Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán: https://www.pexels.com/photo/syringe-and-pills-on-blue-background-3936368/
By Marcus Low
The number of people living with HIV in South Africa has for the first time reached the eight million mark. Of these, around 6.2 million are on treatment, according to new estimates.
The number of people living with HIV in South Africa continues to rise, surpassing eight million in 2024. This is according to just-released estimates from Thembisa, the leading mathematical model of HIV and TB in South Africa. The eight million amounts to 12.8% of the population.
The continued rise is due to the fact that there are more people becoming newly infected with HIV than there are people with HIV who are dying. The increasing numbers are thus a reflection of the fact that antiretroviral medicines are keeping people alive who would otherwise have died.
There was an estimated 178 000 new HIV infections in 2023/2024 (mid-2023 to mid-2024). Over the same period, around 105 000 people with HIV passed away – 53 000 due to HIV-related causes and 52 000 for reasons not related to HIV.
The estimates of new HIV infections are slightly higher than in last year’s Thembisa publications. According to Dr Leigh Johnson, of the University of Cape Town and the key developer of the Thembisa model, this is mainly due to the model factoring in new evidence that condom usage is declining.
78% treatment coverage
Of the eight million people living with HIV, around 6.2 million, or 78%, were taking antiretroviral treatment in 2024. Around one in five people living with the virus were thus not on treatment. Treatment is recommended for everyone living with HIV.
On the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets, also endorsed in South Africa’s National Strategic Plan for HIV, TB and STIs 2023 – 2028, the middle target, helping people start and stay on treatment, continues to be the main area of underperformance. Around 95% of people living with HIV in South Africa knew their status in 2024, around 81.5% of these were on antiretroviral treatment, and of those on treatment, around 92% had viral suppression. (Note that the 78% treatment coverage figure is the product of multiplying the performance on the first two 95 targets.)
There continues to be stark gender disparities in South Africa’s HIV epidemic. On the one hand, there are many more women living with HIV than men – 5.2 million compared to 2.6 million as of mid-2024. On the other hand, slightly more men died of HIV-related causes than women in 2023/2024 – 27 100 men compared to 24 200 women.
Worrying trends
One ongoing area of concern is that many people only start treatment once their immune systems have been severely compromised. In 2023/2024, around 54 000 adults started treatment for the first time with CD4 counts below 200 cells/mm3. A CD4 count above 500 cells/mm3 is generally considered to be healthy. CD4 cells are a type of white blood cell that is vital to the functioning of the immune system. People who start treatment with low CD4 counts tend to have worse long-term outcomes.
The latest Thembisa outputs also contain worrying findings on the extent to which people drop in and out of care. In 2023/2024, an estimated 714 000 people restarted antiretroviral treatment after previously having stopped for at least a month – of these, around 326 000 had CD4 counts below 200 cells/mm3.
Finally, on a more positive note, the latest Thembisa outputs continue to show a rise in life expectancy in South Africa. As shown in the above graph, life expectancy declined severely round the turn of the century, largely due to people dying of AIDS, but then increased over time as antiretroviral therapy started keeping people living with HIV alive. The blip in 2020 and 2021 is due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Note: This article is based on outputs from Thembisa version 4.8 – published in late March 2025. We have quoted 2023/2024 figures since they are based on more data, and thus more reliable than the estimates for 2024/2025. We have rounded some numbers to make the text more accessible. Graphs were made using the R package ggplot2. Spotlight will soon publish an #InTheSpotlight special briefing in which we will unpack the Thembisa 4.8 outputs in more detail.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susceptibility test. Photo by CDC on Unsplash
By Catherine Tomlinson
Both TB treatment and TB preventive therapy involve taking lots of pills, usually for several months. Researchers are working on new long-acting formulations that might, for example, reduce an entire course of TB preventive therapy to a single injection.
The biggest HIV news of last year was that an injection containing an antiretroviral called lenacapavir provides six months of protection against HIV infection per shot. While it will be several years before the jabs become widely available, experts nevertheless hailed the development as a potential game-changer. In some countries, HIV treatment is already available as injections – containing the antiretrovirals cabotegravir and rilpivirine – administered every two months.
Scientists working on tuberculosis (TB) are trying to replicate the successes of the HIV field and develop similarly long-acting formulations of TB medicines. The good news is that they have several exciting products under development – the bad news is that the research is still at a very early stage and the pivotal studies that will tell us if these products work are likely still years away.
But if they work, they could make a big difference to patients. That is because TB treatment and TB preventive therapy mostly still requires swallowing lots of pills over a long period of time. There is some good evidence that many people would prefer long-acting injections.
