable), as well as the factors influencing decision-making.
Respondents’ average age was 22; around two thirds (66.5%) were women. All students were asked their career intentions after graduation with most (8806; 84%) saying they planned to complete both years of the UK’s foundation training after graduating.
But around 1 in 10 (10.5%;1101) intended to complete year 1 of foundation training and then emigrate to practise medicine: completion of the first year of foundation training provides doctors with full registration with the UK’s medical regulator (GMC), which is recognised internationally.
Another over 2% (220) planned to emigrate to practise medicine immediately after graduation while just over 1% (123) intended to take a break or undertake further study.
Just over 1% of respondents (132) planned to complete their first foundation year and then leave the profession, while just under 1% (104) intended to leave medicine permanently immediately after graduation.
Among the 8806 respondents intending to complete both foundation years, nearly half (49%;4294) planned to enter specialty training in the UK immediately afterwards.
Around a fifth (21%;1859) intended to enter a ‘non-training’ clinical job in the UK such as junior clinical fellowship or clinical teaching fellowship, or working as a locum doctor).
A further 23.5% (2071) intended to emigrate to practise medicine abroad, while around 6% (515) planned to take a break or undertake further study. Just 67 planned to leave medicine permanently after completion of year 2 of foundation training.
Around half (49.5%;1681) planned to return to UK medicine after a few years, while nearly 8% (267) intended to return after completion of their medical training abroad. But 42.5% (1444) indicated no intention to return.
Of those favouring emigration immediately after graduation, just under 81% didn’t intend to return to the UK. This fell to 60% (661) among those planning to emigrate after completing year 1 of foundation training and 29% (605) among those planning to emigrate after year 2.
Among the 2543 medical students expressing a preference for destination country, Australia was the most commonly mentioned (42.5%), followed by New Zealand (18%), the USA (10.4%) and Canada (10.3%).
In total, around a third of medical students (32.5%;3392) plan to leave the NHS within 2 years of graduating, either to practise abroad or to pursue other careers.
Remuneration at junior level, work-life balance, lack of autonomy over choice of training location, and the working conditions of doctors in the NHS were cited as the most important factors for those respondents intending to emigrate to continue their medical career.
These reasons were also given by those planning to abandon medicine altogether, with nearly 82% of them also listing burnout as an important or very important reason.
Only just over 17% of all respondents said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall prospect of working in the NHS.
Intention doesn’t necessarily translate into action, and minds may change, say the researchers. And while the 25% response rate is relatively large, that still means a substantial proportion of the medical student body weren’t surveyed.
But they highlight: “This study highlights that an alarming proportion of surveyed medical students intend to leave the profession or emigrate to practise medicine,” emphasise the researchers, “representing a potential loss of valuable medical talent.”
They continue: “The findings of this study emphasise the urgency of addressing the factors that are driving the exodus of doctors from the NHS and suggest that increased recruitment of medical students may not provide an adequate solution to staffing challenges.
“The causes of the problem are complex, and finding a solution will require a multifaceted approach. Steps could include improving work-life balance, increasing salaries, addressing the growing competition for specialty training posts and promoting greater flexibility in career pathways.”
They conclude: “Undoubtedly, the continued loss of skilled professionals from the NHS represents a significant concern, so it is critical to consider means of reversing this trend.”
In 2018 the first findings from a landmark tuberculosis (TB) vaccine trial were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The experimental vaccine, called M72, was found to be roughly 50% effective in preventing pulmonary TB disease. It was the most promising finding for a new TB vaccine since the development of the BCG vaccine a century ago.
Since the study reported in the NEJM was only a phase 2B study, the results have to be confirmed in a phase 3 study before the vaccine can be considered for wider use. For a while, it seemed that the phase 3 study would never happen – that is, until a few months ago, two philanthropies, Wellcome and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, announced that they would put up $550 million to get it done.
Meanwhile, on September 22, ministers, heads of state, and other officials from around the world will gather in New York for the second United Nations High-Level Meeting on TB. A draft declaration can be read here. The declaration is full of the kind of lofty rhetoric one would expect.
Yet, it is hard to avoid a sense that, for the most part, the emperor is wearing no clothes. After all, as one government representative after another read their speeches in New York, everyone in the room will know that it was not governments but two philanthropies who stepped up to ensure that arguably the most important TB trial of the decade goes ahead. When most needed, the groundswell of new government investment in TB research just wasn’t there.
The bigger picture
It is estimated that globally just over $1 billion was invested in TB research in 2021. In the preceding three years, the figure was hovering between $900 million and $1 billion. Astonishingly, $416 million (over 40%) of the $1 billion in 2021 was from the United States government. The second largest funder of TB research in the world is the Gates Foundation – which with its $113 million in 2021 invested more in TB research than any government except for the US. Together, these two entities account for more than half of all investment in TB research in 2021.
BRICS partners India and South Africa respectively invested $23.4 and $4.8 million in TB research in 2021. Both are classified as high TB burden countries.
At the 2018 UN High-Level Meeting on TB world leaders committed to provide $2 billion per year for TB research by the end of 2022. Figures for 2022 aren’t out yet, but given that the 2021 figure was only half the target, we are clearly not on track.
In addition, the target should probably be much higher if we are to have a good chance of getting the breakthrough diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines we will need to end TB. The Stop TB Partnership recently estimated that around $5 billion is needed for TB research per year from 2023 to 2030 – in other words, five times as much as the actual investment in 2021. This level of investment in TB research is needed because modelling suggests that with the currently available tools, we will at best see a relatively slow decline in TB rates in the coming years.
