Tag: universal healthcare

Categories : HospitalsTags :

Hospital Association Tables Proposal for Enhanced Healthcare through a Viable Proven Solution

On By ModernMedia
Netcare Christiaan Barnard Memorial Hospital

Monday, 2 September – Johannesburg, South Africa

Mandatory health cover of formally employed is tried and tested and if put to use in South Africa could reduce the public health burden, increase public per capita spend on health, and free up resources that could help address the country’s most pressing health crises.

With widespread concern that the National Health Insurance Fund is unaffordable and will take too long to implement while most South Africans already struggle to access quality healthcare services, Netcare Chief Executive Office Dr Richard Friedland has raised the possibility of near-term solutions including an under-explored alternative.

Speaking at the Hospital Association of South Africa Conference in Sandton, he stated that private hospitals wish to work with government to find solutions to our country’s healthcare problems. He pointed to mandatory medical cover for the formally employed as a potential solution that has been well-researched over two decades and is a “workable solution that if implemented will be quick to roll out and in a very short time provide enhanced healthcare to all South Africans.”

Friedland pointed out that the African National Congress’ 1994 Health Plan recommended mandatory cover for the formally employed and the National Department of Health Social Health Insurance Working Group in 1997 recommended that mandatory cover for formal sector employees should be confined to those above the income tax threshold, due to affordability concerns.

What this all offers, explained Friedland, is a middle ground option. If the government mandates those South Africans who are formally employed together with their families to be covered by some form of health insurance or medical aid, “This will enable public health sector resources to be dedicated to the informally employed, unemployed and indigent.”

“With a formally employed population of 11.5 million, together with the estimated number of dependants, based on a 2.4 beneficiary ratio, this could result in up to 27.5 million of our population that could potentially over time become covered, leaving the remaining 35.5 (56% of the population) people dependent on public health resources,” Friedland said.

Government public health per capita spend, he said, could increase over time by 52% without any additional funding of the public sector budget.

“In simple terms, if one considered the entire population in South Africa, government’s responsibility would reduce from the current 85% of the population covered by public health to 56%,” he said.

The latest per capita public expenditure based on a consolidated health budget of R271 billion works out to R5054, when considering the population and excluding medical scheme users. With formal employment coverage, that per capita public expenditure on public health users would increase 52% to R7 659, research shows.

Friedland also told the audience that getting the scheme off the ground could be done in three phases.

Phase one would involve including the formally employed and their dependants who are above the tax threshold. This would grow the medical scheme coverage from 9,2 to 15,4 million. The completion of Phase 1 would also expand public per capita spend by 12,9% at present day levels.

Phase 2 would include those formally employed and dependents who are below the tax threshold. This would push medical scheme coverage to 27,5 million and expand public per capita spend to 52%.

Phase 3, Friedland explained, will allow for the expansion of the economy through recovery and an increase in employment.

This will have further benefits to South Africa’s health care system with research showing that for every one million formal jobs created, the public health system would benefit with a reduction of approximately 2.4 million people, it will no longer have to serve. Additionally, this will add a 7% increase from Phase 2 on per capita public health spend.

“The health system stands to benefit in more immediate and visceral ways. The reduced load on the public sector will result in a reduced burdens on doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers, will reduce overcrowding, shorten queues and free up funding to fix infrastructure, fund unfunded medical posts, and grow our medical skills training capacity – remember, we have a shortage of 27 000 nurses in South Africa, and this is expected to grow to 70 000 by 2030.

Not only is the idea not new, says Friedland, but similar approaches are adopted elsewhere. In Africa 61% of countries have contributory mandatory programmes for civil servants and 50% of them programmes for sector employees.

The private hospital sector, says Friedland, stands ready to explore this idea and others that result in lessening the load on the shoulders of all South Africans who need accessible quality healthcare today.

“We stand ready to collaborate on further system strengthening, to more private public partnerships, to addressing public sector elective surgery waiting lists, to joint efforts on human resource training collaboration,” he says.

