Tag: Spotlight

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical IndustryTags : Leave a comment

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

On By ModernMedia
Photo by cottonbro studio

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

By Chris Bateman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new tariff-setting framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not an independent entity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piecemeal implementation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions of scope

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

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

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

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

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

Questions of legality

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

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

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

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

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

Could providers opt out?

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

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

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

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

Concerns over timing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Additional reporting by Marcus Low.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical IndustryTags : 1 Comment

ANC and its Ministers Reject Reports of NHI ‘Concessions’

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Hush Naidoo Jade Photography on Unsplash

By Chris Bateman

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.”

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

No Clear Government Plan Yet to Confront US Aid Cuts

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Reynaldo #brigworkz Brigantty

By Ufrieda Ho

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.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations HIVTags :

SA Health Research Facing Catastrophic Financing Cuts

On By ModernMedia
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.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Over 15 000 South African Health Workers’ Jobs are at Risk as US Cuts Aid

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Scott Graham on Unsplash

By Jesse Copelyn

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.

Read the statement

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.

Published jointly by GroundUp and Spotlight.

Republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Categories : General Interest Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Health in 2024: The Year in Fewer than 1000 Words

On By ModernMedia

By Marcus Low and Adiel Ismail

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. 

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : Medical Industry Respiratory DiseasesTags :

Pretoria Company Aims to Lead SA in Making Key TB Drug Ingredients

On By ModernMedia
Source: Unsplash CC0

By Catherine Tomlinson

Though several South African companies are producing HIV and TB medicines, the active ingredients that go into these medicines are usually imported from India or China. Now, a local company is planning to break new ground by making the active ingredients for two important TB medicines in Pretoria. We zoom in on the company’s efforts and outline some of the obstacles to getting such local production off the ground.

South Africa has a relatively robust pharmaceutical sector. Approximately 60% of the medicines sold in South Africa are locally produced, according to Dr Senelisiwe Ntsele, writing in an opinion piece for the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (dtic).

But most of the time we are not producing these medicines from scratch. In fact, like most countries in the world, we mostly import the ingredients that make the medicines work – commonly referred to as active pharmaceutical ingredients, or APIs. In addition to APIs, medicines contain other inactive substances that maintain their form and structure and assist in their delivery: such as binders, stabilisers, and disintegrants.

Around 98% of the APIs used in locally formulated medicines are imported and South Africa spends around R15 billion a year importing APIs, according to Ntsele.

Government has tried to address South Africa’s dependence on imported APIs as part of its broader strategy to bolster the local pharmaceutical industry, which is identified as a priority sector for investment in the country’s Industrial Policy Action Plan. Several government departments provide support to the local pharmaceutical sector, including for local establishment of API manufacturing capacity. These departments include the dtic, the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI), the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA), and the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) – South Africa’s development finance instrument.

In a bid to reduce the country’s reliance on imported APIs, Ketlaphela – a state-owned API manufacturing company – was announced in 2012. The plan was that Ketlaphela would produce APIs used in HIV medicines, but after multiple setbacks the initiative never got off the ground. Spotlight reported on the history of Ketlaphela in more detail here.

Turning to the private sector

Less well known than Ketlaphela, are government’s efforts to support API manufacturing capacity in the private sector. One private company that has received such government support and seem set to start delivering is Pretoria-based Chemical Process Technologies Pharma (CPT Pharma) that was established in 2014.

CPT Pharma is a subsidiary of Chemical Process Technologies, a company with many years of experience in chemical manufacturing and synthesis, including manufacturing of APIs for animal medicines. Human medicines, CPT Pharma’s core business, have stricter production management and quality control standards than those for animal medicines.

Dr Hannes Malan, Managing Director of CPT Pharma, told Spotlight that the company has 14 APIs in its pipeline, with a strong focus on TB medicines.

CCPT Pharma is a subsidiary of Chemical Process Technologies. (Photo: Supplied)

In 2023, the company secured a license from USAID to produce API for rifapentine, a drug widely used for TB prevention, and in 2022 they secured a licence from the Medicines Patent Pool to produce API for molnupiravir, a treatment for COVID-19. Malan pointed out that these two licenses were agreed with organisations aiming to expand the presence of API manufacturers in Africa – unlike typical arrangements driven by pharmaceutical companies looking to secure their own supply chains.