Why then a High-Level Meeting?
One may well ask what the point is of UN High-Level Meetings if key commitments made at these meetings are not kept and if the further development of critical new tools like M72 remains dependent on support from philanthropists. But that would be to mistake these meetings for an end in themselves rather than merely a means to an end.
A meeting of this nature will always just be one small part of a larger puzzle in the fight against TB. The bigger question is how the momentum and political potential created by the High-Level Meeting can be leveraged to get more done in other arenas, especially back in people’s home countries.
Governments are accountable to the people who elected them. There are, of course, some international pressures and some issues of international law, but on something like TB, the most important accountability levers are all domestic. Ultimately, political parties, trade unions, and domestic civil society have much more power over what a government actually does or does not do than some politely expressed peer pressure in New York or Geneva.
Unfortunately, at least here in South Africa, political parties and trade unions have generally failed to hold government to account when it comes to TB – although our Department of Health has nevertheless made some good policy calls and our investment in TB research is decent given the size of our economy.
All of this is not to say that the UN High-Level Meeting on TB is not important – it most certainly is. It is just that it should not be mistaken for an end in itself. Governments, and especially those in countries where many people get TB and die of TB, must invest more in TB. We shouldn’t let leaders of these governments get away with saying they’ll put up the money in New York, but then forgetting all about it once they go back home.
NOTE:The Gates Foundation is mentioned in this article. Spotlight receives funding from the Gates Foundation. Spotlight is editorially independent, an independence that the editors guard jealously. Spotlight is a member of the South African Press Council.
Recently, in a major feat for transparency and accountability, the North Gauteng High Court ordered that the public must have access to COVID-19 procurement contracts – details of which, until now, have been kept away from the public eye as the government cited confidentiality clauses.
The Health Justice Initiative’s – who brought the court application – victory is a crucial one given the staggering size of public procurement contracts in the health sector.
According to Zukiswa Kota, South African Programme Head at the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM), this judgement deserves celebrating “as it deepens the case for transparency in public procurement and effectively challenges the many reasons often used to evade publication”. “Ultimately, what we need is proactive disclosure that is built into procurement legislation and – more importantly – is adhered to by government,” said Kota.
“It is inconceivable,” she said, “that in 2023 there continues to be limited transparency around fairly basic info – in this case COVID-19 vaccines. “The fact that there is no explicit transparency is an indictment and something we need to reflect on.”
The need for transparency has also been affirmed in the HJI judgement. “Non-disclosure of any of the records sought means that a shroud of secrecy is placed over the entire negotiation, procurement, and payment process – the very mischief our Constitution and legislation such as Paia seeks to address,” the judgement states. S217 of the Constitution states that public procurement by any state organ must be “in accordance with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective”.
The case for transparency
The call for open contracting and to strengthen public procurement legislation is not a new one. It is also not confined to COVID-19 vaccines, but all public procurement, also in the health sector.
Dominic Brown, director at the Alternative Information & Development Centre (AIDC), also recently during a webinar on the launch of a report on pending legislative and regulatory changes in the healthcare sector made the case for transparent procurement. The Rural Health Advocacy Project compiled the report that also provides several recommendations for procurement reforms.
“The level of public procurement in the country is approximately 25% of GDP and the majority of government’s involvement in the economy is through this procurement, so it’s no small issue. It’s of extreme significance,” said Brown.
He said that in 2016, the former chief procurement officer in National Treasury estimated that between 30 to 40% of the country’s procurement budget is lost to inflated prices and fraud by the private sector. At the time, this amounted to R230 billion.
“At the moment, our procurement budget is about R1 trillion, which means that we are losing between R300 and R400 billion each year as a result of corruption linked to public procurement and this has major detrimental impacts on service delivery.”
Putting this impact into perspective, especially as it pertains to the health sector, RHAP’s director, Russel Rensburg during the same webinar said that provinces can spend up to 30% of their health budgets on the procurement of goods and services, which can run into billions. “Contrast this with the huge chunk spent on employee costs (often between 60 and 65% of health budgets), and growing inefficiencies and waste due to non-compliance to legislative prescripts – the pool of money remaining for health services is limited,” he said.
“Lack of compliance with financial management policies, particularly around supply chain monitoring policies, has resulted in the deterioration of several financial management indicators. We’ve seen an increase in qualified audit opinions of health departments and an increase in irregular and wasteful expenditure – amounting to R6 billion in the last financial year,” said Rensburg. “Competent financial management is essential to ensuring that maximum value is achieved from the resources deployed.”
The need for this “competent financial management” in the public sector was highlighted again last week when the Gauteng Department of Health’s Annual Report for 2022/23 was tabled in the provincial legislature. The report showed irregular expenditure to the value of over R2 billion, which means legislative prescripts were not followed in the procurement of goods and services, among others. In the Auditor-General’s (AG) report, she flagged the irregular expenditure stating that there were no effective and appropriate steps taken to prevent it. “The majority of this irregular expenditure,” the AG stated, “was caused by the department’s failure to invite competitive bids” when procuring goods and services.
Legislative reforms and procurement
Currently, in Parliament’s National Assembly, MPs are set to deliberate on the Public Procurement Bill. The bill provides for far-reaching reforms in public procurement. In Parliament’s National Council of Provinces, deliberations on the National Health Insurance Bill are underway. This bill also provides for far-reaching reforms to how health services will be structured and funded.
