South Africa’s burden of oral diseases is not only inextricably linked to non-communicable diseases but also presents an urgent public health challenge, with rising concern over its impact on mental health.
Oral diseases are a major health concern for many countries and negatively impacts people throughout their lives. Oral diseases lead to pain and discomfort, social isolation and loss of self-confidence, and they are often linked to other serious health issues. And yet, there is no reason to suffer: most oral health conditions are preventable and can be treated in their early stages.
Globally, every year on March 20, World Oral Health Day is commemorated with the aim to empower people with the knowledge, tools, and confidence to secure good oral health.
This year, the Day’s focus shifts to the mind-mouth connection, with the tagline from the FDI World Dental Federation: “A Happy Mouth Is… A Happy Mind”. This campaign aims to raise awareness of how poor oral health can negatively impact quality of life, highlighting the importance of a healthy mouth for mental well-being.
Macelle Erasmus, Head of Expert at Haleon South Africa – a leader in consumer health and self-care, says, “Oral health is not just about bright smiles and good-looking teeth – it is a critical component of overall well-being. In South Africa, the high prevalence of oral diseases, particularly among children and vulnerable communities, reinforces the urgent need for improved oral health education and preventive care.”
Haleon’s leading oral health brands Aquafresh and Sensodyne, are committed to improving oral health education and access across the country.
Over the course of just three months, we have conducted more than 39,000 gum health screenings across 16 clinics. In 2025, our expansion aims to reach 100,000 underserved communities as part of Haleon’s oral health care outreach programs.
According to the South African Dental Association (SADA), 41% of children aged 1-9 years and close to 28% of people aged 5 years and over experienced untreated tooth decay in milk and permanent teeth respectively, while nearly 25% of people aged 15 years and over experienced severe periodontal disease in 2019. The country also saw 1,933 new cases of lip and oral cavity cancer in 2020.
The World Health Organisation’s Global Strategy and Action Plan on Oral Health 2023–2030, explains that oral health encompasses a range of diseases and conditions. The most prevalent public health issues include dental caries, severe periodontal (gum) disease, complete tooth loss (edentulism), oral cancer, oro-dental trauma, noma and congenital malformations such as cleft lip and palate, most of which are preventable.
The main oral diseases and conditions are estimated to affect close to 3.5 billion people worldwide. These conditions combined have an estimated global prevalence of 45%, which is higher than the prevalence of any other NCD.
However, oral diseases and conditions share risk factors common to the leading NCDs, including all forms of tobacco use, harmful alcohol use, high intake of free sugars and lack of exclusive breastfeeding.
The Department of Health’s National Oral Health Policy and Strategy 2024-2034 acknowledges that oral health is poorly integrated in other health programmes, “though it is an integral part of general health.” It further recognises that: “Its role in management and care of communicable diseases, genetic disorders, trauma, injury, and violence is often overlooked.”
This integration is particularly important as more than three million patients are treated in the country’s public primary healthcare facilities annually, at a cost of R650 million. Addressing oral health holistically – within the broader healthcare system – can significantly reduce this burden.
Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana holding a copy of the 2025 Budget Speech. (Photo: Parliament of RSA via X)
By Charles Parry, Funeka Bango, Tamara Kredo, Wanga Zembe, Michelle Galloway, Renee Street and Caradee Wright
While the 2025 national budget boosts health spending, researchers from the South African Medical Research Council stress the need for strong accountability measures. They also raise concerns about rising VAT and omissions related to US funding cuts and climate change.
The 2025 budget speech by Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana saw a welcome boost to the health budget with an increased allocation from R277 billion in 2024/2025 to R329 billion in 2027/2028. This signals a government that is responding to the dire health needs of the public sector, that serves more than 80% of the South African population.
As researchers at the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), we listened with interest and share our reflections on some of the critical areas of spend relevant for health and wellbeing.
We note the increase in investment in human resources for health and allocations for early childhood development and social grants. At the same time, we also raise concern about increasing VAT, with knock-on effects for the most vulnerable in our country. There were also worrying omissions in the speech, such as addressing the impact of the United States federal-funding freeze on healthcare services nationally, and a noticeable absence of comment on government’s climate-change plans.
Health and the link with social development: Recognising the importance of early childhood development
Education and specifically early childhood development (ECD) is known to have critical impacts on children’s health and wellbeing, with longstanding effects into youth and adulthood. In South Africa, eight million children go hungry every day, and more than a third of children are reported to live in households below the food poverty line, that is below the income level to meet basic food requirements, not even covering other basic essentials such as clothes.
While the increase in the number of registered ECDs is laudable, many more ECD centres in low-income areas remain unregistered, which means they do not get support from the government in terms of subsidies and oversight.
Social grants
The increase in social grants is welcomed. However, the marginal increase of the Child Support Grant (CSG) by only R30, from R530 to R560, is too little to impact on the high levels of child hunger and malnutrition. The release of the Child Poverty Review in 2023, which highlighted the eight million children going hungry every day, including CSG recipients, proposed the immediate increase of the CSG to at least the Food Poverty Line (R796 in 2024).
Social relief of distress still too small
The Social Relief of Distress (SRD) Grant is an important source of income for low-income, working-age, unemployed adults. Its continuance in 2025 is welcomed. However, it remains too small at R370 per person per month, and the stringent means-test criteria which disrupt continuous receipt from month-to-month, makes it an unreliable, unpredictable source of income for low-income individuals.
Strengthening the healthcare workforce
The Minister stated that “R28.9 billion is added to the health budget, mainly to keep about 9 300 healthcare workers in our hospitals and clinics”. It will also be used to employ 800 post-community service doctors, and to ensure that our pharmacies do not run out of medicines. The speech highlighted the necessary commitment to strengthening the healthcare system, specifically human resources for health.
Considering the pressures on resources, primarily due to the escalating disease burden and challenges within the health workforce, the proposed budget increase from R179 billion to R194 billion – an increase of 8.2% – to maintain the current workforce and employ additional healthcare workers signifies a positive step forward that will aid in addressing staff shortages.