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Let’s be Pragmatic – the NHI has Constructive and Contentious Aspects

On By ModernMedia

By Susan Cleary for Spotlight

Professor Susan Cleary delivering her inaugural lecture as part of a lecture series by the University of Cape Town. (Photo: Supplied)

President Cyril Ramaphosa recently signed the NHI Bill into law. The question is whether this will bring South Africa closer towards Universal Health Coverage. Professor Susan Cleary argues that the NHI is a wide ranging reform with both positive and controversial aspects. The key will be to find a middle ground in order to continue on the journey to UHC.

President Cyril Ramaphosa signing the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act on the eve of the elections is a smart move from the perspective of a political party seeking to shore up its base. The concern though to those of us working to strengthen the health system is whether the NHI will enable the country to move closer towards Universal Health Coverage.

For the NHI naysayers, perhaps it would be important to alleviate some fears and concerns. The NHI is a long-term project. In the 2024 budget, National Treasury reduced the conditional grant allocations to the NHI in comparison to what was allocated in the 2023 budget. While signing the NHI Bill into law is a step forward, the reduction in resources towards NHI implementation reminds us that this is a long term project. In addition, it is likely that there will be legal challenges which will lead to considerable delays for the scheme to be fully implemented.

The NHI is a wide-ranging reform, with many positive aspects sitting alongside some key controversial aspects. Positive aspects include the opportunity to enable greater use of evidence and transparency in priority setting through the further institutionalisation of Health Technology Assessment processes (akin to ‘NICE’ in the UK), as well as the opportunity to use national-level purchasing power to drive down the prices of commodities such as medicines. The role of private multidisciplinary practices (GPs, nurses, health and rehabilitation professionals, etc) in the future NHI also holds some promise to improve access to healthcare particularly to parts of the country with limited access to public clinics.

On the other hand, there are two key controversial aspects. The first is related to what may or may not happen to medical schemes and medical scheme administrators once the NHI is fully implemented. My sense is that there is no short-term concern in this regard. A bigger concern is whether a single pot of money in the NHI fund will present a larger or a smaller corruption risk than the current situation of multiple pots spread across provincial treasuries and medical aid schemes.

Another concern is that the NHI reform might disrupt our ongoing progress towards Universal Health Coverage within our existing public sector. Our public sector is not perfect, but it is a system that has equity at its heart. The common definition of Universal Health Coverage is to provide all individuals and communities with access to needed promotive, preventive, resuscitative, curative, rehabilitative and palliative health services of sufficient quality to be effective, while ensuring that the utilisation of these services does not expose users to financial hardship.

The two main goals of Universal Health Coverage are: (1) the provision of quality health care services to those in need and (2) the avoidance of financial catastrophe in this process. Clearly healthcare is far from free – indeed it is very expensive – and so the goal of avoiding financial catastrophe is about implementing prepayment and risk pooling mechanisms, whether these are tax or insurance based.

Let’s first look at how we are doing on the provision of quality services. The below figure plots countries according to their achievements on the Universal Health Coverage Service Coverage Index. In this context, coverage of essential health services is measured based on indicators that include reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health, infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases and service capacity and access, among the general and the most disadvantaged populations.

On this index, South Africa’s achievement is at just over 70%, similar to many other middle-income countries. While there would be room for improvement, our performance is in line with our global peers.

Global comparison of countries in terms of service coverage and quality

Source: World Health Organization – Global Health Observatory (2024) processed by Our World in Data. Accessed May 2024.

The second indicator is financial risk protection. The below figure plots countries against the percent of total health expenditure that is paid out of pocket at the point of use. On this indicator, we score 5.7%, indicating extremely high levels of financial risk protection.

Global comparison of countries in terms of the percent of total health expenditure that is paid out of pocket

Source: World Health Organization (via World Bank) processed by Our World in Data. Accessed May 2024.