The case for long-acting TB medicines
TB preventive therapy is used to stop someone suspected of having latent TB infection from falling ill with TB. In South Africa, such preventive therapy is recommended for all close contacts of someone sick with TB. Typically, it involves taking tablets for three or six months (a one-month course has been shown to work, but is not widely available). There is research that shows that the shorter the regimen the more likely it is to be completed.
The hope is that a long-acting product might do away with swallowing tablets altogether and reduce an entire course of preventive therapy to a single injection. This is likely to be more convenient for patients as well as come with the benefit of perfect treatment completion rates.
TB preventive therapy is a simpler target for long-acting formulations than TB treatment since it typically involves only one or two drugs and treatment durations are shorter. TB treatment typically takes six or more months to complete and usually involves taking four different drugs – often four for two months and then only two for the remaining four months in what is called the continuation phase. Some of the current thinking is that the continuation phase could potentially be replaced by long-acting formulations of TB medicines. This could shorten the duration of TB treatment to just two months of taking tablets.
Not an easy nut to crack
As explained by Dr Eric Nuermberger of Johns Hopkins University, not all TB medicines available as tablets make good candidates for translation to long-acting injectable formulations. He was presenting on long-acting TB drugs at the Conference for Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), recently held in San Francisco.
Nuermberger outlined three key characteristics that are needed for long-acting formulations. These are low water solubility (so the drug doesn’t dissolve to quickly), low clearance in plasma (so that the body doesn’t clear the drug too quickly), and high drug potency (so that a small volume of drug can be effective for a long period of time).
One key challenge, according to Nuermberger, is that scientists do not yet have reliable biomarkers to measure the effectiveness of long-acting TB preventive therapy in phase II trials. Biomarkers, such as blood levels of certain proteins, could in theory offer scientists a faster way to assess if TB preventative therapy is working, without having to monitor clinical trial participants for long periods of time to determine treatment outcomes.
Writing in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, scientists working to develop long-acting TB products explained: “The inability to culture or otherwise quantify viable bacteria during latent TB infection and the lack of validated surrogate biomarkers mean that there is no opportunity to obtain initial proof of efficacy… which is usually the domain of phase 2 trials. Instead, the development of new TPT regimens requires bridging directly from preclinical studies and phase 1 trials to phase 3 trials, which are themselves long and require large numbers of participants.”
However, they added that “[t]he search for biomarkers that act as prospective signatures of risk for developing TB disease is a very active research area and an important scientific priority for the field”.
Back at CROI, Nuermberger also told participants that most products in the pipeline remain at pre-clinical stages and are still being tested in mice. He explained that differences in how depot drugs — drugs released slowly over time — work in mice and humans make it hard to apply findings from mice to humans. But modeling is being done to help bridge this gap.
‘Expanded remarkably’
Despite these challenges, Nuermberger said “the number of long-acting drug formulations in development [for TB] has really expanded remarkably in the last few years, which is a very promising development”.
The product that is furthest along in the development pipeline, but still at a very early stage of research, is a long-acting form of bedaquiline. This drug is currently used for the treatment of drug-resistant forms of TB and falls in a class of antibiotics known as diarylquinolines.
The Belgian pharmaceutical company Janssen is currently running a phase I trial of long-acting injectable bedaquiline in Austria. Phase I trials are conducted in a small group of healthy individuals to assess the safety and tolerability of an experimental medicine. In the phase 1 bedaquiline trial, researchers are investigating the safety and tolerability of different doses of long-acting injectable bedaquiline.
Several other long-acting TB medicines are being investigated in preclinical research, including long-acting versions of the TB medicines rifabutin and rifapentine, as well as the second generation diarylquinolines, TBJ-876 and TBA-587, which are under development by the TB Alliance. The second generation diarylquinolines are being tested on their own and in combination with pretomanid and telacebec.
In addition, the University of Liverpool, Johns Hopkins University, University of Southern Denmark, University of North Carolina and the US pharmaceutical company Inflamamasome Therapeutics, are all involved in pre-clinical research on long-acting formulations. These efforts are supported financially by Unitaid, the US National Institutes of Health, and the Gates Foundation.
The treatments being developed include aqueous nanoparticle suspensions, in-situ forming implants, and rod implants. Aqueous nanoparticle suspensions are drugs turned into tiny particles and delivered in a water-based solution via injection. In-situ forming implants are injected as a liquid that then solidifies into an implant under the skin. Rod implants are small, rod-shaped devices inserted under the skin with a needle-like tool after numbing the area with a local anaesthetic.
What users prefer
At CROI, delegates also learned about patient and provider preferences for long-acting TB treatment.
Dr Marcia Vermeulen from the University of Cape Town presented the results of a survey involving over 400 patients in South Africa and India, as well as 94 healthcare providers.