Both pieces of legislation have major implications for procurement in the health sector.
Yet, with these legislative reforms underway in Parliament, some stakeholders say that neither bill in its current form, will be a silver bullet to address all shortcomings in public procurement in the health sector. Questions also remain if these bills will ultimately result in real consequences for errant public officials in supply chain management or overreaching political office bearers.
Added to this is the overlap between provisions in the two bills, several provisions that lack clarity, and some areas of conflict between the bills that may lead to confusion down the line.
The case for alignment between the bills
The Public Procurement Bill aims to standardise and create a uniform regulatory framework for all procurement by government departments and entities. The NHI Bill, in turn, if passed will transform how publicly-funded health services are organised and delivered. The bill provides for a NHI Fund that will “strategically purchase healthcare services on behalf of users”.
Rensburg explains this fund must transfer funds directly to accredited and contracted central, provincial, regional, specialised and district hospitals based on a global budget or Diagnosis-related Groups. The bill also provides for an Office of Health Products Procurement (OHPP), he said, but the exact scope of this office’s mandate is not yet clear.
According to the bill, this office (OHPP) will be responsible for “the centralised facilitation and coordination of functions related to the public procurement of health-related products”.
According to Yana van Leeve, from the law firm ENSafrica, the NHI fund will be a S3A public entity so the procurement bill will apply to that entity. S3A public entities under the Public Finance Management Act can be defined as a public entity with the mandate to fulfil a specific economic or social responsibility of government and they depend on government funding and public money.
Van Leeve was also a panellist during the RHAP webinar.
She explained that section 217 of the Constitution will also apply to this process of acquiring services because the NHI Fund will be engaging in public procurement when it engages healthcare service providers and health establishments in both the public and private sectors. Van Leeve said that it is not clear in the NHI Bill, however, that “there is an appreciation that this dimension of the scheme will amount to formal procurement and will thus be subject to normal procurement law”. “The implication would then be that one of the prescribed forms of procurement, for example, quotations or open bidding must be used to secure the services of these health service providers.” According to her, the NHI Bill, however, creates the impression that there is a different type of arrangement to be considered for the acquiring of such services. In section 39 of the NHI Bill, for example, accreditation of health service providers is required.
The procurement bill, in turn, provides for a Public Procurement Office that must create and maintain a database of prospective suppliers. Departments or other public entities may only procure from suppliers listed in this database. This may result in some practical problems as the requirements to be added to the existing central supplier database of National Treasury may differ from what the NHI Bill requires from suppliers. For example, to get on the database, National Treasury may consider a legitimate entity as one with a valid tax certificate, but, said van Leeve, “If you are procuring health products, for example, you may need other things to accredit a potential supplier, which treasury does not necessarily look at when it builds its database”.
“So, immediately you can see there will be tension between what the NHI envisage for creating its services and products lists versus what the public procurement office will develop in terms of the national supplier database. So, on the one hand, NHI is creating a special procurement system for health and providing for units and committees that will be responsible for identifying health services and buying health products and it’s not clear how these two pieces of legislation are going to interact.”
Van Leeve did say, however, that it is possible that the Minister of Finance “can differentiate between institutions and categories of procurement, but nothing in the procurement bill currently requires the minister to do so and there is no guidance on the considerations relevant to differentiating between categories of public institutions”.
She said it is possible for the bill to still make clear provision for the minister to make exemptions from the procurement bill. Currently, section 56(b) of the bill, for example, only provides – “the Minister may, with or without conditions, by notice in the Gazette, exempt a procuring institution from any provision of this Act, if— (a) national security could reasonably be expected to be compromised, or (b) the procurement is to be funded partially or in full by donor or grant funding and such exemption will benefit the public in general or a section of the public”.
But van Leeve insists that one way or the other, “It will be important – certainly in the way in which the NHI and procurement bills become operationalised for there to be comity between the bills.”
The RHAP report also recommends that “the relationship between health authorities and the public procurement structures proposed in the draft Public Procurement Bill must be clarified. The Public Procurement Bill makes no specific reference to health procurement as a special type of public procurement. At the same time, the NHI Bill contemplates a very particular regime in respect of health procurement. These two draft Bills will have to be aligned.”
According to the report, “the tension between the decentralised nature of public finance management in South Africa under the PFMA and Municipal Finance Management Act on the one hand and the highly centralised nature of public health services spending under the proposed NHI on the other hand, will have to be addressed”.
The shadow of politics
There are also other considerations besides overlapping provisions in the two bills – the shadow of politics through the blurring of the administrative and political interface often becomes a problem.
Rensburg highlighted, among others, it is still not clear how compliance with procurement policies will be audited and how often, or what the different sanctions will be for those not complying. “We see, especially with emergency procurement, that managing procurement functions is open to a lot of different kinds of pressures, he said. “The procurement bill does create frameworks for public office bearers to not be involved in the procurement process and for subject matter experts to be involved in procurement decisions, but there are a lot of things happening in the shadow that you can’t explicitly link to involvement of political principles in administrative processes,” said Rensburg.
“There is an added complexity,” Brown said, “when you hear, for example, of ANC tender committees, or when there is a tender chairperson who then can determine who gets and doesn’t get various contracts. This is deeply rooted in the state – from local government all the way up to national level, and across state-owned enterprises.”