Despite the gains in health spending, the proposed increase in VAT raises substantial concerns to partially negate the potential benefits to the health sector. As the World Bank reports that approximately 60% of people living in South Africa live below the poverty line, increases to VAT will likely drive poverty levels higher.
A focus on other forms of taxation may be better, more evidence-based, and less likely to disproportionately affect those at the highest levels of poverty.
On the issue of alcohol taxes, often mischaracterised as “sin taxes” rather than “health taxes”, the Minister has proposed excise duties of 6.75% on most products for 2025/26. This is 2% above consumer inflation, which stands at 4.75%.
Raising alcohol prices through higher excise taxes is globally recognised as an effective way to address alcohol-related harms. National Treasury is to be commended for adjusting alcohol excise tax rates above CPI in the 2025/26 Budget. This is a move in the right direction, but it does not address the current anomalies in tax rates across different products. This failure to address shortcomings in the excise tax regime is expected, given the release of a discussion document on alcohol excise taxes in December 2024 with a February 2025 response date. The earliest we can expect substantial changes in excise tax rates is in February 2026.
From a public-health perspective, it makes sense to link alcohol excise taxes to the absolute alcohol content of the product to standardise across products. Ethanol is ethanol. The current differential in excise tax rates on different alcohol products is indefensible. Specifically, it makes no sense to tax wine and beer so much less than spirits in terms of absolute alcohol content. Wine, especially bag-in-box wine, is the cheapest product on the market in South Africa, and its affordability increases consumption, leading to more societal harm.
Beer is the most consumed product in the country and is increasingly sold in larger, non-resealable containers. A 2015 SAMRC study in Gauteng found the highest level of heavy episodic drinking with beer products, largely due to their affordability, especially in larger, non-resealable containers. Heavy episodic drinking is a major public-health concern in South Africa, with 43.0% of current drinkers engaging in heavy episodic drinking at least monthly, 50.9% of male and 30.3% of female drinkers. Increasing the excise tax on beer is a powerful tool that the state can use to reduce the level of such behaviour.
Additionally, it makes sense to have lower taxes on alcohol products with lower alcohol content, as this could shift consumption to less harmful products. The current excise tax regimen does not account for this within a single product type like beer or wine, as all products are taxed at the same rate regardless of their alcohol content.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw the benefits of decreased access to alcohol: fewer injuries, fewer unnatural deaths, and communities less disrupted by patrons visiting liquor outlets. While no one advocates for total liquor sales bans, increasing excise taxes on wine and beer would decrease alcohol consumption and reduce harms on drinkers, on others around them, and on society more broadly.
Acute risk to lives with knock on effects due to US federal funding cuts
We believe the South African government has a responsibility to step into the gap left by the sudden US federal funding freeze on HIV and TB services. The US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funds 17% of HIV and TB services in South Africa and covers salaries for thousands of health workers, including the vital services of community health workers.
The implications for people living with HIV and TB and affected by the externally funded services will be devastating. It will also have ripple effects on the health system as we see inevitable increases in demand for health services to address advancing illness, effects on families caring for ill relatives or losing income.
This area needs to be addressed and clear communication from the National Department of Health is urgently awaited. The US funding cuts clearly impact on essential research funding available to institutions like the SAMRC and no indication has been given in the budget of any plans to augment or replace such funding.
National Health Insurance for South Africa’s public sector
The Minister addressed budget allocations for NHI implementation, specifically, the mid-term indirect and direct conditional grants for NHI were R8.5 billion and R1.4 billion respectively. Although these amounts in themselves are minor compared to other health-budget allocations, allocations for infrastructure (R37.4 billion over the mid-term economic framework period) and additionally allocations for digital patient health information systems, chronic medicine dispensing and distribution systems, and medicine stock surveillance systems are vital for healthcare efficiency and improved outcomes.
Least said not soonest mended: climate change – ‘no comment’?
From a climate-crisis perspective, although the budget speech did not explicitly mention climate change or its related health challenges, there seems to be positive steps being taken to address these issues. Initiatives such as clean energy projects and efforts to improve water management have the potential to benefit all sectors of society, while helping to mitigate the health risks associated with climate change.
Promising spend on health, but who will measure the impact?
Ultimately, increasing health spend is a promising step to increase access to quality health services for South Africa’s population. However, this is not enough, government must seize the opportunity to translate the budget increase into improved health outcomes. The effectiveness of the additional funds must be maximised through efficiency, transparency, and sound governance. The government can reinforce the integrity of public-health services by aligning these increases with robust accountability measures.
Government-academic partnerships represent an opportunity to share knowledge, technical skills and resources to support evidence-informed decision-making for national health decision-making and strengthen monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. There are many examples of this working well, and we trust that the SAMRC, along with the network of higher education institutions are well placed to provide the necessary support.
*Parry, Bango, Kredo, Zembe, Galloway, Street and Wright are researchers with the SAMRC.
Note: Spotlight aims to deepen public understanding of important health issues by publishing a variety of views on its opinion pages. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily shared by the Spotlight editors.
Every year, hundreds of South African children courageously battle blood disorders which are treatable through stem cell transplants. Yet, while at least 250 paediatric transplants are needed annually, only 18 are performed – leading to survival rates of just 20%, compared to 80% in countries like the USA and Europe.
Ahead of Human Rights Day, Palesa Mokomele, Head of Community Engagement and Communications at DKMS Africa, highlights the urgent need for action: “Every child has the right to healthcare, which should include stem cell transplants. By working together – government, healthcare providers, and the private sector – we can remove the barriers preventing children from receiving the treatment they need.”
Overcoming Barriers to Life-Saving Transplants
Mokomele notes that while there are challenges, there are also solutions. “By addressing issues such as financial constraints, medication shortages, and limited infrastructure, we can ensure that more children receive these vital treatments. Through collaboration, we can create meaningful change.”