Seventy-five percent of healthcare workers said they would prescribe a long-acting injectable product rather than pills for tuberculosis preventative therapy if it was priced the same or lower. Similarly, 75% of patients said they would try an injectable product for TB prevention if it became available.
“As a TB survivor, I am excited about long-acting TB treatment as it doesn’t require frequent facility visits, saving a person’s time and money, and can thereby increase adherence and improve treatment outcomes,” TB Proof’s Phumeza Tisile told Spotlight.
She added that communities should be at the heart of rollout plans because they understand the needs of people affected by TB and know how to communicate effectively to encourage involvement and adoption.
Disclosure: The Gates Foundation is mentioned in this article. Spotlight receives funding from the Gates Foundation but is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously. Spotlight is a member of the South African Press Council.
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.
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.
Recent media reports over the future of NHI have been contradictory and hard to make sense of. Spotlight chased up those in a position to know where things stand – it seems the ANC has not in fact made any major concessions on NHI. There is however agreement that medical schemes won’t be phased out in the next few years, something that likely wouldn’t have happened in any case given the poor state of the economy and the long timeline for NHI implementation.
The ANC is holding firm on the NHI Act with Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi and the National Health Department “unaware of any compromise deals”, and the President’s office saying engagement with Business Unity SA (BUSA) is “ongoing”.
In spite of recent media reports to the contrary, neither President Cyril Ramaphosa nor Motsoaledi have conceded to any BUSA proposals on amending sections of the NHI Act. BUSA is the country’s apex business association and represents the banking, mining, and retail sectors, including the Health Funders Association, the Hospital Association of South Africa, and the Innovative Pharmaceuticals Association of South Africa.
BUSA, and several other critics of the Act, have argued that provisions should be removed that prohibit medical schemes from covering any health services covered by the NHI fund. The NHI Act has not yet been promulgated. If promulgated in its current form, the role of medical schemes will be dramatically reduced.
The DA’s spokesperson on health, Michele Clarke, told Spotlight that at the establishment of the recent GNU-convened Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP), agreement was reached that the health department would “not de-establish medical aids during the current government’s term of office”.
Spotlight understands that this amounts to a commitment not to promulgate the relevant sections of the Act in the next few years – it does not amount to a commitment to remove those sections from the act.
This is a pyrrhic victory, given that the implementation of NHI was always going to be a long-term project and that even in the most pro-NHI scenarios, the effective phasing out of medical schemes in the next few years was highly unlikely. There are also four legal challenges being brought on procedural and constitutional grounds that may further delay things.
Mist of confusion
Last week’s mist of confusion lifted when both the Presidency and Dr Stavros Nicolaou, speaking to Spotlight on behalf of BUSA, said no concessions have been made on NHI. Motsoaledi’s office also flatly denied reports that there had been any ANC or GNU compromise to remove parts of the NHI legislation that would render medical aids almost obsolete. The Spokesperson for the National Department of Health, Foster Mohale, added that he was unaware of any MTDP agreement on medical aids.
Vincent Magwenya, a spokesperson for the president, told Spotlight he was “unaware of any process leading to the amendment of the NHI Act”, claiming that Maropene Ramokgopa, Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, was misquoted last week.
She was quoted in news reports as saying the ANC and the DA had reached an “unofficial understanding on the NHI” following an ANC compromise to remove parts of the NHI legislation that would collapse medical aids. “Ms Ramokgopa tells me she was misreported,” said Magwenya.
Chris Laubscher, the DA’s communications head, told Spotlight: “There was never confirmation by [DA leader who is also Minister of Agriculture] John Steenhuisen that the NHI in its entirety had been excluded from the government’s Medium Term Development Plan.”
The new MTDP has not yet been made public.
Charity Ophelia McCord, the spokesperson for Steenhuisen, said the MTDP had yet to be completed and passed, but was on the Cabinet agenda for Wednesday, February 12. Spotlight was not able to verify if this was discussed.
Meanwhile, Mohale said both the health department and the minister were unaware of any compromise deal, “thus the implementation of the NHI Act continues as per the plans”.
Cannot be changed over night
If at some point the NHI Act is to be amended, the process is likely to take several years, according to Professor Olive Shisana, Social Policy Special Advisor to Ramaphosa on the NHI and health systems strengthening.
“Any process for changing an enacted law normally goes through Parliament, including an amendment from the executive,” Shisana explained. “There would first have to be consultation with the public before it even got to Parliament. Then, when it gets to Parliament there’s more consultation, this time in each of the provincial legislatures, after which it goes to the Portfolio Committee on Health which also takes written submissions. The committee then decides whether to submit it to the National Assembly. If the National Assembly passes it, it goes to the National Council of Provinces which considers each province’s input. Government took five years to get this NHI Act in place, so you can imagine it might take about as long to get parts of it excised or reversed. That’s the normal route it would have to take, I’m afraid.”
