Dr Jessica Hamuy Blanco, Product and Clinical Risk Executive at Dis-Chem
As the world marks World TB Day on 24 March under the theme “Yes! We can end TB!”, South Africa faces a clear challenge turning awareness into early action.
“TB is all around us,” says Dr Jessica Hamuy Blanco, Product and Clinical Risk Executive at Dis-Chem. “Many people don’t realise that exposure is common. The bacteria can lie dormant for years and only become active when the immune system is compromised.”
Despite widespread awareness, a critical gap remains between what people know about TB and how quickly they act on symptoms. This gap continues to shape outcomes for thousands living with this preventable and curable disease.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), approximately 249 000 people in South Africa developed tuberculosis in 2024.
TB remains close to home
Although preventable and curable, TB continues to spread quietly often because symptoms are ignored and treatment is delayed.
“People don’t always recognise the signs early enough or know where to seek help,” says Dr Hamuy Blanco. “This is where informed, trusted healthcare makes the difference.”
South Africa remains one of the countries hardest hit by TB globally. The disease is closely linked to HIV, with weakened immune systems increasing the risk of TB becoming active. At the same time, socio-economic realities such as overcrowding and limited access to healthcare continue to drive transmission.
Delayed diagnosis means individuals remain infectious for longer, placing families and communities at greater risk.
Early detection can change outcomes
Detecting TB early remains one of the most effective ways to reduce its spread and improve recovery. Treatment typically involves a six- to nine-month course of antibiotics, with strong success rates when completed. However early symptoms are often missed.
“The signs can be missed or ignored,” explains Dr Hamuy Blanco. “A persistent cough, fatigue, night sweats or weight loss are easy to dismiss as stress or a lingering illness. That delay gives TB time to spread.”
Creating space for early conversations, whether at a clinic, pharmacy or with a nurse can make the difference between early intervention and prolonged illness.
Finishing treatment is non-negotiable
Another major barrier to ending TB is interrupted treatment. Many patients begin to feel better within weeks and assume they are cured, while others struggle with side effects or the practicalities of repeated clinic visits.
“When treatment is stopped too soon, the bacteria are not fully eliminated,” says Dr Hamuy Blanco. “This is how drug-resistant TB develops, which is far more difficult and costly to treat.”
Supporting patients through the full course of treatment is essential, with clear communication and ongoing support improving adherence.
Bringing care closer to people
“Accessible healthcare is critical in closing the gap between awareness and action”, says Dr Hamuy Blanco. Retail health clinics and digital health platforms are increasingly helping to make care part of people’s everyday lives.
These routine touchpoints create opportunities for people to ask questions, seek advice and act early helping to normalise testing, reduce stigma and support patients throughout their treatment journey.
“Care needs to fit into people’s daily lives,” she adds. “It should be easy to access, easy to understand and supportive from start to finish.”
Turning intent into impact
TB is both preventable and curable, yet it continues to claim lives because of delayed action and incomplete treatment.
“Ending tuberculosis takes more than medicine. It requires a human-centred approach that supports people from early testing through to completed treatment. By breaking down stigma and acting sooner, South Africa can move from awareness to impact,” she concludes.
New TB tests have massive potential for South Africa’s struggle to get to grips with the age-old disease. Making the most of these new tests will require both ambition and smart implementation, argue Gaurang Tanna and Dr Yogan Pillay.
Every day, more than 140 people die from tuberculosis (TB) in South Africa, yet TB is both preventable and curable. Too many people are tested too late, allowing the disease to spread silently through communities and turning a curable illness into a fatal one.
Unlike most other diseases, anyone can contract TB – the bacteria are airborne and just the act of breathing makes us vulnerable to contracting TB. The risk of TB is higher for people with suppressed immunity, malnutrition, or living with cancer or HIV.
Reducing deaths from TB depends on earlier diagnosis, yet many people are diagnosed late, often after prolonged illness, and only once they reach hospitals with advanced disease. There are some opportunities for improvement. Firstly, we need to address persistent weaknesses in where and how TB tests are offered. Secondly, we need to address delays in care seeking, and missed opportunities for testing within health facilities. Finally, we need to close the operational barriers that impede testing. An added challenge that the TB disease presents is that it is often present without any symptoms.