Addressing the Cost Challenge
One of the major hurdles in providing this life-saving treatment is the high cost of stem cell transplants, which ranges from R1 million to R1.5 million. “When a child has a matching family donor, the public healthcare system covers their transplant fully. However, for the 70% of patients who require an unrelated donor, the state covers the transplant, but not the additional costs of finding and securing a suitable donor such as tissue typing, donor searches, and stem cell procurement.,” explains Mokomele.
“Public-private partnerships, however, can ensure that all associated costs are also covered,” she points out. “Together, we can make a difference in the lives of children who need these life-saving procedures. To be effective, we must collaborate more closely and take a holistic approach.”
Building Medical Expertise
“South Africa is challenged by the lack of clinically skilled haematology nurses and clinical haematologists, but we are looking into how ways to increase capacity at this level. Training and scholarships for medical and non-medical staff in haematology and transplantation can improve the level of care provided,” says Mokomele.
She outlines some of the work of non-profit organisations like DKMS Africa in supporting knowledge transfer initiatives for healthcare professionals. “Through a combination of theoretical courses, hands-on observerships, or a hybrid of both, we aim to enhance patient outcomes. We also frequently host and participate in symposia for the medical community to exchange knowledge and explore best practices, which are essential for providing the highest quality care.”
Encouraging Donor Commitment
A strong donor registry is crucial, yet despite DKMS Africa recruiting over 100 000 potential donors, 56% of those matched decline to donate when called upon. “Becoming a donor is a powerful act – it’s a chance to give a child a second chance at life,” urges Mokomele.”
Expanding Transplant Capacity
Increasing the number of transplant beds is another crucial step. Currently, only four paediatric transplant beds are available in public transplant centres – two in the Western Cape and two in Pretoria. However, she shares encouraging news: “We are in conversations with the private sector to support the expansion of more beds in Gauteng, where the bulk of patients reside. This expansion represents a crucial step toward improving access to care.”
A Call to Action: How You Can Help
“The progress we’re seeing is promising. Together, we can ensure that no child is denied a life-saving transplant due to financial, medical, or infrastructure constraints,” concludes Mokomele. “Whether by registering as a donor, supporting fundraising efforts, or advocating for policy changes, every contribution makes a difference. With collective effort and commitment, South Africa could transform paediatric stem cell treatment – offering hope, healing, and a future to the children who need it most.”
Henry Adams, Country Manager South Africa, InterSystems
Healthcare data is one of the most complex and valuable assets in the modern world. Yet, despite the wealth of digital health information being generated daily, many organisations still struggle to access, integrate, and use it effectively. The promise of data-driven healthcare – where patient records, research insights, and operational efficiencies seamlessly come together – remains just that: a promise. The challenge lies in interoperability.
For years, healthcare institutions have grappled with fragmented systems, disparate data formats, and evolving regulatory requirements. The question is no longer whether to integrate but how best to do it. Should healthcare providers build, rent, or buy their data integration solutions? Each approach has advantages and trade-offs, but long-term success depends on choosing a solution that balances control, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness.
Why Interoperability Remains a Challenge
Despite significant advancements in standardisation, interoperability remains a persistent challenge in healthcare. A common saying in the industry – “If you’ve seen one HL7 interface, you’ve seen one HL7 interface” – illustrates the lack of uniformity across systems. Even FHIR, the latest interoperability standard, comes with many extensions and custom implementations, leading to inconsistency.
Henry Adams, Country Manager South Africa, InterSystems
Adding to this complexity, healthcare data must meet strict security, privacy, and compliance requirements. The need for real-time data exchange, analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI) further increases the pressure on organisations to implement robust, scalable, and future-proof integration solutions.
The Build, Rent, or Buy Dilemma
When organisations decide how to approach interoperability, they typically weigh three options:
Building a solution from scratch offers full control but comes with high development costs, lengthy implementation timelines, and ongoing maintenance challenges. Ensuring compliance with HL7, FHIR, and other regulatory standards requires significant resources and expertise.
Renting an integration solution provides quick deployment at a lower initial cost but can lead to vendor lock-in, limited flexibility, and escalating costs as data volumes grow. Additionally, outsourced solutions may not prioritise healthcare-specific requirements, creating potential risks for compliance, security, and scalability.
Buying a purpose-built integration platform strikes a balance between control and flexibility. Solutions like InterSystems Health Connect and InterSystems IRIS for Health offer pre-built interoperability features while allowing organisations to customise and scale their integration as needed.
The Smart Choice: Owning Your Integration Future
To remain agile in an evolving healthcare landscape, organisations must consider the long-term impact of their integration choices. A well-designed interoperability strategy should allow for:
Customisation without complexity – Organisations should be able to tailor their integration capabilities without having to build from the ground up. This ensures they can adapt to new regulatory requirements and technological advancements.
Scalability without skyrocketing costs – A robust data platform should enable growth without the exponential cost increases often associated with rented solutions.
Security and compliance by design – Healthcare providers cannot afford to compromise on data privacy and security. A trusted interoperability partner should offer built-in compliance with international standards.
Some healthcare providers opt for platforms that combine pre-built interoperability with the flexibility to scale and customise as needed. For example, solutions designed to support seamless integration with electronic health records (EHRs), medical devices, and other healthcare systems can offer both operational efficiency and advanced analytics capabilities. The key is selecting an approach that aligns with both current and future needs, ensuring data remains accessible, secure, and actionable.
Preparing for the Future of Healthcare IT
As healthcare systems become more digital, the need for efficient, secure, and adaptable interoperability solutions will only intensify. The right integration strategy can determine whether an organisation thrives or struggles with inefficiencies, rising costs, and regulatory risks.
By choosing an approach that prioritises flexibility, control, and future-readiness, healthcare providers can unlock the full potential of their data – improving patient outcomes, driving operational efficiencies, and enabling innovation at scale.
The question isn’t just whether to build, rent, or buy – but how to create a foundation that ensures long-term success in healthcare interoperability.
Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán: https://www.pexels.com/photo/syringe-and-pills-on-blue-background-3936368/
By Ufrieda Ho
Amid major disruptions caused by aid cuts from the United States government, the health department aims to enrol a record number – an additional 1.1 million – of people living with HIV on life-saving antiretroviral medicine this year. Experts tell Spotlight it can’t be business as usual if this ambitious programme is to have a chance of succeeding.
Government’s new “Close the Gap” campaign launched at the end of February has set a bold target of putting an additional 1.1 million people living with HIV on antiretroviral treatment by the end of 2025.
Around 7.8 million people are living with HIV in the country and of these, 5.9 million are on treatment, according to the National Department of Health. The target is therefore to have a total of seven million people on treatment by the end of the year. Specific targets have also been set for each of the nine provinces.
The initiative is aimed at meeting the UNAIDS 95–95–95 HIV testing, treatment and viral suppression targets that have been endorsed in South Africa’s National Strategic Plan for HIV, TB, and STIs 2023 – 2028. The targets are that by 2030, 95% of people living with HIV should know their HIV status, 95% of people who know their status should be on treatment, and 95% of people on treatment should be virally suppressed (meaning there is so little HIV in their bodily fluids that they are non-infectious).
Currently, South Africa stands at 96–79–94 against these targets, according to the South African National Aids Council (SANAC). This indicates that the biggest gap in the country’s HIV response lies with those who have tested positive but are not on treatment – the second 95 target.
But adding 1.1 million people to South Africa’s HIV treatment programme in just ten months would be unprecedented. The highest number of people who started antiretroviral treatment in a year was the roughly 730 000 in 2011. In each of the last five years, the number has been under 300 000, according to figures from Thembisa, the leading mathematical model of HIV in South Africa. According to our calculations, if South Africa successfully adds 1.1 million people to the HIV treatment programme by the end of 2025, the score on the second target would rise to just above 90%.
The record for the most people starting antiretroviral treatment in a single year was approximately 730 000 in 2011. (Graph by Spotlight, based on Tembisa data.)
The ambitious new campaign launches at a moment of crisis in South Africa’s HIV response. Abrupt funding cuts from the United States government – the PEPFAR funding – has meant that the work of several service-delivery NGOs have ground to a halt in recent weeks.
These NGOs played an important role in getting people tested and in helping find people and supporting them to start and restart treatment. The focus of many of these NGOs was on people in marginalised but high-risk groups, including sex workers, people who use drugs and those in the LGBTQI community. As yet, government has not presented a clear plan for how these specialised services might continue.
“We will need bridging finance for many of these NGOs to contain and preserve the essential work that they were doing till we can confer these roles and responsibilities to others,” says Professor Francois Venter, of the Ezintsha Research Centre at the University of the Witwatersrand.
He says good investment in targeted funding for NGOs is a necessary buffer to minimise “risks to the entire South African HIV programme” and the looming consequences of rising numbers of new HIV cases, more hospitalisations, and inevitably deaths.
Disengaging from care
South Africa’s underperformance on the second 95 target is partly due to people stopping their treatment. The reasons for such disengagement from HIV care can be complex. Research has shown it is linked to factors like frequent relocations, which means people have to restart treatment at different clinics over and over. They also have to navigate an inflexible healthcare system. A systematic review identified factors including mental health challenges, lack of family or social support, long waiting times at clinics, work commitments, and transportation costs.
Venter adds that while people are disengaged from care, they are likely transmitting the virus. The addition of new infections for an already pressured HIV response contributes to South Africa’s sluggish creep forward in meeting the UNAIDS targets.
The health department has not been strong on locating people who have been “lost” to care, says Venter. This role was largely carried out by PEPFAR-supported NGOs that are now unable to continue their work due to the withdrawal of crucial US foreign aid.
Inexpensive interventions
Other experts working in the HIV sector, say the success of the Close the Gap campaign will come down to scrapping programmes and approaches that have not yielded success, using resources more efficiently, strategic investment, and introducing creative interventions to meet the service delivery demands of HIV patients.
Key among these interventions, is to improve levels of professionalism in clinics so patients can trust the clinics enough to restart treatment.
Professor Graeme Meintjes of the Department of Medicine at the University of Cape Town says issues like improving staff attitudes and updating public messaging and communications are inexpensive interventions that can boost “welcome back” programmes.
“The Close the Gap campaign must utilise media platforms and social media platforms to send out a clear message, so people know the risks of disengagement and the importance of returning to care. The longer someone interrupts their treatment and the more times this happens, the more they are at risk of opportunistic infections, severe complications, getting very sick and needing costly hospitalisations,” he says.
Clinics need to provide friendly, professional services that encourage people to return to and stay on treatment, Meintjes says, and services need to be flexible. These could include more external medicine pick-up points, scripts filled for longer periods, later clinic operating hours, and mobile clinic services.
“We need to make services as flexible as possible. People can’t be scolded for missing an appointment – life happens. Putting these interventions in place are not particularly costly, in fact it is good clinical practice and make sense in terms of health economics by avoiding hospitalisations that result from prolonged treatment interruptions,” he says.
The Close the Gap campaign, Meintjes adds, should reassure people that HIV treatment has advanced substantially over the decades. The drugs work well and now have far fewer side effects, with less risk of developing resistance. More patients are stable on the treatment for longer and most adults manage their single tablet once-a-day regime easily.
Insights from our experiences
Professor Linda-Gail Bekker, Chief Executive Officer at the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation, says to get closer to the target of 1.1 million people on treatment by year-end will mean using resources better.
“Additional funding is always welcome, so are new campaigns that catalyse and energise. But we also need to stop doing the things we know don’t have good returns. For instance, testing populations of people who have been tested multiple times and aren’t showing evidence of new infections occurring in those populations,” she says.