However, both the DA and BUSA are adamant that the Act needs to be changed.
Clarke said the DA remained of the view that “multiple parts of the [Act] remain problematic and dangerous for the future of healthcare in South Africa”.
She added: “The DA wants the model underpinning the NHI to be completely reworked and multiple problematic clauses amended by Parliament to ensure that the healthcare model is protected and strengthened.”
BUSA met with Ramaphosa in September last year and tabled a proposal which included striking Section 33 – which effectively collapses private medical aids as they now exist, creating a single national fund – from the NHI Act. It also calls for the implementation of mandatory health insurance which it is argued will take pressure off the public health system and bolster existing medical aids. The president has since passed it on to Motsoaledi’s office.
Neither BUSA nor the responding government parties have given any indication of when they might next meet or pronounce on the proposal.
Rejection of NHI
Meanwhile, the United Healthcare Access Coalition (UHAC), a grouping claiming to represent 80% of all private healthcare stakeholders, lodged a detailed alternative proposal with the president’s office. This entirely rejects the NHI and focuses on rehabilitating the healthcare system based on a synthesis of far-reaching recommendations which various commissions and experts have made over several decades, including the Taylor Commission and the more recent Health Market Inquiry (HMI).
In January this year, Motsoaledi promised to pronounce on the implementation of the HMI recommendations from 2019 “within weeks”. As reported by Business Day, there indeed seems to now finally be some movement on the HMI recommendations with Minister of Trade Industry and Competition Parks Tau having gazetted an exemption that newly opens the door for tariff setting in the private health sector – a move that may help rein in runaway healthcare costs.
UHAC spokesperson Dr Aslam Dasoo described their report as “everything that the NHI is not”.
“Our health pathway requires easy legislative changes and is within current fiscal constraints. We can start the process immediately. It requires a change in governance structure of the provincial health systems where politicians relinquish all direct authority over health care institutions and instead focus on strategic policy,” he previously told Spotlight.
In an online briefing launching the UHAC on Wednesday, February 12, Dasoo warned all parties in the GNU to “consider their options” as they would be “held jointly responsible” should the NHI be implemented to the detriment of South Africa.
Another UHAC executive member and CEO of the SA Private Practitioners Forum, Dr Simon Strachan, said the focus of their universal healthcare plan was on providing equitable, implementable, and sustainable healthcare.
“We need to ensure that those who can look after themselves, do (financially), while subsidising those who cannot afford to. It’s one hundred percent dependent on improving health service delivery within the public sector and creating a competitive market for people to decide where and how they access healthcare,” he said.
The UHAC coalition includes NGO’s, patient advocacy groups, the SA Medical Association, the South African Private Practitioners Forum, and the Progressive Healthcare Forum.
Asked what UHAC’s “Plan B” was if they “hit a brick wall” on their detailed proposals, Dasoo said the GNU was obliged to respond to such a widely representative proposal “otherwise they’re not fit to govern”.
Referring to the ANC, he said the party “neglected the two major healthcare systems, allowing real degradation of the public sector and an unregulated private sector with no market growth, resulting in prices going up”. He added: “If there’s any brick wall, it’s the one they’ve built.”
South Africa’s National Department of Health is still to outline a clear contingency plan as a United States (US) funding freeze puts lives at risk, spells job losses, and presents threats to keeping HIV and TB under control.
The ripple effects of US President Donald Trump’s 90-day freeze of funding on foreign aid programmes have hit South Africa hard. The damage is being counted at multiple levels – even as some limited funding flows are being restored.
For the country, the fallout has heightened civil society’s calls for a prompt, implementable plan to fill the gaps in care and services. Also needed, they say, is clarity on longer-term strategies for greater self-sufficiency in the country’s HIV responses as donor-funded models look increasingly precarious. Such an argument for increased independence in Africa and the global south was made by president of the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, writing in the journal Nature.
South Africa should have been better prepared and not caught off guard to be left in the position it now finds itself in, some beneficiaries of US-funded projects told Spotlight. They were speaking on condition of anonymity, given the risk of public comments jeopardising their prospects of having their funding restored.
The immediate need is to ensure that the country’s overburdened and under-resourced public clinic system is able to absorb the tens of thousands of people living with HIV who will have to use public facilities. This is partly because the NGOs they have relied on have been forced to close shop – virtually overnight. Clinics catering to specific groups, such as men who have sex with men, have been particularly hard hit.