In recent years, South Africa took important steps to strengthen its TB response and intensified efforts to find people with the TB disease through implementation of Targeted Universal TB Testing (TUTT). TUTT is a strategy that promotes systematic testing among high-TB risk groups, like people living with HIV, household contacts of individuals with TB, and people with previous TB, irrespective of symptoms.
South Africa now conducts approximately 3.6 million TB tests annually, representing a 50% increase compared to pre-COVID pandemic testing. However, we need to scale this up considerably if we are to reach the more than six million people living with HIV currently receiving HIV treatment in South Africa as well as all those with TB symptoms who are often missed at facilities.
Despite strong commitments, TB testing in South Africa continues to face several structural constraints.
First, the cost of molecular diagnostics limits the scale of testing. Current molecular TB tests cost approximately R230 per test.
Second, inefficient clinic workflows reduce testing coverage. In busy primary healthcare facilities, this leads to missed TB testing, contributing to prolonged diagnostic delays during which transmission continues and disease severity worsens.
Third, many patients, especially children and people living with HIV, can’t produce sputum, which current tests require, further reducing testing coverage.
Fourth, people with the highest burden of TB, particularly men, often do not attend government clinics. Men account for a disproportionate share of TB in South Africa but remain underrepresented in testing programmes, contributing to delayed diagnoses and ongoing transmission.
Evolving and strengthening testing capabilities in line with the ambitions of the next phase of TB control in South Africa requires leveraging emerging diagnostic tools and redesigning how TB testing is delivered.
New diagnostic tools create new opportunities
Just recently, the World Health Organization updated its recommendations on TB diagnostics, endorsing the use of near-point-of-care tests and use of tongue swabs for people who cannot produce sputum to expand access to TB diagnostics and improve diagnostic efficiency. These new tools provide an opportunity to rethink how testing is organised across the health system.
Tongue swabs offer a promising alternative sample type, enabling testing among patients who cannot produce sputum. It has also been demonstrated to be more acceptable for patients and providers and is easier to collect in clinics.
At the same time, near-point-of-care molecular platforms (such as Pluslife, a test that has been approved by the South Africa’s health products regulatory body) offer the potential to diagnose TB closer to the patient. It substantially reduces costs, to about one-third the cost of current molecular tests, while demonstrating comparable diagnostic performance for TB, making large-scale expansion of TB testing more accessible and affordable. By delivering results rapidly, within an hour, this technology could enable a test and treat approach. TB testing, diagnosis, and treatment initiation could all happen during a single primary healthcare visit. This would reduce the time to start treatment and limit the number of patients lost between diagnosis and treatment.
Clinic workflows need to be redesigned
Patients presenting with TB symptoms often move through multiple stages of the clinic process – registration, triage, waiting areas, and clinician consultations – before TB testing is considered. Improving TB testing requires services redesign for patient convenience and accessibility, and to be much more systematic. A few simple changes could be introduced.
Firstly, introduce a fast-track TB queue, allowing individuals to register digitally and drop off samples without completing a full clinic visit.
Secondly, embed TB symptom screening and sample collection at triage or vital-sign stations. Any patient reporting TB symptoms – cough, fever, night sweats, or weight loss – should have a sample collected while waiting to see a clinician.
Thirdly, for people living with HIV, introduce twin TB testing with annual viral load test (or CD4 for newly diagnosed patients) to systematically test all people living with HIV.
Lastly, we could equip facilities with a near-point-of-care testing platform, like Pluslife, to deliver results before the clinical consultation, allowing TB to be diagnosed rapidly and at lower cost to the health system. It would enable patients to start treatment on the same day.
These approaches could directly address the most persistent diagnostic and linkage gaps in South Africa’s TB programme.
Extending TB testing beyond clinics
New diagnostic platforms also enable TB testing to move beyond government clinics.
A substantial proportion of individuals with TB, particularly men, do not present to clinics and delay seeking care. Near-point-of-care molecular platforms could enable TB testing through alternative delivery channels, including community settings (such as taxi ranks), community pharmacies, workplace clinics, and households through community health worker programmes.