There is also a need for better data collection and more strategic use of data, Bekker says. Additionally, she suggests a status-neutral approach, meaning that if someone tests positive, they are referred for treatment, while those who test negative are directed to effective prevention programmes, including access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for people at high risk of exposure through sex or injection drug use.
But Bekker adds: “We need to be absolutely clear; these people aren’t going to come to us in our health facilities, or we would have found them already. We have to do the work that many of the PEPFAR-funded NGOs were doing and that is going to the last mile to find the last patient and to bring them to care.”
She says the impact of the PEPFAR funding cuts can therefore not be downplayed. “The job is going to get harder with fewer resources that were specifically directed at solving this problem.”
Venter names another approach that has not worked. This, he says, is the persistence of treating HIV within an integrated health system. Overburdened clinics have simply not coped, he adds, with being able to fulfil the ideal of a “one-stop-shop” model of healthcare.
Citing an example, he says: “Someone might come into a clinic with a stomach ache and be vomiting, they might be treated for that but there’s no investigation or follow-up to find out if it might be HIV-related, for instance. And once that person is out of the door, they’re gone.”
Campaign specifics still lacking
The Department of Health did not answer Spotlight’s questions about funding for the Close the Gap campaign; what specific projects in the campaign will look like; or how clinics and clinic staff will be equipped or supported in order to find the 1.1 million people. There is also scant details of the specifics of the campaign online.
Speaking to the public broadcaster after the 25 February campaign launch, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi said South Africa is still seeing 150 000 new infections every year. He said they will reach their 1.1 million target through a province-by-province approach. He used the Eastern Cape as an example.
“When you look at the 1.1 million, it can be scary – it’s quite big. But if you go to the provinces – the Eastern Cape needs to look for 140 000 people. Then you come to their seven districts, that number becomes much less. So, one clinic could be looking for just three people,” he said.
Nelson Dlamini, SANAC’s communications manager, says the focus will be to bring into care 650 000 men, as men are known to have poor health-seeking habits. Added to this will be a focus on adolescents and children who are living with HIV.
He says funding for the Close the Gap campaign will not be shouldered by the health department alone.
“This is a multisectoral campaign. Other departments have a role to play, these include social development, basic education, higher education and training, etc, and civil society themselves,” Dlamini says.
The province-by-province approach to reach the target of finding 1.1 million additional people is guided by new data sources.
“Last year, SANAC launched the SANAC Situation Room, a data hub which pulls data from multiple sources in order for us to have the most accurate picture on the status of the epidemic,” says Dlamini.
These include the Thembisa and Naomi model outputs and data from the District Health Information System and Human Sciences Research Council, he says adding that SANAC is working to secure data sharing agreements with other sectors too.
Dlamini however says the health department, rather than SANAC, will provide progress reports on the 10-month project.
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.
Cuts to United States spending on aid and medical research have caused widespread havoc and anxiety in the last month. Professor Tulio de Oliveira sat down with Spotlight’s Biénne Huisman to talk through what it might mean for health research in South Africa.
As the Trump administration moves to freeze foreign aid, halting vital humanitarian health programmes and medical research trials worldwide – leaving patients cut off from lifesaving medicines and scientists in a bind – Professor Tulio de Oliveira argues that the United States stand to lose far more from this move than its 1% government investment in foreign aid.
The non-partisan Pew Research Center recently released figures showing that of the American government’s total 2023 budget, 1.2% or about $71.9 billion was spent on foreign aid. Of this foreign aid budget, 14.7% or about $10.6 billion was earmarked for the “ongoing battle against HIV/AIDS” and 2% or about $1.5 billion for “combatting pandemic influenza and other emerging public health threats”.
Speaking to Spotlight in a boardroom at the Centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation (CERI) at Stellenbosch University, De Oliveira says: “Spending on biosecurity is an investment in the future – I think the United States benefits much more from our research and our work than what we cost them.” Biosecurity refers to measures designed to protect populations against harmful biological or biochemical substances.
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, De Oliveira, a professor in bioinformatics, shot to global attention for leading the South African team credited with discovering the Beta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Now, in the face of a new global health upheaval, he insists that cross-border scientific collaboration is critical for combating the global spread of disease.
“Pathogens don’t need passports, they don’t care about nationality,” he says, referencing former World Health Organisation Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan, who first used the phrase at the 2007 World Health Assembly.
Professor Tulio de Oliveira. (Photo: Supplied)
De Oliveira is a native Brazilian who speaks accented English. During his interview with Spotlight, his demeanour is calm and his speech unrushed as he expands: “It’s of great interest to America to keep investing – not as a kind of donation, or because we’re entitled to it – but because of how it helps them. We just came out of a pandemic and America actually had much bigger waves of infection than many of the poor countries.”
He lists recent global population health threats: “Like with Covid, now we have influenza; and the virus is mutating, transmitting through multiple animals. We just had an outbreak of Marburg in Rwanda and another one in Kenya. We had an emergence of mpox in central Africa. We had an emergence in Sudan of a strain of Ebola. In Uganda, a growing rate of malaria drug resistance.
“And in the last year, the US saw the biggest number of TB cases ever. So it’s of critical interest that these pathogens get quickly identified, are quickly controlled, that you treat people so that it doesn’t spread to other countries. In the end, it’s the health of the global population, it doesn’t matter which country we live in or how wealthy people are.”
Major funding cuts
Scores of South African research groups (many who provide affiliated public healthcare services) have in the past received funding from United States government entities – including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USAID, and the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR).
Many of these funding flows have been paused in recent weeks by the Trump administration. As a result, several important clinical trials have been stopped. The impacts are far-reaching – around 28% of the South African Medical Research Council’s (SAMRC) 2025/2026 budget was set to be funded by US government entities. Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, President of the SAMRC, told Spotlight that it would be catastrophic if the funding is cut.
Adding further uncertainty, prominent vaccine sceptic Robert F. Kennedy has been confirmed as the US’s health secretary under the Trump administration. Kennedy has argued that the NIH should reduce its focus on infectious diseases and dedicate more resources to non-communicable diseases like diabetes. The US government has until now been by far the biggest funder of both HIV and TB research.