South Africa is the largest global recipient of President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) funds. These funds make its way to South Africa through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Through PEPFAR, USAID has been funding and supporting local NGOs and our Department of Health for around two decades. According to USAID’s website, it invested $5.6 billion (roughly R100 billion at the current rand/dollar exchange rate) between 2004 and 2020 towards prevention and treatment of HIV and TB in South Africa.
Trump’s initial executive order, signed on 20 January, halted funding received via USAID. USAID is an agency of the US government that now falls under the State Department under the leadership of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Since taking office, Trump has slated USAID as “corrupt” and run by “radical left lunatics”.
The Washington head offices of USAID were closed on Friday 7 February as per Trump’s orders and even as the 90-day review period had just got underway, signage on the building was being removed or taped over. Trump’s actions have now been challenged in courts with successful temporary blocks to his orders to place 2 200 USAID workers in the US on paid leave and to reinstate 500 US-based staff who were already placed on administrative leave from when the order was first signed. The situation is highly fluid and several court actions remain in progress.
Some limited relief
In South Africa, NGOs that received USAID funding remain largely in limbo. Although the United States mission in South Africa confirmed that some PEPFAR-funded services could continue in the country, it is subject to some relatively strict limitations and with no assurances of longer term support. As is clear from reporting by Bhekisisa, the process to get at least some funding to flow again to PEPFAR-supported projects is not straight forward.
There was some good news this week linked to PEPFAR-funding channelled through the CDC – a US federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services. Following a court order, organisations getting these funds should for now be able to continue their work. However, the court process is far from over and the future prospects of NGOs that depend on CDC funds remains precarious.
Given these ongoing uncertainties and severe disruptions to cash flows, Spotlight understands that some large NGOs may have to close down, while others may have to drastically reduce their services. As reported by Spotlight and GroundUp, several NGOs have appealed to the private sector for assistance. As it stands, thousands of people employed or contracted by local NGOs face the loss of their jobs, cut-backs and deepening anxiety over income security. These people include community health workers, peer counsellors, patient navigators, community activists and advocates, support and administrative staff members, and contract workers who keep these organisations functioning.
At stake too are specialised services for so-called key populations such as sex workers, men who have sex with men, the LGBTQI+ community, and people who use drugs. Until recently, a focus on improving services for key populations was generally accepted, including by PEPFAR, to be the right strategy given the disproportionate risk of HIV infection in these groups. But under the Trump administration’s “anti-woke” agenda, it seems likely that many services aimed at key populations are set to be defunded.
A White House media note on 29 January made clear the US’s stance: “The previously announced 90-day pause and review of U.S. foreign aid is already paying dividends to our country and our people. We are rooting out waste. We are blocking woke programs. And we are exposing activities that run contrary to our national interests. None of this would be possible if these programs remained on autopilot.”
A timeline of the US aid cuts
20 January
90-day pause
In an executive order, US President Donald Trump orders a 90-day pause in US foreign development for “assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy”.
26 January
USAID funding paused
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pauses all US foreign assistance funded by or through the State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID) for review.
28 January
Waiver issued
Subject to certain conditions, Rubio issues a waiver stating: “Implementers of existing life-saving humanitarian assistance programs should continue or resume work if they have stopped.”
1 February
Waiver clarified
The extent of the January 28 waiver is clarified in a memo from the US Department of State.
5 February
Health portfolio committee briefing
South Africa’s Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi briefs Parliament on the US funding cuts and their impact on healthcare services.
7 February
South Africa singled out
In an executive order applying only to South Africa, Trump orders that “the United States shall not provide aid or assistance to South Africa”.
10 February
Waiver still applies
The US mission in South Africa releases an FAQ in which they state that PEPFAR activities that fall under the limited waiver will resume despite the February 7 executive order.
12 February
CDC grants reinstated
The grants of NGOs receiving support through the CDC are reinstated following a court order issued in a US court.
Crisis of fear, silence, and uncertainty
Spotlight understands that staff of affected NGOs have essentially been forbidden from speaking publicly about the 90-day funding freeze. Many declined to speak on the record to Spotlight, even anonymously – too afraid it might affect the decision on their funding after the 90-day review period.
According to an FAQ by the US mission in South Africa that was published on February 10, they have been communicating with the South African government, though it is not clear when this happened. Five days earlier on 5 February, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi told Parliament’s Portfolio Committee that he had not had any official communication from the US government on the matter.
Figures from Motsoaledi’s presentation showed that in 2023/2024, PEPFAR funding to South Africa’s health department amounted to 17% of its spending on HIV. Funding totals R4.6 billion for staffing and R2.9 billion for running costs for NGOs. These NGOs include organisations working directly with people living with HIV, mobile units and youth organisations and programmes. PEPFAR focuses on the 27 districts in South Africa with the highest disease burden.