Expanding testing beyond clinics will help identify TB earlier among populations that remain underserved by current services.
From policy ambition to implementation
South Africa’s progress over the past four years demonstrates that intensified testing strategies such as TUTT can help increase TB diagnosis. Sustaining this momentum will require redesigning primary health care services to fully use these emerging diagnostic tools. Three priorities should guide this transition.
First, TB sample collection workflows in clinics should be redesigned to ensure that every symptomatic and at-risk person is tested for TB.
Second, new diagnostic tools should be deployed, including the use of tongue swabs for people who cannot produce sputum, as well as low cost near-point-of-care molecular tests to simplify testing and treatment initiation pathways.
Third, TB testing should be expanded through alternative delivery channels to reach people who do not routinely access government clinic services, especially men, who are less likely to seek care in these settings.
By aligning ambition and new technologies with service redesign, South Africa can significantly reduce diagnostic delays, decrease deaths due to TB and accelerate progress towards TB elimination.
*Tanna is a senior programme officer for TB, and Dr Pillay is the director of HIV and TB delivery at the Gates Foundation.
Disclosure: Spotlight receives funding from the Gates Foundation but is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously. Spotlight is a member of the South African Press Council.
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.
Countries like South Africa benefited in very concrete ways from multilateral forums. Photo by Kindel Media
By Marcus Low
Funding cuts over the last year or so have created a crisis for multilateral health institutions. Which institutions emerge from this crisis, and in what form, will have real consequences for the health of people in South Africa, argues Spotlight editor Marcus Low.
In recent weeks, there has been a glut of articles from global health big-hitters, all concerned with how multilateral health institutions should, or should not be re-designed. These include articles from Philippe Duneton, Executive Director of UNITAID, Sania Nishtar, CEO of GAVI, and one co-authored by, among others, Anders Nordström, a former acting Director-General of the WHO, Helen Clark, a former New Zealand Prime Minister, and Peter Piot, the driving force behind UNAIDS from the mid-90s to 2008.
The immediate cause of all this debate is the stark reality that funding for multilateral health institutions have been cut dramatically in the last year, mainly, but not exclusively, due to the United States’ retreat from such international forums in favour of bilateral agreements. Even before the funding cuts, the financial outlook at entities like the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS was bleak. Over the last year, it has tipped over into outright crisis.
The WHO has already undertaken drastic organisational restructuring. Last year, a UN document raised the possibility of “sunsetting” UNAIDS by the end of 2026. It is likely that we will see several more organisations shrinking or disappearing altogether in the coming years.
Why does this matter?
The multilateral health institutions we’ve had in recent decades have not been perfect. They were often overly politicised, fraught with power imbalances, and not always capable of responding quickly and effectively to health emergencies.
But even so, it is unequivocally true that when it comes to healthcare, multilateralism has yielded many tangible benefits that are helping keep people alive. In a world where every country stands alone, these benefits will simply fall away.
There are many examples of such benefits. The WHO’s treatment guidelines for diseases like HIV and TB are public goods that are invaluable in many countries – here in South Africa they were particularly important as an antidote to the crackpot science that flourished in the period of state-sponsored AIDS denialism. The sharing of genomics data between countries was critically important at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over an even longer period, the sharing of data on influenza strains has enabled the rational selection of vaccine components for each hemisphere each year. Medicines regulators in different countries increasingly share some of their work in order to speed their processes up and avoid duplication.
This year, a new HIV prevention injection containing the antiretroviral lenacapavir is being rolled out in South Africa and several other countries, largely with the help of the Global Fund, another international entity. A stable supply of low-cost lenacapavir should be available in around a year or two from now, due to market-shaping work done by UNITAID, the Gates Foundation, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, and Wits RHI. Such market-shaping often involves committing ahead of time to purchase certain volumes of a product to incentivise manufacturers to invest in production capacity, thus kick-starting the market for the product.
Then there is the recent history of how rapidly a new antiretroviral medicine called dolutegravir was rolled out in South Africa from 2019 – today over five million people here are taking it. The Geneva-based Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) negotiated licenses that allowed generic competition to start years earlier than would otherwise have been the case. That enabled the low prices and supply security that has facilitated the massive uptake of dolutegravir here and in dozens of other countries.