De Oliveira appears unflustered. At CERI, of which he is the founding director, he says only 7% of funding is from the NIH – “and we have reason to believe that the current NIH grants that we have will not be discontinued”. One such grant was for R40 million over five years awarded in 2023 to CERI’s Professor Frank Tanser for designing HIV prevention strategies.
In fact, De Oliveira says CERI and the KwaZulu-Natal Research Innovation and Sequencing Platform (KRISP) which he also heads, are expanding. Both centres use state-of-the-art genomics – the study of the DNA of organisms – to identify new variants of pathogens and to prevent disease.
“Yes, the opposite, we’re in an expansion phase,” says De Oliveira.
“Just last week, we advertised five post-doctoral fellowship positions. We hope that we can even absorb some of the great talent that may be lost from groups that were unfortunately more reliant on American funding.”
He stresses the importance of having a diversified funding portfolio, saying the work of CERI and KRISP is funded through 46 active grants with another 9 in the offing. “We have multiple grants from multiple funders from multiple countries. So again, I know it’s easily said, but I think it’s something that we should learn going forward, not to grow too reliant on one funder.”
Filling the gap
If the United States pulls back permanently from its leadership role in providing global aid – and medical research funding in particular – who might fill the gap?
The New Yorker quotes Clemence Landers, vice-president of the think tank Centre for Global Development, suggesting that China might come forward.
In response, De Oliveira says: “China could fill the gap. But people don’t realise the biggest foundation in the world at the moment is called the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark which is linked to the company that had the massive breakthrough with Ozempic. They could easily fill the gap if they wanted. There are others as well. I would not be surprised if a completely unexpected foundation came forward to fill the gap.”
Reflecting further, he expresses hope that “people with noble causes step up”.
In 2022, TIME Magazine named De Oliveira one of the world’s 100 most influential people, and in 2024 he cracked the magazine’s top 100 health list. Has this public recognition made it easier for him to attract funding? He shrugs this off.
“We’re really committed to having a global impact that saves lives. And that commitment is not centralised in the director, but in our vision shared across principal investigators. And this is really important for the sustainability of organisations. I get offered good jobs every couple of weeks, and I mean even though I don’t intend on going anywhere, anything could happen. For example, two weeks ago I was skateboarding and cracked my ribs.”
In a moment of levity, he elaborates: “And this is the fifth time I cracked my ribs. Once was while skateboarding, another while snowboarding, surfing, once while mountain biking and another time falling from a children’s tractor.”
De Oliveira moved to South Africa in 1997, as the AIDS crisis was heading toward its peak. He says he feels “eternally grateful” for the boost PEPFAR brought to South Africa’s HIV-programme, adding that today the country might be in a “better position to absorb the loss of the funding than say five, ten years ago”.
He notes that 17% of South Africa’s HIV/AIDS spending was from PEPFAR, but that this does not include the procurement of antiretrovirals. “So yes, I think as South Africans we might be in a position to come up with solutions, as the programme is very well run.”
De Oliveira’s concern is for more vulnerable African countries – he singles out Mozambique – which are reliant on foreign aid for the procurement of medicines like antiretrovirals.
Needless to say, these recent events are a setback in the quest to develop an HIV vaccine. “When you decrease investment in research and science, you keep further away from developing the solutions,” he says. “But in terms of HIV/AIDS, luckily there are antiretroviral therapies that are very efficient.”
As we wrap up the interview, De Oliveira zooms out to the bigger picture: “Unfortunately, we are destroying the environment, there’s increased globalisation and crazy urbanisation, and this is making it easier for infectious diseases to spread.
“This is a challenging time for scientific and medical research. A time to develop solutions.”
Numerous South African health projects funded by the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) remain closed. This is despite a federal court judgment which ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to lift the blanket freeze on global aid.
A waiver on life-saving humanitarian services appears to have had little effect. Funding remains frozen for many projects that provided services explicitly covered by the waiver, such as antiretroviral (ARV) medicines for people with HIV.
A spokesperson for one of these projects said that the United States Agency for International Development Aid (USAID) had not provided any communication regarding the waiver, despite requests for information.
A second organisation said USAID instructed it to provide an adapted budget that only covers services included in the waiver. The organisation submitted it, but it has not yet been approved. The organisation supports orphaned children living with HIV.
CDC funding
PEPFAR is a US initiative that provides billions of dollars a year toward combating HIV in different parts of the world. These funds are primarily distributed through two agencies: USAID and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In late January USAID issued stop-work orders to the organisations which it funds. A few days later, the CDC did the same. This was after an executive order by Trump which paused foreign development funding for 90 days pending a review. As a result, US-funded health organisations across South Africa were forced to close their doors. In some cases, HIV patients were left without ARVs.
Last week the CDC issued notifications to its recipient organisations rescinding the stop-work orders. The CDC stated that this was because of a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge in Rhode Island that halted the Trump administration’s ability to freeze congressional funds. Since then, many South African organisations that get money from the CDC have reopened.
But USAID did not send out similar notifications. PEPFAR funds from this agency largely remain frozen.
In a separate judgment on 13 February, a federal judge in Washington DC blocked the implementation of Trump’s executive order to freeze foreign aid. The administration’s lawyers have argued that the US government can continue to freeze aid via other channels unrelated to the executive order.
Dangerous disruption
GroundUp and Spotlight visited three health centres in South Africa funded by USAID, and found all three remained closed. Representatives from a fourth USAID-funded organisation confirmed that its funding has not been restored, and that its partner organisation was in the same boat.
The first centre that we visited is a clinic in Rosebank, Johannesburg, run by OUT LGBT Wellbeing. It provided free HIV testing, ARVs, and the daily HIV-prevention pill (this is referred to as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP). It’s one of several US-funded clinics that OUT operates around the country.