Case in point, in the public health sector, the Digital Vibes scandal epitomised this “complexity” when then-Minister of Health, Dr Zweli Mkhize was implicated in tender irregularities and subsequently resigned.
Another criticism of the Public Procurement Bill is that it leaves a lot, arguably too much, of the detail of how procurement will actually work up to regulation rather than setting it down in primary legislation. This, suggested Caroline James and Sam Sole in a recent Daily Maverick article, leaves the door open to political interference.
Corruption Watch’s executive director, Karam Singh, during a different webinar in August on the procurement bill by the Special Interest Group on Public Procurement Law, also flagged some gaps in the definitions in the procurement bill, especially around issues like conflicts of interest and politically exposed persons.
In terms of chapter three of the procurement bill that deals with procurement integrity and prohibition of certain practices and debarment, anybody who is involved in the procurement process – that is from the accounting officer, bid committee, or tribunal – must comply with the prescribed code of conduct, failing which will constitute misconduct. According to Singh, however, the bill falls short of stipulating who must issue the code of conduct, how it would be updated, and where it would work, as well as where or when it must be made available. “There is very little detail on how misconduct would be handled,” he said, “and so there is a gap between understanding what this code of conduct would be, how it would come about and if it will be presented for public participation and public comment.” He said it is also unclear what would be the enforcement mechanism which would stand behind the code of conduct to make it effective.
Responding to concerns over tender corruption risks
In June this year, during a briefing by Dr Nicholas Crisp, Deputy Director-General in the National Health Department on the NHI Bill to MPs in the NCOP, concerns were flagged over the risk of tender corruption in the NHI Fund. Later, in August during a briefing to MPLs in the Western Cape provincial legislature, the same concerns were raised.
At every point, Crisp insisted, “The NHI Fund will handle very little by way of tender. The accreditation is not a tender process. It’s voluntary registration by a service provider – public or private – as long as they meet the criteria. The prices will be fixed and the way services are delivered will be fixed when it comes to the procurement.”
According to Crisp, when it comes to the procurement processes for goods, particularly health products, the NHI Fund is only involved in the first stage. “The Fund would not go about the logistics of purchasing anything. The providers needed to purchase once those prices were set. There was far less vulnerability in the Fund than first thought when one looked at the Bill,” he said.
Spotlight followed up with Crisp for further clarification in lieu of the RHAP report and the implications of the procurement bill for the NHI Bill. Crisp said, that according to the NHI Bill, the Fund will determine the Formulary that it will pay for and will establish the prices of the items in the Formulary. “It is the intention that the NHI agency will not buy any ‘health products’ and will not have storerooms and warehouses since the agency (the NHI Fund) is not a provider of services. The providers will buy what they need to deliver the benefits that they are accredited to provide. Accredited providers (public and private) will buy at the approved NHI prices and this is how the health department works now,” he said. “The provincial health departments do the buying and storing, etc.”
He stressed that the Fund will not go on tender for healthcare providers. “The bill in s39 says that providers will be accredited and all accredited providers will be paid for the benefits that they deliver. So, it is intended to not be exclusionary.”
On the implications of the Public Procurement Bill for the NHI Bill, he told Spotlight the department is still studying the procurement bill and these issues (as raised in the RHAP report and through various stakeholders) are being considered. He also noted that according to the NHI Bill, “If any other law, except the Constitution or PFMA, conflicts with the NHI Bill then the NHI bill prevails. But we will want to engage with the intentions, merits, and any potential challenges with Treasury,” he said.
Have your say
Members of the public have until 15 September to make written submissions on the version of the NHI Bill currently before the NCOP. Meanwhile, National Treasury this week briefed MPs in the Standing Committee on Finance on the Public Procurement Bill. The deadline for written submissions is 11 September.
A new study suggests boys who smoke in their early teens risk damaging the genes of their future children, increasing their chances of developing asthma, obesity and low lung function.
This research, published in Clinical Epigenetics, is the first human study to reveal the biological mechanism behind the impact of fathers’ early teenage smoking on their children.
Researchers from the University of Southampton and the University of Bergen in Norway investigated the epigenetic profiles of 875 people, aged 7 to 50, and the smoking behaviours of their fathers.
They found epigenetic changes at 19 sites mapped to 14 genes in the children of fathers who smoked before the age of 15. These changes in the way DNA is packaged in cells (methylation) regulate gene expression (switching them on and off) and are associated with asthma, obesity and wheezing.
“Our studies in the large international RHINESSA, RHINE and ECRHS studies have shown that the health of future generations depends on the actions and decisions made by young people today – long before they are parents – in particular for boys in early puberty and mothers/grandmothers both pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy,” says Professor Cecilie Svanes from the University of Bergen and Research Director of the RHINESSA study. “It is really exciting that we have now been able to identify a mechanism that explains our observations in the cohorts.”
‘Unique markers’
“Changes in epigenetic markers were much more pronounced in children whose fathers started smoking during puberty than those whose fathers had started smoking at any time before conception,” says co-lead author of the paper Dr Negusse Kitaba, Research Fellow at the University of Southampton. “Early puberty may represent a critical window of physiological changes in boys. This is when the stem cells are being established which will make sperm for the rest of their lives.”
The team also compared the paternal preconception smoking profiles with people who smoked themselves and those whose mothers smoked before conception.
“Interestingly, we found that 16 of the 19 markers associated with fathers’ teenage smoking had not previously been linked to maternal or personal smoking,” says Dr Gerd Toril Mørkve Knudsen from the University of Bergen and co-lead author of the study. “This suggests these new methylation biomarkers may be unique to children whose fathers have been exposed to smoking in early puberty.”