It is clearly in South Africa’s interest to help keep mechanisms like the above going.
But to reduce the value of these institutions to purely the technical would miss the essence of what animates them in the first place. The reality is that multilateral health institutions have often been at their most effective when people were driven by the need to address urgent health needs, as for example in the early days of UNAIDS. The belief that people’s health matter, no matter who they are, or where they live – essentially a belief in human rights – can make the difference between an ineffectual bureaucracy and a vital health movement. Our current crisis is not only one of technical capacity, but also one where the animating power of human rights-based thinking is being challenged.
How then should we think about redesigning global health?
There are some tensions between fighting to keep what we currently have and embracing big reforms. For example, on the one hand, given the aid cuts of the last year, people have good reason to be concerned about the potential closure of UNAIDS being a precursor to the further unravelling of the global HIV response. On the other hand, there are legitimate questions as to whether UNAIDS is still fit for purpose, given how the HIV epidemic has changed over the last three decades.
One of the most useful contributions in how to think about all this comes from Nordström and his co-authors. They outline four key paradigm shifts that help bring the current moment into focus. Their paper is worth reading in full for the nuances, but here is a brief paraphrasing of the four paradigm shifts:
The first shift is about recognising the fundamental changes underway in the global burden of disease and in demography. In short, while the key threats in the last three decades were the infectious diseases malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV, they are increasingly being overtaken by non-communicable diseases (like diabetes and hypertension) and mental health disorders. This shift is not yet reflected in the architecture of multilateral health institutions.
The second shift relates to the recentring of power from Geneva in Switzerland and New York and Washington in the USA to countries and regions, giving rise to an increasingly multipolar world. “This shift does not imply that multilateral cooperation is obsolete,” write the authors, “however, it requires a clarification of which future functions should be performed at the global level, and which should be performed by national and regional bodies.”
The third shift refers to the growing push to modernise the landscape of global health institutions. The authors write: “Leaders from low-income and middle-income countries have repeatedly critiqued the dearth of systemic support, the inefficiencies of vertical initiatives, and the resource-intensive bureaucratic processes that accompany them”. Considering these external and internal pressures, they argue there is a need to move from a complex and competitive system to a simpler, needs-based, and agile system.
The fourth shift is linked to the declining relative importance of development assistance, coupled with countries’ rising commitments to increase domestic financing for health. Although some international support will remain essential for low-income countries and humanitarian responses, the authors argue that domestic resources must be the engine of a new ecosystem and ways of working together.
All of these shifts are now occurring within the broader geopolitical context of what Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently described as a “rupture in the world order”. He stressed that the great powers have turned their backs on the rules-based world order and have “begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited”. This shift can already be seen in the US’s pivot from multilateralism to bilateral health agreements.
As Carney put it: “The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied – the WTO, the UN, the COP – the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat.”
He argues that middle-powers like Canada, and I’d argue South Africa should aspire to be part of this group, should chart a way forward where they are not overly reliant on super powers like the US and China. Avoiding such an over-reliance is of course also an obvious lesson to take from the US’s abrupt cuts to health aid last year.
Maybe a first harsh reality to come to terms with then is that the rupture that is taking place in global geopolitics is also occurring in the world of global health. To think that we can go back to the way the WHO or UNAIDS were twenty years ago, is wishful thinking. The “rupture” might take time to propagate, but it will extend all the way.
What then is to be done?
Carney also makes the point that the rules-based order wasn’t in fact working as well for everyone as we liked to pretend. To a lesser extent, something similar could be said for multilateralism in health. Getting things done was often hard, the politics was often tricky, and when it came to the crunch, say on something like patents on medicines, the US and Europe almost always held sway.
As outlined above, countries like South Africa benefited in very concrete ways from multilateral forums, but somehow those benefits were never widely appreciated. Ultimately, it is telling that so many national governments have failed to put up the money the WHO requires to do its work – even before the current US withdrawal.
Maybe then, to make a reset of multilateral health institutions a success, will require that governments reassess and newly appreciate why it is that we need multilateral health institutions in the first place.