“For all the other APIs that we’re working on [beyond molnupiravir and rifapentine], we’re either working on technical packs [technical information about the API] that were available in the public domain or technologies that we’ve developed ourselves,” said Malan.

“Our approach has always been to look at the molecules, look at the market value, look at the technology, and then see if there’s an opportunity for us to develop technology that allows us to produce these compounds cost competitively,” he said.

“We really believe that to be competitive and independent, you have to have your own technology. Doing a technology transfer from Big Pharma does not make you independent,” Malan added.

How to fund it all?

In 2017, the company completed a pilot plant for making APIs. Then in 2020 it received approval from the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) to produce APIs for human use. The plant was built for R50 million, funded jointly by the IDC, TIA, and CPT Pharma.

Malan said that that the IDC and TIA also supported trial runs to test CPT Pharma’s manufacturing processes and technology. These tests included several APIs in development, such as isoniazid, a drug commonly used to prevent and treat TB.

The company has also secured funding from several international donors. The Gates Foundation provided support to develop manufacturing technology for the anti-malarial drug amodiaquine, as well as tuberculosis medicines bedaquiline and pretomanid. GIZ, a German development agency involved in a European Union project to boost vaccine and health product production in Africa, supported the company’s work on molnupiravir and dolutegravir – a widely used HIV medicine. USAID and the DSI are supporting the company’s work on developing rifapentine API manufacturing capacity.

Most of this financial support has been in the form of grants.

Still building new plants

While CPT Pharma has secured local and international funding to help construct a pilot plant and to develop its API manufacturing technology and processes, Malan said more investment is needed to support the construction of two commercial-scale manufacturing facilities: an isoniazid API manufacturing plant and a multiple API manufacturing facility.

Construction of the isoniazid manufacturing plant has already commenced using existing land and infrastructure with support from the IDC, but it is short of around R20 million to complete it, said Malan.

Although the plant is not yet operational, he said a company has already expressed interest in buying CPT Pharma’s locally produced isoniazid API. This company, said Malan, is contracted to supply isoniazid to government. The plan is to initially supply the company with isoniazid API produced at its pilot plant

Malan said the commercial plant, when built, will be able to manufacture enough isoniazid API to supply around 60% of local demand.

Things are less far down the road with plans for a plant to produce multiple different APIs at commercial scale, and more work is needed to understand the financing requirements for this type of facility, said Malan. “We want to do a bankable study and a concept design for such a plant,” he said. Based on CPT Pharma’s own experience, published data, and the required complexity and capacity of the plant, Malan said it is estimated that construction for the multi-API plant will cost around US$100 million or R1.8 billion.

Plans to commercialise

Meanwhile, the company is moving forward with plans to commercialise isoniazid and rifapentine API from its pilot plant. Isoniazid and rifapentine is increasingly used together as TB preventive therapy.

“For rifapentine, our pilot plant is seen as the commercial plant,” said Malan. “At this stage, we can use the pilot facility and the pilot reactor to produce enough rifapentine to get into the market and to grow the market.” But in the long term he said the company hopes to transfer rifapentine manufacturing to a larger commercial plant.

The company is also planning to apply for World Health Organization (WHO) pre-qualification status for its rifapetine API. The goal is to conduct demonstration runs in the pilot plant by June 2025 and validate the WHO pre-qualification application in September 2025.

If achieved, WHO pre-qualification of CPT Pharma’s rifapetine API would show that the company’s APIs meet high-quality standards. It would also allow CPT Pharma to supply rifapentine API to companies producing medicines for the broader African market, for which a significant proportion of medicines are procured by donors requiring WHO PQ approval.

Note: The Gates Foundation is mentioned in this article. Spotlight receives funding from the Gates Foundation. Spotlight is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously.  Spotlight is a member of the South African Press Council.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Ethics and LawTags :

Critics Raise Alarm over Leadership Issues at Gauteng Health Department

On By ModernMedia
Nomantu Nkomo-Ralehoko is the MEC for Health and Wellness in Gauteng. (Photo: GautengHealth/X)

Several opposition politicians and commentators have flagged what appears to be chronic leadership problems at the Gauteng Department of Health.

Criticism of leadership and governance at the Gauteng Department of Health (GDOH) is amping up as the department repeatedly makes headlines for questionable appointments. This unfolds alongside a damning auditor-general report, all while hospitals and clinics across the province grapple with ongoing challenges.