While this does not mean that there are no instances of financial catastrophe, undoubtedly there would be, particularly for those seeking treatment for certain types of cancers. That said, over the past two decades I have studied this issue extensively. Across a wide range of conditions in diverse settings, we have interviewed tens of thousands of people to understand the costs that they face in using health services, including everything from transport costs, to costs of food, shelter or accommodation, costs of child care, lost income, under the counter payments to public sector providers (which we never found), fees paid to private providers or money spent at pharmacies. This research consistently showed that the level of catastrophic spending was very low. Our performance on financial risk protection is outstanding. I celebrate the work of those colleagues that shepherded in the removal of user fees in our national health system during the dawning of our democracy. We should all be thanking them.

Despite these successes on Universal Health Coverage, there are areas of concern for the South African health system. We do not achieve health outcomes commensurate with our level of investment. My sense is that this is driven by our relatively high burden of disease; for example we continue to have the world’s largest HIV treatment programme. While our average life expectancy steadily increased with the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (although note the downturn from 2020 which coincides with the Covid-19 pandemic – see the below figure), the HIV epidemic has been a cruel setback that needs to be considered when we seek to make global comparisons on life expectancy and avertable mortality.

Global comparisons of life expectancy: 1970 – 2020

Source: United Nations World Population Prospects (2022) processed by Our World in Data. Accessed May 2024.

Now that the NHI Bill has become the NHI Act, it is time to move on from debates about whether we need NHI or not, and rather focus on how we can make the NHI work for us.

Our public sector will be the backbone of our future NHI and so we should seek to continue to strengthen this system. It would also be wise to put in place measures to strengthen our private system given that private providers are intended to play a key role in the NHI. We should be pragmatic.

The NHI includes many exciting opportunities for leveraging big data and artificial intelligence in health systems strengthening, but at this stage we hardly have any electronic health data. A clear step forward would be the further implementation of the National Digital Health Strategy (2019-2024) which includes the establishment of a patient electronic health record, amongst other needed developments.

In addition, the NHI places emphasis on the achievement of a purchaser provider split via establishing ‘Contracting Units for Primary Health Care’ (CUPS). These new entities will contract with both public and private providers within a defined geographic area, on behalf of a particular population. The establishment of CUP ‘proof of concept’ sites is therefore a priority, but must be done in a way that generates learning and enables adaptation to different contexts.

Let’s continue to push forward on many of these complex undertakings. It is going to take time, but it is needed, irrespective of the name that we choose to give to our health system.

*Cleary is professor of health economics and the head of the School of Public Health at the University of Cape Town.

Note: The views expressed in this opinion piece are not necessarily shared by the Spotlight editors. Spotlight is committed to publishing a variety of views and facilitating informed discussion that deepens public understanding of health issues.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Source: Spotlight

Categories : General Interest Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Universal Healthcare is Possible in Our Lifetime

On By ModernMedia

Universal Health Coverage Day calls on us to reflect on the progress that we have achieved in providing healthcare for all. As the health and pharmaceutical industries, it is time to question if our strides in achieving healthcare for all are successful and identify areas for improvement. The theme “A Time for Action”, speaks to the urgency of healthcare access regardless of socioeconomic status, age, race or demographic. It is not an ambitious dream and can be attained in our lifetime, writes Bada Pharasi, CEO of the Innovative Pharmaceutical Association of South Africa (IPASA). 

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) means access to primary healthcare for everyone. In South Africa, this is referred to as  National Health Insurance (NHI). Regardless of its name, the objective remains the same – to ensure that all citizens, regardless of where they live or their socioeconomic status, have access to healthcare.

A 2021 report released at the Africa Health Agenda International Conference (AHAIC) revealed that 615 million, or 52%, of the people in Africa, did not have access to the healthcare that they needed¹. It was also estimated that 97 million Africans face catastrophic healthcare costs, which push 15 million people into poverty every year¹. 

The effective implementation of UHC would mean that no person would have to go without appropriate healthcare. It would also mean that no person would have to undergo financial strain to receive treatment for ill health.

UHC covers a spectrum of health needs from health promotion to prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care across the life course². In 2015, 193 United Nations (UN) member states agreed on the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). These goals are aimed at seeing an end to poverty and a sustainable future by 2030², and ensuring health coverage for all is an integral part of reaching these goals. 