Teenage vaping ‘deeply worrying’
The number of young people smoking has fallen in the UK in recent years. But co-author Professor John Holloway, from the University of Southampton and the NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, is concerned about children taking up vaping.
“Some animal studies suggest that nicotine may be the substance in cigarette smoke that is driving epigenetic changes in offspring,” says Professor Holloway. “So it’s deeply worrying that teenagers today, especially teenage boys, are now being exposed to very high levels of nicotine through vaping.
“The evidence from this study comes from people whose fathers smoked as teenagers in the 60s and 70s, when smoking tobacco was much more common. We can’t definitely be sure vaping will have similar effects across generations, but we shouldn’t wait a couple of generations to prove what impact teenage vaping might have. We need to act now.”
The new findings have significant implications for public health. They suggest a failure to address harmful exposures in young teenagers today could damage the respiratory health of future generations, further entrenching health inequalities for decades to come.
Doing ‘the right thing’ for one’s health, be it eating well, exercising, or going for an annual HIV test or blood pressure check, is easier said than done. One way to nudge people to make these ‘right’ decisions is to offer rewards or incentives. Discovery Health Medical Scheme’s Vitality programme is probably the best local example of such an incentive programme.
While incentive programmes have made a splash in private healthcare, they’ve hardly caused a ripple in South Africa’s public sector. In fact, the only public sector incentive of any notable scale of which we are aware was the vouchers that were offered to people who got vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. There have been several scientific studies of cash transfers and other incentives, but the data is relatively limited and the differences between studies were substantial, as indicated in this review of cash transfers for HIV prevention, among others.
Evidence from other countries has shown that a targeted public sector incentive programme could yield significant positive results. The Indian Government launched a programme called Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) in 2005, “with the goal of reducing the numbers of maternal and neonatal deaths” using a conditional cash transfer scheme to encourage giving birth in a health facility. In those who benefited from the scheme, there was a reduction of 4.1 perinatal deaths per 1000 pregnancies and a reduction of 2.4 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births.
As Spotlight has recently reported, South Africa is doing relatively poorly against its diabetes and hypertension targets and substantially better against its HIV targets. Yet, we can find no evidence that the Department of Health has given serious thought to incentive programmes in these various areas.
Some might argue that the impact of such programmes is unproven and that they are too expensive. No doubt, a carbon copy public sector version of Vitality is wishful thinking. But are there any elements of it worth copying or adapting for the public sector?
“It has always amazed me that incentives are always so OK for rich people like me, on Discovery, but somehow unacceptable for poor people ‘who should do it for their own good’ in the public system,” says Professor Francois Venter, who heads up Ezintsha at the University of the Witwatersrand. He describes it as patronising.
Venter says that while hugely complex issues like controlling non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and obesity can’t be solved with incentives, they could certainly be added to the very limited toolbox of the existing arsenal being used to prevent disease or death through early detection, testing, and screening. He says incentives “definitely should not be dismissed right off the bat when it comes to the 84% of people who rely on the public system”.
The power of ‘points’
An estimated 60% of diseases across the board are caused by unhealthy lifestyles, according to a 2022 study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. In line with such evidence, Discovery’s Vitality programme is primarily focused on encouraging its members to make healthier lifestyle choices.
“Vitality aims to leverage behaviour change techniques, most notably using incentives, to motivate or nudge members to adopt healthy behaviours,” says Dr Mosima Mabunda, who is the Head of Wellness at Vitality. She says that four core factors are implicated in most NCDs, namely an unhealthy diet, a lack of physical activity, smoking, and alcohol misuse.
The Vitality programme is complex and uses a wide range of incentives and rewards to motivate members, including giving members monetary rebates for healthy food purchases, subsidised gym membership, and a comprehensive points-based system that rewards a range of healthy lifestyle choices. These points can be converted to cash or used at a range of local retailers. There is an incredible variety of Vitality rewards that range from discounts on flights to discounts at movie theatres.
According to a Discovery report, the “overall impact of Vitality on mortality rates is significant”. By “making people healthier” they say they have achieved an average reduction in mortality of 13%.
Several experts interviewed by Spotlight point out that most of this data has not been published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Even so, it is certainly plausible that Vitality’s annual incentivised health check helps with earlier diagnosis of hypertension, diabetes, and even HIV. Similarly plausible is the idea that points may successfully incentivise some people to exercise more. Scepticism of the health benefits of other elements of the Vitality programme may well be warranted – it is hard to know without independent analysis.
Importance of early detection
The underlying logic of such incentive systems is typically that the savings due to behaviour change or early detection outweighs the cost of the incentives. Put another way, the private sector isn’t just doing this to help people stay healthy, they are also doing it to save money. The costs and benefits for state-run incentive programmes will obviously look very different, but there may well be cases where the benefits of incentives outweigh their costs.
It is also possible that in some instances incentives are actually needed more urgently by users of the public sector than the private. As Professor Harsha Thirumurthy, who is an expert on behavioural economics and health incentives based at the University of Pennsylvania points out, “the majority of Vitality members don’t face barriers like transport costs” or even being located many kilometres away from the nearest state facility.