Arguably, the most controversial appointment is that of Arnold Malotana. He was quietly named head of department shortly after the May 29 national elections, following a year of serving in an acting capacity. Malotana has been with the department in various positions since 2008, according to his LinkedIn profile.

SIU investigation

Malotana has been implicated in a case being investigated by the Special Investigating Unit (SIU). It relates to the alleged manipulation of supply chain processes in 2016 and 2017 in favour of a company called BAS Medxpress (BAS Med). It has been alleged that Malotana and two senior officials – Edgar Motha and Sheriff Lecholo – took bribes to the tune of R8 million. The case made headlines a year and a half ago when amaBhungane lifted the lid on an affidavit from a whistleblower, who himself was part of the alleged tender-rigging scheme. The SIU investigation was however only ordered by presidential proclamation this November. According to amaBhungane’s reporting last year, all those implicated in the matter have denied wrong-doing.

SIU spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago said the probe will focus on two supply contracts – one for plastic containers and another for orthopaedic instruments – to determine if any actions broke laws, policies, or Treasury or health department rules, and whether they may be fraudulent.

“Such conduct may include manipulation of the department’s supply chain management processes by service providers, suppliers, officials, or other third parties, often in collusion with departmental employees or those in entities under its control, to secure undue benefits for themselves or others. This can result in unauthorised, irregular, or fruitless and wasteful expenditure incurred by the department, its entities or the State,” he said in a statement.

Questions over qualifications

Malotana has also been under separate investigation regarding his qualifications when his appointment as head of department was made. His LinkedIn profile lists his education as two years (2013 – 2014) at the Durban Institute of Technology and a master’s degree in public management from Regenesys Business School, with no dates provided.

Earlier this year, Jack Bloom, a DA member in the provincial legislature, wrote to the Public Protector to ask that they investigate Malotana’s appointment. Public Protector passed the matter to Parliament’s Portfolio Committee for Public Service and Administration. In turn, the committee chair requested the Public Service Commission (PSC) to investigate.

In mid-November, the PSC “reportedly” cleared Malotana on the allegations relating to his qualifications and appointment. The PSC report was leaked to The Star newspaper with the complainants – the DA – as well as the portfolio committee chairperson not yet having had sight of the report. Spotlight also hasn’t yet been able to access a copy.

According to The Star, the PSC found that a master’s degree was not explicitly listed as a required qualification, and as a result, the commission found that Malotana did meet the requirements.

Bloom told Spotlight: “It’s highly irregular that the PSC report is leaked to a specific newspaper.”

Meanwhile, the SIU investigation continues, and the DA has reiterated its call for Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi to remove Malotana from his post. Heads of departments are appointed by provincial premiers.

The Office of the Premier did not answer Spotlight’s questions about Malotana or the SIU investigation. However, according to a statement from the DA, Lesufi said in a Gauteng Legislature meeting last week that he would wait for the SIU investigation to be completed before taking any action against Malotana.

Millions spent on suspended staff

In September, responses to questions posed by Bloom in the Gauteng Legislature revealed that the provincial health department spent over R13 million on salaries for nine suspended staffers in recent years. Among these were Advocate Mpelegeng Lebeloane, former chief director of legal services, who received R4.7 million while on suspension from July 2019 until 2023. He was later reinstated and then retired in July 2024.

Bloom said in a statement at the time: “Three senior staff were suspended since 26 January 2022 for alleged financial misconduct concerning the refurbishment of the Anglo Ashanti Hospital. One has recently resigned, but more than R6 million has been spent so far on their salaries in this inexcusably long-running matter.”

The other staff members had been suspended on a range of charges, including sexual assault, assault and a job-selling scam.

Bloom said the long delays in concluding disciplinary processes smacked of a failure of accountability and were a drain on taxpayers’ monies and resources.

Spotlight put questions to the health department about its mechanisms and processes to ensure efficient and appropriate disciplinary action. The department’s spokesperson Motalatale Modiba said the cases in question “cut across various departments”. He added: “The employees were suspended with full pay and the delays mainly had to do with ongoing SIU investigations.” This includes cases that were “handled through the Office of the Premier”.

Hospital CEOs

Also on Bloom’s radar are the appointments of Dr Nthabiseng Makgana, Dr Lehlohonolo Majake, and Dr Godfrey Mbara to positions of CEOs of Chris Hani Baragwanath, Steve Biko and George Mukhari academic hospitals respectively.