The World Health Organization (WHO) believes that UHC can be achieved by using the primary healthcare approach as it remains the most accessible, inclusive and cost-effective method to reach the majority of the population². 

Globally, as many as 72 countries have included UHC in their national healthcare systems. The countries where UHC has been the most successful include Canada, Australia, and several European countries, such as Switzerland and Sweden. It is from these countries that we can glean valuable lessons on the importance of strong healthcare systems, well-trained healthcare professionals and a cohesive relationship between governments and the private sector³. 

Ensuring a healthier nation may seem like an exorbitant mission. However, when we consider that a healthier population will be beneficial to the economy, it makes for a worthwhile investment. The World Bank adds that UHC allows countries to make the most of their strongest asset: human capital. A nation in good health is one where children can go to school and adults can go to work⁴. 

There is a common perspective that for a country’s overall health to improve, its economy must improve first. This idea fuels the understanding of why low- to middle-income countries have such poor healthcare infrastructure. The World Bank offers an alternative perspective, suggesting that when a country’s overall health improves, so will its economy. This as more citizens will be able to contribute to its economic growth and the workplace⁵.  

Some of the reasons why the adoption of UHC in African countries has seemed to stall include inadequate financial and technology support, limited pharma manufacturing companies, and unclear policies and regulatory frameworks⁶. 

In South Africa, the greatest hindrance to people receiving the healthcare they require boils down to numbers. With a population of more than 60 million people, there is a greater need for healthcare than there is capacity to meet the demand⁷. 

At IPASA, we believe that healthcare is a basic right and that citizens in any given country should be given the necessary access to healthcare. We understand that working with key stakeholders, such as the government, is critical to the success of universal healthcare. Our ongoing work with patient advocacy groups ensures we understand what patients need from a treatment perspective.

We recently attended the Access Dialogue conference with patient advocacy groups including Rare Diseases South Africa and Campaigning for Cancer to gain an understanding of some of the concerns faced by patients and share insights on the proposed NHI Bill. 

IPASA believes that an adequate supply of medicines is a critical pillar of any healthcare scheme, and the NHI is no different. For the NHI to succeed, it must be backed by a sustainable healthcare sector to ensure the security of healthcare provision and medicine supply.

To this end, the NHI must allow for a flexible, responsive pricing model that includes alternative/innovative reimbursement models to cover the cost of medicines and health products. This allows responsiveness to the needs of geographical areas, quality and levels of care, and negotiations directly with healthcare providers.

Healthcare for all can only be achieved by the joint commitment of the health and pharmaceutical industries, government stakeholders and patient advocacy groups for the benefit of patients. No person should be faced with the obstacle of finance at a time when they need healthcare: providing healthcare for all results in a healthier society and healthier world for us all. 

References:

  1. https://healthpolicy-watch.news/only-half-of-africans-have-access-to-health-care/ 
  2. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal-health-coverage-(uhc) 
  3. https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/countries-with-universal-healthcare/#:~:text=The%20countries%20with%20the%20highest,comprehensive%20coverage%20of%20healthcare%20services.
  4. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/universalhealthcoverage 
  5. https://widgets.weforum.org/outlook15/10.html 
  6. https://www.iqvia.com/locations/middle-east-and-africa/blogs/2023/01/getting-quality-medicines-to-patients-faster-in-africa-how-to-solve-for-access-issues 
  7. https://www.wits.ac.za/covid19/covid19-news/latest/healthcare-in-south-africa-how-inequity-is-contributing-to-inefficiency.html
Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

BHF Responds to the Imminent Approval of the NHI Bill

On By ModernMedia

The National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill was approved by the National Council of Provinces today and is due to be signed into law by the president shortly after. The Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) is deeply disappointed. We are not happy with the various sections of the Bill. Despite submissions to government in this regard, the recommendations of the BHF and other stakeholders have largely been ignored and the bill is being passed virtually unchanged from its originally drafted form.