The health department did not respond to Spotlight’s questions on contingencies, or details of next steps to fill the funding gaps or how capacity and resources will be redirected to avert catastrophe. Motsoaledi did not give any of these details in his presentation to Parliament either.
What he did say was that since Trump’s executive order came into place, the health department had hosted a meeting with the provincial leads on HIV and TB; conducted assessments on the immediate impacts of the executive order; met with people living with HIV and engaged with SANAC to finalise a sustainability framework.
A collective of activist organisations, including the Health Justice Initiative, SECTION27, the Cancer Alliance, Treatment Action Campaign, Sweat, PSAM and the African Alliance, have pressed the Department of Health to create an “urgent co-ordinated emergency plan” along with an increased budget to avert a looming disaster.
The activists highlighted that despite the announcement by the Trump administration that some NGOs could apply for a waiver, many have had no practical way to do so without ways to communicate with their USAID contacts. This as USAID employees were placed under a work stop order and were shut out of their offices and denied access to their work emails.
The appeal from the collective also extends to protecting the work of academic and clinical research in the fields of HIV, TB, and cervical cancer that will also be affected by the funding freeze. As Spotlight reported, around 28% of the South African Medical Research Council’s budget for 2025/2026 was set to come from the United States government.
An ‘unreal world’
Professor Linda-Gail Bekker, chief executive officer at the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation, said Trump’s actions put in jeopardy the goal to finally have epidemic control of HIV – and right at the final hurdles.
“We have made amazing progress. And thank you to PEPFAR that helped us to get this far, but the work is not over. For the US to pull out at this point is a massive loss of investment; it’s also regression. It’s like getting to the end of a book but having the last chapters torn out before you can read it,” said Bekker.
She said PEPFAR funding has made it possible to build a formidable cohort of lay and professional people trained and dedicated to their roles that supported public healthcare in the most critical ways.
“These are individuals who distribute antiretrovirals, distribute pre-exposure prophylaxis, find and trace individuals who’ve been lost to care. They take services into communities, to outside of the health facilities, and made the effort to go the last mile to find those individuals – that is how you close down the epidemic,” Bekker said.
Her caution too is that loosening a grip on HIV control means potential surges in tuberculosis. “HIV and TB track together all the time, and an HIV epidemic that is once again out of control, almost certainly means what will follow is a TB epidemic that is out of control,” Bekker said.
Trump has created an “unreal world”, said Dr Andy Gray of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, who has also worked with the World Health Organization (WHO) in various capacities over two decades. “People are being held to ransom; and people are scared.”
“We have always been used to the oscillation between the United States’ Republican and Democratic administrations; things may be a little uncomfortable or there may be some disruption, but not this ‘let’s burn down the house’ approach taken by the Trump administration,” he said.
“There is no consideration of human rights or for human beings anywhere in the world, including America,” he added, pointing out too that the CDC has for the first time in 60 years been instructed to cease publishing weekly mortality and morbidity data, despite a breakout of avian flu (H5) in the country.
For Gray, South Africa’s strategic health response in the wake of this crisis should be to shift from a donor-funded model. His concern, however, is that with a stretched South African purse and with competing priorities, the HIV response will slip down the list.
Gray said that better self-sufficiency comes from eliminating waste, investing in employing the right people in the right jobs as well as investing in efficient systems.
He added that National Treasury will have to redirect money for the interim shortfall left by the US funding freeze, and provinces will have to step up by getting their houses in order.
South Africa, he warned, should ready itself for the “worst case scenario” once the 90-day review period is up.
SANAC response
The South African National AIDS Council (SANAC) role is meant to bring together government, civil society and the private sector to create a collective response to HIV, TB and STIs in South Africa. But if there is a crisis strategy from the council, it has not yet been announced.
SANAC head of communications, Nelson Dlamini, said that they have been left in a position of not being able to engage publicly because they haven’t had any direct communication with PEPFAR’s and USAID representatives based in Pretoria.
“PEPFAR is a government-to-government agreement and there ought to be official communication with the government of South Africa so we know what this means for our working relationship, but nothing has been forthcoming,” said Dlamini. “SANAC is a co-ordinator so we have to still coordinate. We are engaging in the background with relevant structures but we can’t say we are doing X, Y, Z till we have a sit down with PEPFAR,” he said.
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.
If the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is halted, the South African public health system “will face a severe crisis” that could endanger millions of lives. This is according to a coalition of 17 health service organisations in South Africa, including large ones such as Anova Health, Health Systems Trust, TB HIV Care, The Aurum Institute and Wits RHI.