Late diagnosis or poor disease control has high human and economic costs in both the public sector and private. According to a 2013 study published in the Global Health Action journal, uncontrolled diabetes caused 8000 new cases of blindness and 2000 new amputations in South Africa in 2009 alone. More recent statistics reveal the situation is getting worse. In 2018, then KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Health Dr Sibongiseni Dhlomo revealed that six amputations occur every single day – which equates to over 2100 a year – in that province.
And the financial implications are staggering. For example, a 2022 literature review that looked at the costs of treating common NCDs in South Africa, estimated the cost of treating one person for one year with medication for type 2 diabetes to be roughly between R1000 and R3500 in the public sector. In comparison, the study also looked at the costs of treating common complications of uncontrolled diabetes. For example, diabetes-related renal disease was estimated to cost roughly R67 000 per person per year.
Screening for diabetic retinopathy, an eye condition that causes vision loss, costs between R110 and R370 per person. In comparison, the cost of treating ophthalmic disease in people with diabetes is estimated to be R59 000 per person per year.
These are only the health system costs and don’t include the costs of serious complications and lifelong disability to individuals, families, and communities.
Barriers to healthy lifestyle choices
Most experts we spoke to agree that the Vitality programme in its entirety is too complex and expensive to be replicated at scale in the public sector. Additionally, helping the majority of the population make healthy lifestyle choices, particularly those around healthy diets and physical activity, is a mammoth task and exceeds the ambit and powers of the National Department of Health.
“It’s really important to appreciate that there are so many environmental, social, [and] structural factors that make it difficult for people to quote-unquote ‘do the right thing’ when it comes to health-related behaviours,” says Thirumurthy. “For example, people are constantly subjected to advertising of unhealthy food products. Many are living in environments that make it hard to eat a healthy diet even if they wanted to.
“To really make a difference, we have to take a step back and identify the overall system-level or structural changes that could be made to influence people’s diets and other health behaviours. We need to think about what types of government regulation and policy levers can be utilised to achieve better health outcomes,” says Thirumurthy, who is also the co-founder of South Africa’s first ‘nudge unit’, based at Wits University called Indlela: Behavioural Insights for Better Health, which is focused on identifying low-cost behavioural solutions to public health challenges.
As Spotlight previously reported, many of these issues are flagged in South Africa’s recently published Strategy for the Prevention and Management of Obesity in South Africa 2023 – 2028. But while most experts we interviewed felt the strategy flagged the right issues, there was also agreement that the strategy didn’t set out a realistic plan for dealing with those issues. And not finding ways to deal with these issues is costing a lot of money.
In 2018, the public sector cost of treating patients diagnosed with diabetes alone totalled R2.7 bn “and would be R21.8 bn if both diagnosed and undiagnosed patients are considered”, according to a 2020 report about the health promotion of NCDs published by the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC). Moreover, in real terms, it is estimated that by 2030 the cost of all type 2 diabetes cases will soar to R35.1 bn.
According to Thirumurthy, incentive-based interventions represent one creative solution with the potential to help improve health outcomes and reduce the financial burden on the health system in the long term. “I’m not saying incentives or rewards-based programmes are going to save the day, so to speak. However, they do represent a small but important part of an overall policy package that is necessary to address NCDs. Global experience suggests this policy package should prioritise regulatory interventions, including taxes on sugary sweetened beverages and other unhealthy foods, but incentive-based interventions can certainly be a useful addition to a broader strategy or policy package,” he says.
A public sector annual health check?
Early detection is one area where the public sector could potentially benefit from copying a private sector incentive scheme.
Vitality’s annual health check is a free screening and testing consultation that includes HIV testing, mental health screening, body mass index evaluation, blood pressure check and a blood glucose test, among other things. Members are rewarded handsomely with points, simply for showing up. Critically, these checks are offered at many pharmacies and are thus relatively easy to access.
According to Belinda Kahler, Wellness Specialist for Vitality, there is data that suggests that the inclusion of a screening questionnaire for depression in their annual health check yields significant benefits for both the scheme and its members. She says that members who complete the screening and are flagged as high-risk are over three times more likely to seek professional help which “fosters early detection and management which reduces complications and ultimately reduces healthcare costs”.
One way a public sector version of this could work would be for the state to contract with nurses at private sector pharmacies and GPs to provide the checkups in addition to public sector clinics. This would make it much easier for people to access these checkups, and may well boost early diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, and other diseases, especially if an incentive is included. For this to work, the public sector data systems to facilitate the capturing of measurements and test results will have to be in place, but presumably, work along these lines is already underway for the NHI data system that is being developed. Many public-sector clients already collect their medicines from private-sector pharmacies and some were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 at private-sector pharmacies – so it won’t be breaking entirely new ground to add checkups to the mix.
According to Thirumurthy, programmes that are ongoing, requiring daily or weekly action, are not feasible or sustainable for the public health system at this stage as they are too resource-intensive, requiring constant monitoring, and reward allocation. “But incentivising a once-off or annual behaviour, such as going for a vaccination or health check, is not only more likely to succeed compared to daily behaviours like going to the gym or taking a certain number of steps, it is also much more cost-effective and much easier for a government to implement,” he says.
He says addressing healthy lifestyles is incredibly difficult and preventive care interventions represent a more attainable goal for the National Department of Health. Screening, preventive care, and early detection save money and lives, but it is notoriously difficult to get patients to engage in the health system before they get really sick or experience noticeable symptoms. More often than not, patients seek care too late to prevent costly complications.
“Depending on the particular behaviour, test or screening combination that is incentivised, a programme like this could really move the needle on the intended health outcome and equate to money well spent in future averted healthcare costs,” says Thirumurthy.