The appointments were made in March, and health MEC Nomantu Nkomo-Ralehoko responded to Bloom’s questions about them in October. Bloom highlighted irregularities, noting that none of the three appointees met the requirement of 8 to 10 years of experience for hospital CEO roles, while one also didn’t have the required education qualification level. These are contraventions of regulations, according to Bloom, adding that he is still to see proof of qualifications, as he’s requested.

Another high-profile appointment under scrutiny has been the redeployment of Dr Nozuko Makabayi – the former CEO of the Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital. A doctor’s open letter in June 2022 exposed poor conditions at the hospital, leading to a Health Ombud investigation. The damning report criticised Makabayi for several failings, including being absent from work for nearly 100 days without explanation. The Ombud recommended that Mkabayi be removed as CEO, but she was shifted within the department to serve as acting director responsible for HIV and Aids, STIs and TB.

Bloom’s follow-up questions to Nkomo-Ralehoko brought to light that Makabayi has not been reporting for work, due to mental health stress, but continues to receive her salary. “This is outrageous. After all the trouble she caused, she is now on a long running paid holiday at taxpayers’ expense. If she can’t do any useful job, she should be medically boarded and leave the department,” he said in October.

“There has not been a permanent HR director for years in the department and the systems of appointments follow a consistent pattern of people placed in acting positions, protecting interests, and ensuring cadre deployment rather than service delivery,” Bloom told Spotlight.

“We have the wrong people in these key positions by design. We are talking about control, looting and siphoning of one of the largest budgets in the province,” he alleged.

Modiba said that “relevant bodies are investigating” and pertaining specifically to Makabayi, he said “internal processes are unfolding” but cannot be released to the media because of an “employer-employee clause”.

Scathing Auditor General report

Recently, the Gauteng Department of Health received another scathing report from the Auditor-General for the 2023/24 financial year.

The department underspent by R1.1 billion, including R590 million underspent on the National Tertiary Service Grant intended for specialised medical treatment. This in spite of backlogs and long patient waiting lists. In addition, the report showed that the health department racked up R2.7 billion in irregular spending, R17 million in wasteful spending, and lost another R2.7 billion in income.

Action SA member in the provincial legislature Emma More described the performance of the department as “clearly lacking effective leadership and management”.

She slammed the health department for providing incorrect and misleading statistics, as highlighted by the auditor-general. “For an institution like the [Gauteng] Health Department to provide such misleading information undermines public confidence in it and compromises the lives of our citizens in this province,” More said. “It is unacceptable that while our healthcare facilities are under-resourced and struggling to meet the needs of the population, significant portions of the budget are being wasted or mismanaged.”

Responding to More’s comments,  Modiba said that the department had spent 98.9% of its budget allocated for 2023/2024. He said that of the 1.1% (R1.1 billion) under expenditure,  R580 million has already been provisionally approved by Treasury to be carried over to the current fiscal year, subject to audited financial statements.

“While the department aims to spend every allocated cent, achieving this goal is not always feasible due to various factors impacting the operational environment. For instance, some of the money was committed to purchase orders or invoices that could not be processed within the previous financial year leading to a rollover of funds. The amount covers grants for human resource training, national tertiary services, district health programmes and the national health insurance,” Modiba said.

A ‘structural’ problem

Professor Alex van den Heever, chair of social security systems administration and management Studies at Wits University’s School of Governance, said the health department’s leadership crisis at its core is a structural one.

“South Africa has a huge pool of talent, and we are not short on good managers or people who understand health, and how to run a health service – but these are exactly the people the [Gauteng] department of health don’t want,” he said.

“Why would they want a Babita Deokaran [an acting chief financial officer who was assassinated in August 2021 after flagging what appeared to be corruption at Tembisa Hospital] or someone who is actually going to root out the nonsense or someone who is going to properly manage patient care?” Van den Heever asked.

Describing the department’s leadership as an “hourglass model”, Van den Heever said at the top are leaders with all the power, but little focus is on delivery. The pressure falls on an overstressed, underfunded middle management with limited decision-making power, which then trickles down as problems for those at the bottom.

He added: “Hospitals can’t afford this kind of leadership, they fall apart. There is no strategy behind anything, so no maintenance, proper training and supervision of staff or clinical governance. Problems aren’t solved, they’re hidden.”