Its services are geared toward men who have sex with men. The reason is that rates of HIV are high among this group, and stigma may prevent some from seeking help in general healthcare settings.
When we visited the centre in Rosebank, a note was tied to the gate, stating: “Regrettably our clinic is temporarily closed and consequently no health services are available”. It encouraged patients to go to their nearest health facility.
According to OUT spokesperson Luiz De Barros, the clinics were forced to halt immediately after stop-work orders were issued. This prevented them from making alternative plans, leaving many people without ARVs or PrEP.
He said the centres had a total of 84 staff, who are now “at home without pay”, and about 5000 clients. Without their ARVs, De Barros worries that many clients are at risk of falling ill or developing drug-resistant HIV. Stopping HIV prevention services like PrEP will also “heighten the spread of HIV within communities,” he noted.
De Barros said they had not yet received any communication from USAID about the limited waiver, despite asking for information.
A clause in the waiver says it does not apply to “gender or DEI [diversity, equality and inclusion] ideology programs”. The Trump administration has not spelled out exactly what these terms mean, but it appears that DEI includes any health project which targets particular groups, like LGBTQ people.
GroundUp and Spotlight visited a second health centre in Hillbrow run by the WITS Reproductive Health Institute (RHI). A sign on the gate stated: “USAID has served the WITS RHI Key Populations Programme a notice to pause programme implementation. As of Tuesday, 28 January, we are unable to provide services until further notice.”
WITS RHI’s annual reports suggest that USAID has previously sponsored its projects to treat and prevent HIV, including among high-risk groups like sex workers and transgender people.
The third health facility that we visited is the Ivan Toms Centre for Health, based in Green Point, Cape Town. A temporary closure notification hung from the door. The centre provided HIV and TB testing, ARVs, PrEP, and counselling services – all focused on men who have sex with men.
Representatives from a fourth organisation, NACOSA, told GroundUp and Spotlight that it had been forced to halt all of its USAID-funded services. Subsequently, USAID instructed the organisation to provide a revised budget which only includes activities listed under the waiver. As part of this limited budget, NACOSA proposed retaining a project which helps orphaned and vulnerable children living with HIV in the Western Cape.
Dr Ntlotleng Mabena, a technical specialist at NACOSA, said the project provides these children with psychological support and connects them to health providers. Clinical workers linked to the ANOVA health institute (which is also US-funded) provide the children with ARV treatment, she said.
NACOSA submitted the revised budget with the hope of restarting this service, but they are still awaiting approval. Mabena stated that ANOVA was also waiting for permission to continue. In the meantime, the service remains closed.
The US embassy in South Africa maintains that Trump’s funding cuts do not affect PEPFAR initiatives that provide life-saving services as defined in the limited waiver.
Yet all of the life-saving PEPFAR services that we investigated on Thursday are closed. The only services which have reopened are those funded by the CDC, which is unrelated to the waiver.
Sign outside a Wits RHI clinic in Johannesburg. Photo: Ihsaan Haffejee
Harnessing the power of preventative care and incentivised wellness to lessen the burden and cost of disease in South Africa.
By Damian McHugh, Chief Marketing Officer, Momentum Health.
South Africa is at a critical juncture in its healthcare landscape. The burden of disease -primarily driven by non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes, hypertension, and mental health disorders – has escalated alarmingly. Over the past two years, NCDs have increased from 51% in 2022 to 55% in 2024, with diabetes rising by 12% and hypertension increasing from 8% to 10%1. Not only straining our healthcare system but also substantially hampering economic productivity and growth.
Current State of our Nation’s Health
It’s estimated that poor health-related absenteeism costs the South African economy up to R19.1 billion annually2. Beyond these direct financial implications, this hidden drain stifles business growth, reduces workforce efficiency, and hinders overall economic progress. Lifestyle-related diseases contribute significantly to rising healthcare costs – with an estimated R270 billion in healthcare claims projected to be linked to preventable conditions in 20253.
However, we have an opportunity to reverse this trend by embracing preventative care and incentivised wellness- two powerful levers that can help shift our healthcare paradigm from sick care to proactive disease prevention.
Why Prevention Is the Key to a Healthier, Wealthier Nation
I’ve always believed in the notion that your health is your wealth. Preventative healthcare is no doubt one of the most effective ways to reduce the burden and cost of disease. Simple lifestyle changes, such as regular exercise, balanced nutrition, deeper connections with loved ones, routine screenings to know one’s numbers, and effective stress management – have all been proven to dramatically lower the risk of chronic conditions. Yet, despite these clear benefits, many South Africans struggle to prioritise their health due to financial constraints, limited access to wellness education, and the ever-evolving demands of daily life.
This is where the private healthcare sector, in collaboration with policymakers and employers, can make a significant impact. By incentivising wellness behaviours, we can empower citizens to take control of their health while alleviating the financial burden on our healthcare system.
The Power of Incentivised Wellness
At Momentum Health, we have witnessed firsthand the positive outcomes driven by wellness rewards programmes. By rewarding members for engaging in preventative health activities—such as completing health screenings, maintaining an active lifestyle, or adopting healthier eating habits, we foster sustainable behaviour change through our wellness rewards programme, Momentum Multiply.
When effectively designed, these programmes offer tangible benefits such as lower healthcare costs through a rewards system and encourage healthier lives that rely less on medical intervention in the first place. There is sound evidence that ahealthier population results in fewer medical claims and lower insurance premiums, benefiting both individuals and employers.
It can also be linked to increased productivity as healthy bodies host healthy minds. We have seen that employees who proactively manage their health take fewer sick days, leading to enhanced workplace performance and reduced absenteeism. As a result, these factors contribute immensely to stronger economic growth asa healthier workforce contributes to improved business efficiency and a more resilient economy. However, to fully realise the potential of preventative care and incentivised wellness, we cannot do it alone. It’s pivotal that we adopt a multi-stakeholder approach.