In a statement, they appealed to private sector donors and “high net-worth individuals” to help fund the shortfall caused by US aid cuts.
PEPFAR is a multi-billion dollar US initiative that supports HIV and TB-related health services around the world. In South Africa alone, over 15 000 staff (mostly health workers) are funded by PEPFAR, according to the national health department.
But a series of executive orders issued by US President Donald Trump has suspended some of this funding and the rest remains precarious. The orders include a 90-day pause on all US foreign development assistance and another that explicitly bars South Africa from aid (with some leeway allowed).
Some health service providers in South Africa continue to receive money from PEPFAR under a limited waiver that allows for the continuation of certain “life-saving HIV services”. But the waiver hasn’t protected all PEPFAR beneficiaries. As a result, some organisations have had to close their doors, while many others have had to curtail what they can provide.
The waiver doesn’t cover all health services, and many health programs that target high-risk groups (such as people who use drugs) have not been protected. This is even if they provide life-saving HIV services.
Services suspended for the most vulnerable
Under the waiver, PEPFAR can continue to fund programs that offer treatment and testing for HIV, including antiretroviral (ARV) services. Projects can also continue to provide condoms and HIV prevention medication, known as PrEP, but only to pregnant and breastfeeding women.
The waiver does not allow for continued funding of PrEP medication or condoms to anyone else. It also doesn’t cover crucial research, like population surveys which tell us how many people have HIV and where they’re located. Additionally, it doesn’t allow for continued funding of methadone maintenance programs for people who use heroin. This is despite the fact that this is the most effective way to help people to stop using heroin and to curb the sharing of drug needles (something which contributes to the spread of HIV).
Dr Gloria Maimela, who represents the coalition of organisations behind the statement, told GroundUp and Spotlight: “The staff who are providing [HIV] testing and treatment [are] back at facilities to provide those services, but staff that are providing other services not included in the waiver have been stopped, and are waiting for further guidance.”
In addition, organisations that help key populations have not been protected by the waiver, according to Maimela. Key populations are groups that are more at risk of becoming infected with HIV, such as people who inject drugs, sex workers, transgender people, and men who have sex with men. South African policy documents and the World Health Organisation recommend that health programs focus on these groups since they’re more likely to acquire and transmit HIV.
Despite this, US-funded organisations that target key populations have been forced to shut their doors in South Africa. Maimela says that this is even in cases where they were offering the kind of life-saving ARV treatment covered in the waiver.
“For us, this is of grave concern,” Maimela says, “because we know that right now that is where most of the [HIV] infections lie”.
So far, organisations which provide HIV treatment and prevention services to LGBTI people have been forced to shut down, including the Ivan Toms Centre and Engage Men’s Health.
Additionally, GroundUp and Spotlight have identified two PEPFAR-supported harm reduction centres that have had to close. These centres provided methadone and clean needles to people who inject drugs (when drug users have access to clean needles, they’re less likely to resort to sharing them, which brings down HIV transmission).
Ricardo Walters, who provides consulting services to health service organisations across Africa, told Spotlight and GroundUp that a similar trend could be seen across the continent.
“Many organisations that were specifically offering services to key populations were not suspended; their project funding was terminated,” he said. “They will not be coming back.”
These organisations were assisting patients “who often could not access services in a general [health] setting”.
Walters says the reasons given for the termination of these programs vary across organisations and countries.
“Where there are reasons, it’s often [stated] that it’s because the program contains components of DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility] and gender ideology, which is directly from a previous executive order [in which the Trump administration terminated all federal funding for DEIA]. The terms are never defined … no one says don’t treat gay men.”
Appeal to private sector
Beyond the shuttering of existing organisations, providers that are covered under the waiver remain unsure about whether funding will restart after the 90-day period. Also large sections of the US aid establishment have been gutted.
The recent statement by health organisations argues that if this aid is terminated “patients, including children, will lose access to life-saving antiretroviral treatment, while thousands of healthcare workers will be unable to provide essential HIV care. The consequences will be immediate. Fewer people will receive timely testing and treatment, leading to more undiagnosed cases, rising infections, and the spread of drug resistance. Mortality will increase, opportunistic infections will surge, and TB rates will escalate – putting the entire population at risk.”
As such, the statement calls on private corporations, donors and philanthropists to assist in supporting these health services.
“We encourage people to get in touch with us,” says Maimela, “so that even as we hold dialogues with the government, [those people] could be part of [the conversation] and step in and say how they want to help.”
To find out how to support organisations that provide HIV and TB related health services in South Africa contact Gloria Maimela at gloriam@foundation.co.za.
From the NHI Act to major advances in HIV prevention, it has been another busy year in the world of healthcare. Spotlight editors Marcus Low and Adiel Ismail recap the year’s health developments and identify some key trends in fewer than 1000 words.