While the BHF fully supports the concept of universal health coverage (UHC) as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and believes that it must be a strategic imperative for all those directly or indirectly involved in healthcare, it does not support the NHI Bill in its current form. The bill restricts medical schemes to the provision of complementary cover potentially rendering them unsustainable, further to which the enormous economic value that medical schemes currently add to the health sector would be lost to South Africa if the bill goes ahead unchanged, BHF strongly believes this section should be removed as well as all references to complementary cover contained in the bill.

Additionally, a number of the Bill’s provisions are unconstitutional. These were detailed in the BHF’s submission to government. South Africa needs a strong, vibrant private health sector because government resources will never be unlimited. . The incredibly wide powers it bestows on the Minister of Health grossly undermine the board of the NHI fund and its accountability. The power of the Benefit Advisory Committee to determine health benefits under NHI similarly undermines this accountability. In addition, the BHF is perturbed by the demonstrated inability of the state to adequately operate national public entities and state-owned enterprises, as well as the endless levels of relentless corruption in the public sector.

Other concerns

The Bill allows the Minister of Health and the NHI fund to issue directives that override all other legislation, except the PFMA and the Constitution, including legislation specifically mandated by the Constitution.

There are proposed amendments to the Medical Schemes Act that unfairly discriminate against pregnant women. 

In many instances, the language of the bill creates significant legal uncertainty, which is itself unconstitutional due to the principle of the rule of law upheld by the Constitution. The BHF provided specific examples of this in the body of its submission.

The NHI Bill allows the national sphere of government to encroach on the geographical, functional and institutional integrity of provincial governments. This is not permitted by Section 41 of the Constitution.

The bill tries to dictate to the President in Cabinet (the National Executive) what new legislation must be made or how to amend existing legislation. This is also unconstitutional, as the Constitution itself grants the National Executive its powers. Nothing can change this except an amendment to the Constitution.

The registration system proposed by the bill creates unconstitutional barriers to access to health care that do not currently exist. The certification, accreditation and contracting system proposed by the bill is unwieldy, and it too will create unconstitutional barriers to access to health care that currently do not exist. Both these points are explained further in the body of the BHF’s submission.

Dr Katlego Mothudi, BHF CEO, underscores these serious implications of the bill’s being passed unchanged. “We have consistently given input into this proposed law and are disappointed that our concerns and those of other stakeholders appear not to have been considered or even tested. The bill in its current form will have a negative impact on healthcare access for everyone. There are many areas of uncertainty that have not been clarified, not least with regard to funding and affordability. We are also concerned specifically that the bill may prejudice the rights of women,” he says. “The proposed amendments to the Medical Schemes Act exclude access to pregnancy-related healthcare services for women who are medical scheme members. This means that these women would have to access reproductive health care from the public sector at their own cost, which is in conflict with the provisions of the National Health Act.

“The bill also has the potential for a wider negative economic impact. There is still uncertainty around how the NHI will be funded, but it will very likely be through additional taxation, something that will unavoidably have a detrimental effect on the economy at large – companies, individual employees and the general public – in the form of job losses. This phenomenon has already been discussed in various papers, including one published by the World Bank in 2001. It cited Colombia’s experience in this regard. A 10% increase in payroll taxes resulted in a 4.9% reduction in employment. Those who remained employed experienced a reduction in their disposable income, while the decrease in the overall number of employees saw a reduction in revenue from personal tax. Should the bill pass in its current form, South Africa will almost certainly experience something very similar.

“More specifically, this phenomenon will also impact the health sector. With medical schemes reduced to providing only complementary cover, not only will the schemes industry itself shrink, but all the other private entities it does business with, including hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and health practitioners,” he concludes.

Provided by the Board of Healthcare Funders

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Opinion: There are Paths to Quality Universal Healthcare Besides NHI

On By ModernMedia
One of the most damaging aspects of our public discourse on National Health Insurance (NHI) is the mistaken notion in some quarters that the only two options are NHI and the status quo. PHOTO: Rosetta Msimango/Spotlight

By Marcus Low for Spotlight

One of the most damaging aspects of our public discourse on National Health Insurance (NHI) is the mistaken notion that the only two options are NHI and the status quo. Often implicitly, sometimes explicitly, defenders of NHI suggest that any argument against NHI is one for maintaining the current system. Since the current system doesn’t work very well for most people, this line of argument gets some purchase, even though it is based on a false premise.