Stronger and healthier together
A collaborative approach where healthcare insurers & providers expand access to preventative screenings, personalised health coaching, and digital health solutions that track and reward healthy habits and behaviour. Where employers adopt and implement workplace wellness programs that encourage employees to prioritise their health through corporate wellness incentives and adequate mental health support.
Where we, the private sector, work alongside Government & Policymakers strengthen the current system, build capacity for future skills andimplement national awareness campaigns to showcase the importance of preventative care.
As it stands, in 2024 the Gauteng Department of Health (GDoH) set aside R38.1 million in 2024/25 financial year and R119.7 million over the MTEF allocated for health and wellness campaigns, as well as physical activity programmes in prioritised areas such as Townships, Informal Settlement and Hostels and more recently, the GDoH announced a budget of R474.6 million in 2024/25 and R1.4 billion over the MTEF allocated for strengthening mental healthcare services. But ever more importantly, we also need every day South Africans to take proactive steps to manage their health by making better choices in the lives they live.
A Shared Responsibility for a Healthier Future
The numbers are clear. If we don’t act now, the cost of preventable diseases will only continue to rise – jeopardising both the sustainability of our healthcare system and economic stability. By harnessing the power of preventative care and incentivised wellness, we can significantly reduce the burden of disease, improve quality of life, and foster a healthier, more productive South Africa.
We remain committed to leading this change by innovating healthcare solutions that empower South Africans to take charge of their health and provide more health to more South Africans for less when they need it. Together, through collective action and a preventative mindset, we can and must build a healthier nation – one choice at a time.
Professor Ntobeko Ntusi is the president and CEO of the South African Medical Research Council. (Photo: SAMRC)
By Catherine Tomlinson
Cuts to United States funding of health research could have “catastrophic” consequences, says Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, who is at the helm of the country’s primary health research funder. He says the South African Medical Research Council is “heavily exposed” to the cuts, with around 28% of its budget coming from US federal agencies.
After an unprecedented two weeks of aid cuts by the United States government that left HIV programmes and research efforts across the world reeling, the Trump administration took the drastic step of freezing aid to South Africa in an executive order on 7 February.
The order – which is a directive to the executive branch of the US government and holds the weight of law – was issued to respond to what the White House called “egregious actions” by South Africa. It specifically points to the Expropriation Act and the country’s accusation of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice as the primary reasons for the funding freeze.
While there are some limited wavers and exceptions to the cuts, Spotlight understands that these have so far been poorly communicated and many HIV services remain in limbo.
The funding cuts, following an earlier executive order issued on 20 January, are interrupting critical health research underway across South Africa and will ultimately undermine global efforts to stop HIV and TB.
The US is a major source of financing for health research in South Africa. Many of the country’s research institutes, groups, and universities receive funding from the US through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USAID, and the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR).
Over the past few weeks, these funding sources have come under siege by the Trump administration resulting in a gaping, and most likely insurmountable financing gap, for many health research endeavors in the country.
US spending accounts for just over half (55%) of all spending on global health research around the world. In 2022, the super power spent $5.4 billion on global health research, according to Impact Global Health – an NPO that tracks health research spending.
While the US gives money to global health research through several different government departments and programmes, the largest source of funding for global health research is the NIH. The NIH contributed 65% of global financing for HIV research between 2007 and 2022, according to Impact Global Health and 34% of tuberculosis research financing in 2023, according to New York-based policy think tank, the Treatment Action Group.
South Africa has the biggest HIV epidemic in the world in absolute terms and is among the top 10 countries in terms of TB cases per capita.
Catastrophic consequences
“South Africa is the biggest recipient of NIH funding outside of the US”, Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, president and CEO of the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), told Spotlight. “[T]he consequences will be catastrophic if [funding] is stopped… for science that is important for the whole world,” he said.
South Africa plays a critical role in advancing HIV science, said Ntusi, adding that “many of the major trials that have advanced our understanding of both the effective strategies for HIV management, as well as understanding the mechanisms of disease emanated from South Africa”.
People in the US, for example, are now able to access long-acting HIV prevention shots, largely because of research that was conducted in South Africa and Uganda. Research conducted in South Africa has also been critical to validating new tuberculosis treatments that are currently the standard of care across the world.
Heavily exposed
Stop work orders were sent to research groups receiving USAID funding at the end of January. These stop work orders coupled with the halting of funding have already interrupted critical HIV research efforts, including efforts to develop new vaccines against HIV.
Ntusi said that the SAMRC is currently “heavily exposed” to the halting of grants from USAID and the CDC, with research programmes supported by USAID and the CDC already being stopped.
The SAMRC’s research on infectious diseases, gender-based violence, health systems strengthening, as well as disease burden monitoring are also affected by the funding cuts.
“In addition to support for HIV research, we have significant CDC grant funding in our burden of disease research unit, the research unit that publishes weekly statistics on morbidity and mortality in South Africa,” said Ntusi. “Our health systems research unit has a number of CDC grants which have been stopped [and] in our gender and health research unit we had a portfolio of CDC funding which also has been stopped.”
Along with programmes being impacted by the halting of USAID and CDC funding, Ntusi said there will also be major staffing ramifications at the SAMRC as well as at universities.
He said that if funding from the NIH is stopped “there would be huge fallout, we just wouldn’t be able to cover the hundreds of staff that are employed through the NIH granting process”.
The SAMRC’s combined annual income from US grants (NIH, CDC and USAID) is 28% of its total earnings (including both the disbursement from the SA government as well as all external contracts) for the 2025/2026 financial year, according to Ntusi. “So, this is substantial – effectively a third of our income is from US federal agencies,” he said.
Pivot away from infectious disease?
In addition to the executive order freezing funding to South Africa, it is unknown whether the NIH will remain a dominant funder of global health. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the US health secretary nominee, has called for cutting to the NIH’s infectious disease research spending to focus more on chronic diseases.
Looking beyond health, Ntusi said the executive order halting aid to South Africa will be felt across a range of different development initiatives such as water and sanitation, and climate change.