Spotlight questioned the department’s alleged failure to attract “fit for purpose” candidates, resulting in more leadership and governance challenges for the department that filter down to hospital and clinic level.

In response, Modiba stated that, for the first time since 2006, they have reviewed organisational structures, which have now been submitted to the Office of the Premier.

“This is a major step towards ensuring that the Gauteng Department of Health has a structure fit for purpose that is geared to meet the service needs of the growing Gauteng population. Furthermore, a service provider has been appointed for the next three years to conduct ‘personnel suitability checks’. This will assist the department in its recruitment of suitably qualified employees who will be able to contribute meaningfully towards the achievement of the organisation’s strategic objectives,” he added.

Offering a solution to fix some of the challenges crippling the health department, Van den Heever said that changing leadership structures to orient towards service delivery could mean better governance and management, improved staff motivation, renewed public confidence and ultimately better patient care. This, he said, would require the decentralisation of powers so that competent people can take charge in hospitals, make impactful decisions about appointments and budgets, and be accountable for pockets within a complex provincial health system.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : General Interest Medical IndustryTags :

The High Cost of Having Too Few Pharmacists in SA

On By ModernMedia
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

By Chris Bateman

It’s acknowledged in key policy documents, well known at the coalface and much ventilated in the media: South Africa’s public healthcare system has too few healthcare workers, especially medical doctors, certain specialists, and theatre nurses. Less recognised however is the shortage of public sector pharmacists. We lift the lid on this until now largely hidden problem – and its impact.

There are too few public sector pharmacy posts across South Africa to deliver a comprehensive service, with no clear staffing norms, and an uneven distribution of pharmacists, especially in rural districts. This contributes in part to medicine stockouts and the emergence of deadly hospital-acquired drug-resistant infections.

This is according to Dr Andy Gray, a senior lecturer in the Division of Pharmacology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s School of Health Sciences and co-head of the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Evidence Based Practice. His views are echoed by at least two other key local stakeholder organisations.

Flagging the alarming rise in resistance to antimicrobials – an urgent global public health threat – driven by the misuse of antibiotics in hospitals and ambulatory care, Gray told Spotlight that there are not enough pharmacists to intervene if they see inappropriate use of medicines.

“This just continues without any effort to fix it. Inadequately trained and understaffed prescribers are working under immense stress, so they are prone to use the wrong medicines at the wrong time with the wrong doses,” he said. “There are also very few microbiologists and certainly not enough pharmacists at the bedside. They’re not doing what’s necessary to ensure the proper use of medicines – for example, better control over antimicrobials.”

The excessive dependence on antibiotics has resulted in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, commonly known as superbugs. This is called bacterial resistance or antibiotic resistance. Some bacteria are now resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics available.

South Africa has been ranked 67th out of 204 countries for deaths – adjusted by age per 100 000 people – linked to antimicrobial resistance. It has been estimated that around 9 500 deaths in the country in 2019 were directly caused by antimicrobial resistance, while 39 000 deaths were possibly related to resistant infections.

The National Department of Health warned in a background document that rising antimicrobial resistance and the slow-down of new antibiotics could make it impossible to treat common infections effectively. This could also lead to an increase in the cost of healthcare because of the need for more expensive 2nd or 3rd line antimicrobial agents, as well as a reduced quality of life.

Low numbers

Gray said that while not matching the paucity of public sector doctors and nurses, pharmacists stand at 24% of the staffing levels calculated as necessary to deliver a comprehensive service.

“We need just over 50 pharmacists per 100 000 uninsured population as a target, but we’re sitting at around 12,” he said.

Gray said the SA Pharmacy Council (SAPC) has no data on the total number of pharmacists actually working in the country, or the number working in particular settings. A SAPC spokesperson said they had only provincial statistics, but could not track pharmacist movements.

“You can’t use their database to find out how many pharmacists are working where. The Health Systems Trust SA Health Review Indicator chapter has figures of public sector pharmacists per province and per 100 000 uninsured population,” Gray pointed out.

As at February 2024, there were 16 856 pharmacists registered in South Africa, (working and not working), excluding the 971 community service pharmacists.

The 5 958 pharmacists employed in the public sector represents the full complement of funded posts, but it is well below the number needed – and varies dramatically between provinces. While almost all funded posts are filled, Gray said the number of posts is less than needed to deliver a comprehensive, quality service.