In his book “Which country has the world’s best health care?”, oncologist and bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel outlines the key features of healthcare systems in 11 different countries. Two things that stand out are that health systems differ substantially between countries and that most systems are the relatively messy products of complex histories and political and other compromises. This latter point about the path-dependency of healthcare systems is an important point we will return to.

Many varieties

South Africa’s proposed NHI system is sometimes clumped together with systems in other countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and Thailand. At times this is fair, at times it skims over important differences.

For example, NHI will be a single-payer system, which is to say, the NHI fund will be responsible for almost all purchasing of healthcare services in the country. In some respects, Canada has a similar system, except that rather than one system for the whole country, they in effect have 13 single-payer systems for each of their provinces and territories. Even Thailand, at times referred to as an example of NHI, technically has three funds rather than one, although it resembles South Africa’s NHI plans in several other respects. In principle, a large single-payer should be able to negotiate better deals than several smaller payers, but on the other hand, having Canada-style provincial funds would be more closely aligned with South Africa’s current governance arrangements and in some provinces, like the Western Cape, chances are people would have more trust in a fund run by the province than in one run nationally.

Another thing that quickly becomes apparent when looking at the variety of healthcare systems out there, is that a simplistic dichotomy between NHI and private healthcare is a false one. Countries like the Netherlands and Germany have achieved excellent health outcomes with systems that are neither NHI-style systems nor examples of the private sector running riot. Though the details are significantly more complicated than this, you can think of the Netherlands and Germany roughly as having many strictly regulated medical schemes (called sickness funds in Germany) with scheme/fund membership being compulsory (with some exceptions). The German system is progressive in that people with higher incomes contribute more than people with lower incomes – an important difference from South Africa’s medical schemes.

Funds in the Netherlands are also not primarily funded directly, as with our medical schemes, but receive funding from a central fund via a risk adjustment process. Both the German and Dutch systems have significant social solidarity built-in in the way it institutionalises the cross-subsidising of the poor by the wealthy.

In South Africa, such a system could, for example, be implemented by dramatically tightening up the regulation of medical schemes, putting in place a progressive mechanism for cross-subsidisation between schemes, making scheme membership compulsory for those who can afford it, and, over time, using tax revenue to pay for scheme membership for the unemployed (although this last element, like NHI, does come with a big question mark on affordability. Those with long enough memories might remember that a system roughly along such lines was on the cards in South Africa around the turn of the century. (see for example the Taylor report of 2002 and this interesting paper.)

Getting to there from here

One striking thing about NHI in South Africa is that for all the column inches, submissions to Parliament, and oral hearings across the country and in Parliament, hardly anyone seems to have shifted their positions in the last decade and there has been very little serious consideration of alternative paths to universal healthcare.

Photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash

One reason for this is the sense that the design choices behind the NHI Bill were essentially decided on by a relatively small group of people in the National Health Department and the African National Congress (ANC) around 10 or 15 or so years ago. What followed since then often felt like an attempt at co-opting rather than meaningful engagement. This was particularly apparent in the way some members of the Portfolio Committee on Health continuously pushed people on whether they are for or against NHI, rather than engaging with the substance of people’s submissions. Though the boxes for public engagement were ticked, the reality was often a parody of what such engagement is meant to be.

We could have gone a different route. It would have been entirely feasible to have a process for NHI akin to the much more meaningful set of engagements we had for the Competition Commission’s Health Market Inquiry into the private healthcare sector. In that case, people could make submissions, be heard by the panel, and crucially, one never got the sense that the outcome was preordained. Such a process may in some respects have given government officials and members of Parliament a few more headaches, but it would also have built trust and understanding of the technical issues, and for major reforms like NHI trust and public understanding is half the battle.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons Licence.

Source: Spotlight