Dr Brendan Maughan-Brown, who is the Chief Research Officer at the Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, points out that “we really are going to have a collision of comorbidities in the next seven to eight years” fuelled by an ageing HIV population. “All these NCDs are going to become even more burdensome to the health system – already in some areas, over 25% of people over 50 are living with HIV. This is going to be a major challenge for the health system, insurers, and the NHI, so thinking about solutions now, including a proposed annual health check or screening, is a good place to start.”
What should incentives look like?
Once-off or annual programmes do not need to be expensive, according to Dr Sophie Pascoe, who is the Indlela Co-Director. “They would require a level of coordination, but there are many companies who I’m sure would be willing to come on board as sponsors. The big supermarket chains could subsidise grocery vouchers or incentives could be in the form of airtime backed by one of the big mobile networks, for example,” she says. These partnerships would “benefit everybody” by encouraging those targeted behaviours, while sponsors would profit from the exposure and an increase in their customer base.
“I think part of the problem is, when we mention the word ‘incentives’, everyone imagines a lot of money and big rewards. But the rewards don’t need to be big or costly,” she says.
Maughan-Brown, who is also an expert in behavioural economics and the behavioural determinants of HIV risk, says that for an incentivised preventive programme to be successful, there needs to be a comprehensive understanding of the various “hassle factors” faced by those who rely on the public health sector. What would be valuable to people? Transport, airtime, grocery vouchers, child care, paid leave from work or something else? He says a lot of work would need to be done to understand what rewards will work and there needs to be a level of flexibility because different people will need or value different incentives.
Pascoe, in turn, suggests that a lottery incentive could be added and would be inexpensive to augment an immediate but smaller reward that would be received directly after the health check or screening intervention, for example.
She adds that another difficulty when it comes to advocating for this kind of programme is that tangible benefits or outcomes will only be seen in the long term, while government is more receptive to programmes or policies with clear and quick results.
Venter has similar concerns. He says there is a perception that these programmes are expensive to implement and run. “But that is only part of the issue,” he says, “I find it bizarre that I get incentivised left, right, and centre by Discovery, yet every time we raise it for poor people, I get told ‘they should be doing it, anyway’. It makes no sense.” As it stands, Venter says that problematic and pervasive perceptions need to be addressed before any incentive-based programme will even likely be considered by policy-makers and government officials, and even international funders, civil society, and the media for that matter.
‘Already incentivised’
National Department of Health Spokesperson, Foster Mohale, told Spotlight that his department “is not against incentivisation but each preventive programme has its own issues and each community of health system user has different incentives for staying well”. He agrees that the “public health benefits of health checks and health screening” have the potential to “result in early detection and reduced costs to the health system”.
However, he says that these services are already incentivised and that considering interventions inspired by Vitality is “inappropriate”. Asked about the nature of the current public sector incentives, he said, “[It] depends on what one sees as an incentive! For me, a gym membership, Fitbit, express check-in queue or cheap flights are of no value and I regard them as an insult. For others, they rush to ‘benefit’. For the majority of South Africans, a visit from the [community health worker] is the incentive!”
Mohale argues that, by definition, incentive “means inducement, motivation, motive, reason, encouragement” and that, “in the true spirit of incentives”, “testing and screening services are incentivised through health promotion in ALL public health clinics, and in school health programmes”.
He says that “the massive programme for HIV testing [is] incentivised through free testing [and] specific clinics”. He adds that the department offers another incentivised programme in the form of adherence clubs, where groups of about 30 people who are on chronic medication meet regularly, share their experiences with each other and receive some screening and counselling from healthcare workers.
NOTE:Professor Francois Venter is quoted in this article. Venter is a member of Spotlight’s Editorial Advisory Panel. The panel provides the Spotlight editors with advice and feedback on the quality and relevance of Spotlight’s public interest health journalism. The Spotlight editors, however, remain editorially independent and solely responsible for all editorial decisions. Read more on the role and purpose of the panel here.
Before being diagnosed with bipolar disorder Type 1, Sifiso Mkhasibe says he was often labelled as the “black sheep” of the family and he did not know where to go for help. He was often dismissed as crazy and told that this is a white man’s illness.
“My immediate family did not know how to help or support me,” he says. “I was always labelled the black sheep of my family. I was told that I was crazy, bewitched and that I was just pretending to be sick. I was told to be strong and to get over myself and that this disease is a white man’s illness and black people do not have such things.”
Mkhasibe says his family thought it was a cultural thing and that he had an ancestral calling to become a traditional healer. He did not agree.
The South African Federation of Mental Health (SAFMH) defines stigma as “an attribute, quality, or condition that severely restricts or diminishes a person’s sense of self, damaging their self-worth, social connections, and sense of belonging”.
The challenge of getting help
“It was extremely challenging to get help and support from my family. They played a big role in stigmatising me,” Mkhasibe tells Spotlight.
A delay in accessing mental healthcare services led to Mkhasibe’s condition deteriorating. He says some of his symptoms were racing thoughts, impulsive spending, hearing voices, and insomnia. “I was always high on life with extreme energy levels. Things became worse, whereby I became violent and aggressive. I was eventually admitted to Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital in 2007 and later transferred to Sterkfontein Psychiatric Hospital in Krugersdorp.”
“I was never informed about my diagnosis. What it was and how to manage it. I had no idea what to do when I was diagnosed. The challenge was that I was not educated about my mental illness,” he says.