Taken across South Africa’s population of around 62 million, there are around 28 registered pharmacists (working or not working), per 100 000 people (insured and uninsured). According to data from 2016, the mean global ratio stands at 73 per 100 000.

“We’re better than many other African countries, but that’s cold comfort,” said Gray.

Increases spread unevenly

There are some positives. The number of pharmacists in the public sector has grown since 2009, rising from five to 12 per 100 000 uninsured people by 2023. However, the ratio varies markedly by district – for example: from 15 in the best-served Western Cape district to a mere three in the poorest served Northern Cape district.

Gray said the more rural districts suffer the most when it comes to understaffing of pharmacists and this contributes to medicine stockouts. While the causes of medicine stockouts are complex, one of the major contributors is the refusal of suppliers to deliver any more stock until accounts are paid.

Understaffing of pharmacists often results in nurses managing patients without any pharmaceutical oversight, Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa Executive Director, Refiloe Mogale, told Spotlight. She associates such task-shifting with medicine misuse and inappropriate prescribing, noting that while it’s a vital strategy in budget-tight environments, medication errors are on the rise. This, she argues, could be solved by ensuring appropriate pharmaceutical personnel are placed to support primary healthcare facilities – such as pharmacist assistants.

“A Primary Care Drug Therapy (PCDT) trained pharmacist can diagnose, treat, and dispense medications. So, this is not as much about task-shifting as about the pharmacist providing comprehensive care. These PCDT pharmacists can do family planning, screening for diabetes, hypertension, and other clinical tasks that take the burden off doctors. We need more of them,” she said.

‘No clear staffing norm’

Addressing the human resources quandary, Gray said the core problem had always been that the number of pharmacist posts per hospital or clinic were not evenly distributed. “There’s been no clear staffing norm. The old ‘homeland’ hospitals are likely to be under resourced with pharmacists and pharmacists’ assistants. Posts are poorly distributed and by global standards, we’re nowhere near where we should be,” he said.

The National Department of Health’s most senior pharmacy official Khadija Jamaloodien agreed that pharmacy posts should be distributed better. But she said work protocols dictate that state pharmacists must visit each clinic in their district at least once per month. She said there are 3 000 primary healthcare facilities in the country and 6 000 (albeit maldistributed) public sector pharmacists.

Nhlanhla Mafarafara, President of the SA Association of Hospital and Institutional Pharmacists, told Spotlight too many of the almost 6 000 pharmacists in the public sector are doing stock management, dispensing, administration and management work in hospitals and pharmaceutical depots. He says the numbers do not necessarily reflect pharmacists in clinical or patient facing areas.

“The reality is that pharmacists are restricted to trying to get drug stock in and out,” Gray observed.

However, the lack of pharmacists and pharmacist assistants at clinics and hospitals means timely and/or knowledgeable ordering often results in shortages of essential medicines, something all experts interviewed for this article agreed on.

Mafarafara said that by defining what services a pharmacist should render and what’s needed to enable a quality service, more realistic staffing numbers could be reached. Pharmacies are central points in all hospitals, with closure for even an hour crippling a hospital. Thus, adequate staffing is critical to ensure uninterrupted access to good quality pharmaceutical care.

South Africa, Mafarafara added, was far behind many other countries in the effective use of pharmacists’ clinical expertise in leading evidence-based care in hospitals. “I’d even go so far as to say doctors should be stopped from dispensing in favour of pharmacists to improve quality of patient care,” he said.

‘If you don’t have a pharmacist, nothing gets done properly’

Jamaloodien said the cost of having too few pharmacists is more far-reaching than just antimicrobial resistance. “You can have stock outs because there’s nobody to manage the supply chain. In my experience, if you don’t have a pharmacist, nothing gets done properly,” she said.

Her solutions? Compliance with the “comprehensive and robust” evidence-based standard treatment guidelines, access to an updated and well-maintained cell phone-based application that gives everybody access to the latest information and medicine changes – and more attendance by all healthcare professionals of webinars held after every medicine’s committee meeting, plus clinicians regularly reading drug update bulletins to keep up with new medicines.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

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

On By ModernMedia

By Russell Rensburg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How it will work

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

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

How to get the ball rolling

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

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

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

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

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

*Rensburg is Director of the Rural Health Advocacy Project.

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

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article