For a few weeks in June, it seemed that the surprising outcome of South Africa’s national and provincial elections would usher in far-reaching political and governance changes in the country. As it turns out, some significant changes did come, but not in the health sector.
Rather than a new broom, it was déjà vu as Dr Aaron Motsoaledi returned as Minister of Health – he was previously in the position from 2009 to 2019. In both Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal – the country’s most populous provinces – ANC MECs for health from before the elections kept their jobs. The ANC garnered well under 50% of the votes in both of those provinces and nationally and accordingly had little choice but to form national and provincial coalitions.
To be fair, five of the nine MECs appointed after the elections were new, but these changes were mainly in the less populous provinces.
Policy-wise, the trajectory also remains much as it was a year ago. Two weeks before the elections, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law (though most of it has not yet been promulgated). While Ramaphosa has since then asked Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), the country’s largest employer association, for new input on NHI and while talk of mandatory medical scheme cover had a moment in the headlines, there is no solid evidence that the ANC is open to changing course – if anything, Motsoaledi has doubled-down in the face of criticism. The Act is being challenged in various court cases.
The sense of discord in healthcare circles was further deepened in August when several organisations distanced themselves from Ramaphosa’s updated Presidential Health Compact. The South African Medical Association, the South African Health Professionals Collaboration—comprising nine associations representing over 25 000 public and private healthcare workers—and BUSA all declined to sign the accord. BUSA accused government of “unilaterally” amending the compact “transforming its original intent and objectives into an explicit pledge of support for the NHI Act”.
Away from these reforms, a trend of health budgets shrinking year-on-year in real terms continued this year. This funding crunch, together with well-documented shortages of healthcare workers, has meant that even well-run provincial health departments are having to make impossible trade-offs – that while governance in several provincial health departments remains chronically dysfunctional. This was underlined by a landmark report published in July that, among others, highlighted leadership instability, lack of transparency, insufficient accountability mechanisms, and pervasive corruption. New reports from the Auditor General also didn’t paint a pretty picture.
Gauteng health has again been in the headlines for the wrong reasons. The provision of cancer services in the province remains mired in controversy as the year comes to an end, with plans to outsource some radiation services to the private sector apparently having stalled, despite the health department having the money for it. A deal between the department and Wits University was also inexplicably derailed. With high vacancy rates, serious questions over senior appointments, reports of corruption at Thembisa Hospital, and much more, it seems that, if anything, governance in the province has gotten even worse this year.
In a precedent-setting inquest ruling in July, Judge Mmonoa Teffo found that the deaths of nine people moved from Life Esidimeni facilities to understaffed and under-equipped NGOs “were negligently caused by the conduct of” former Health MEC Qedani Mahlangu and former head of the provincial health department’s mental health directorate Dr Makgabo Manamela.
Outside our borders, Donald Trump’s election victory in the United States is set to have far-reaching consequences. A return of the Global Gag Rule seems likely, as does major changes to the Food and Drug Administration, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and the National Institutes of Health – the latter funds much HIV and TB research in South Africa.
Away from politics and governance, the biggest HIV news of the year came in late June when it was announced that an injection administered every six months was extremely effective at preventing HIV infection. It will likely be several years before the jab becomes widely available in South Africa.
Another jab that provides two months of protection per shot is already available here, but only to a small number of people participating in implementation studies.
It is estimated that around 50 000 people died of HIV related causes in South Africa in 2023 and roughly 150 000 were newly infected with the virus (reliable estimates for 2024 will only be available in 2025). A worrying one in four people living with HIV were not on treatment in 2023. There was an estimated 56 000 TB deaths and around 270 000 people fell ill with the disease. While these HIV and TB numbers have come down dramatically over the last decade, they remain very high compared to most other countries.
There are some concerns that a new TB prevention policy published in 2023 is not being universally implemented. We have however been doing more TB tests, even while TB cases are declining – as we have argued, this is as it should be. Also positive, is that a massive trial of an TB vaccine kicked off in South Africa this year.
With both TB and HIV, South Africa is making progress too slowly, but we are at least trending in the right direction. With non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, there are unfortunately signs that things are getting worse. As we explained in one of our special briefings this year, our diabetes data in South Africa isn’t great, but the little we have painted a worrying picture. As expected, access to breakthrough new diabetes and weight loss medicines remained severely constrained this year, largely due to high prices and limited supply.
Ultimately then, at the end of 2024, South Africa is still faced with chronic healthcare worker shortages, severe governance problems in several provinces, and major uncertainties over NHI – all while HIV and TB remains major public health challenges, though a shift toward non-communicable diseases is clearly underway.