Mkhasibe says he was in Sterkfontein Hospital until 2011. By then, he was estranged from his family and moved around a lot staying with cousins, aunts, and his late grandmother.
“I was at Sterkfontein for four years. My family did not want me back home. I moved from one ward to the other during that time. Now I’m close to my sister and mother again but it took a while to mend those bridges.”
He says his experience with the illness prompted him in 2011 after he was discharged from hospital, to start volunteering and creating awareness on mental health conditions. Mkhasibe is now 39 years old and was until recently a project leader for mental health at the SAFMH. He started at the organisation in 2017. On leaving the organisation, he says he has learned a lot but now has a newborn son and wants to spend time with him. Mkhasibe describes himself as a family man. He is married and has two children.
Stigma and seeking care
Ashleigh Craig, a clinical psychologist who runs a Johannesburg-based private practice and has also worked in the public sector, says beliefs around mental health contribute to stigma because there are negative connotations surrounding mental illness.
“People seeking care are often called names such as bewitched or crazy. This prevents people from seeking out care,” says Craig. “This results in people seeking care when their condition is acute and recovery will take much longer. Stigma can often lead to people completely stopping to take treatment.”
Claire Hart, a post-doctoral fellow at Wits University’s Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit (DPHRU), says the label of any mental illness is often also associated with a mark of social disgrace or stigma. This has been shown in South African communities, where studies revealed high levels of stigmatisation towards individuals with mental disorders. The label of having a “mental illness” is socially stigmatised and constitutes negative external perceptions, which may, in turn, be internalised and negatively impact an individual’s internal sense of self.
“As a result, these individuals may avoid using existing mental health care services in fear of being labelled even when experiencing severe psychological distress. Thus, both having a mental illness and seeking help may be viewed as undesirable,” says Hart.
Under-funded, under-resourced
Hart says fighting stigma requires a two-fold approach that involves education and providing adequate resources. “People with a lived experience can help in terms of fighting mental health stigma and raising awareness. However, mental health is underfunded and there is a shortage of psychologists in the country. To become a registered psychologist, you need a Masters degree and most universities only take six to 12 Masters candidates per year,” says Hart.
Craig says people in the public sector can wait up to four months just to see a psychologist. She says private psychologists are very expensive and in the public sector most mental health services are only available at tertiary hospitals.
According to South Africa’s new National Mental Health Policy Framework and Strategic Plan 2023 – 2030 (the mental health framework,) the country has less than one psychologist for every 100 000 people. This is among the reasons why there are limited mental health services in the public health sector, especially in rural areas.
“At present, mental healthcare in rural areas, preventive and promotive aspects of mental health, and the provision of services to children, adolescents and those with anxiety, mood, and other non-psychotic disorders remain under-resourced and underdeveloped. Furthermore, primary healthcare workers are under considerable strain due to high caseloads and have minimal training in mental health, resulting in patients receiving inadequate mental health care,” says Hart.
The social and economic costs
Data in the mental health framework indicates that about 5% of the total public health budget was allocated to public mental health expenditure in 2016/2017. Provincial public health budget allocations towards mental health showed marked inequality, ranging from 2.1 to 7.7% across provinces.
According to the mental health framework, social costs of mental illness can include disrupted families and social networks, stigma, discrimination, loss of future opportunities, marginalisation, and decreased quality of life.
Mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety have been estimated to cost the economy more than R61.2 billion in lost earnings, according to the mental health framework. It states that at a societal level, lost income associated with mental illness far exceeds public sector expenditure on mental health care. In other words, it costs South Africa more to not treat mental illness than to treat it.
What to do?
Although the mental health framework goes to great lengths to stress the impact of stigma on mental health, its plans to address this are relatively low in detail. According to the framework, all health staff working in health settings will receive basic mental health training, inclusive of anti-stigma training, and ongoing routine supervision and mentoring. Provincial departments of health are meant to look at expanding their mental health workforce.
The framework also sets out to strengthen mental health promotion, prevention and advocacy. “Currently, however, no concerted national programme exists,” the framework states. “In 2024, a national public education programme for mental health will be established, including knowledge of mental health and illness; stigma and discrimination against people with lived experience of mental illness.” This, according to the policy framework, will be steered by the national health department and provincial health departments. Other relevant government departments, including Employment and Labour, Education, and Social Development will, among others, introduce mental health literacy programmes into curriculums or workplace policies and decrease stigma.
But according to Michel’le Donnelly, a project leader for advocacy and awareness at the SAFMH, there is no clear outline for any anti-stigma programming in the mental health policy framework. “As the SAFMH we hold the view that the South African government needs to actively ensure that there is sufficient funding targeted for anti-stigma programming. Monitoring, evaluation, and implementation of these programmes should be done in collaboration with people with lived experience of mental health conditions and NGOs working in the sector. These programmes should include contact-based education as part of governments intended activities because, through evidence and research, this has proven to be a way of ending stigma.”
Mkhasibe agrees that we need more support to make people aware of mental health services and how to fight stigma. ”We need more community engagement in terms of mental health education and awareness. People all over South Africa need to know that mental health is more prevalent than we think. Businesses and organisations need to instil mental health training as a culture in the office,” he says.
“Schools, colleges, and universities should make mental health a priority within education. Awareness campaigns should be done at churches, malls, taxi ranks, airports, and bus stations. Basically, everywhere where people gather,” he says.