This will require a thorough and honest assessment of what we have gained from these institutions in recent decades. Things like market-shaping, patent pooling, pooled procurement, sharing of genomics and other data, regulatory harmonisation, guideline development, research cooperation, and multilateral fund raising have all been important and will continue to be so. We must make sure that in whatever emerges in the next few years, we have multilateral mechanisms that can deliver in all these areas.
But we will have to accept that those entities might look quite different from what we’ve come to know in recent decades. There will certainly be areas in which we still need global institutions like the WHO, but for some issues we might get more done by working with coalitions of the willing, or collaborating at a regional level – as we’re already seeing with the African Medicines Agency (although South Africa rather inexplicably hasn’t yet ratified the related treaty).
The reality is that apart from governments just not being willing to spend more on health at the moment, the enabling geopolitical substructure that we’ve been relying on for decades has given way. In many respects, this has been a disaster for our common good, but it is also an opportunity to craft new and more fit-for-purpose multilateral health institutions that are animated by a shared commitment to human rights. This is an opportunity that countries like South Africa must grasp.
As Carney put it: “We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation.”
*Low is the editor of Spotlight.
This article was jointly published with Health Policy Watch, a global health news platform.
Disclosure: The Gates Foundation is mentioned in this article. Spotlight receives funding from the Gates Foundation, but is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously. Spotlight is a member of the South African Press Council.
The South African healthcare system is currently facing a period of intense pressure. Between staffing shortages and a rise in medical legal claims, the gap between basic nursing education and the actual demands of patient care is a major concern. To improve patient safety and support our healthcare workers, we must focus on practical, hands-on experience and constant skill building.
Why nursing challenges matter in South Africa
Nursing errors are rarely the fault of one person. In South Africa, they are usually the result of a system under strain. Nurses are dealing with overcrowded wards, long shifts, and a very high number of patients with complex conditions like HIV and TB. When staff are exhausted and overworked, the risk of making a mistake increases.
These errors have a massive impact. For patients and their families, it leads to a loss of trust. For hospitals, it leads to expensive legal battles. South Africa is currently dealing with billions of Rands in medical claims, but this is money that should be spent on better equipment and hiring more people. If we want a stronger healthcare system, we must reduce the risks that lead to these errors in the first place.
Hands-on training makes the difference
Nursing education has traditionally leaned heavily on theoretical learning, but knowing the theory of a procedure is very different from doing it in a busy hospital. Practical, skills-based training is what helps a nurse transition safely from the classroom to the ward.
Donald McMillan, MD at Allmed
One of the most effective tools for this is simulation-based training. This involves using specialised training rooms that look like real hospital wards, complete with advanced mannequins that can mimic medical emergencies. Here, nurses can practice critical skills like inserting drips, reading ECGs, or managing emergency care in a safe environment. This allows them to build confidence and “muscle memory” before they ever treat a real patient. This type of training is essential for preparing nurses for the high-pressure reality of South African clinics.
Continuous professional development builds confidence
Medicine is always changing. New treatment guidelines, technologies, and medicines are introduced all the time, changing the way care is delivered. Continuous Professional Development (CPD) helps nurses keep pace with these changes, ensuring their skills remain relevant, their knowledge up to date, and their patients receive the best possible care throughout every stage of their careers.
However, CPD is about more than just following rules; it is about building professional confidence. When nurses have the chance to learn new things and specialise in areas like intensive care or pharmacology, they feel more capable and valued. In a country where many nurses choose to work overseas, providing these opportunities for growth at home is a great way to keep our best talent in South Africa.
A systemic approach for better care
Enhancing the quality of nursing care in South Africa requires a coordinated, multi-stakeholder approach. Training institutions, hospital administrators, and regulatory bodies must collaborate to create an ecosystem that supports the nurse at every career stage. This systemic approach should focus on three specific areas:
Integrated mentorship: Establishing formal programmes where expert clinicians provide real-time bedside teaching to new graduates.
Accredited upskilling: Providing accessible pathways for nurses to specialise in critical areas such as ICU, neonatal care, and oncology.
Technological alignment: Utilising digital tools to track competency levels and identify specific areas where additional training is required.
By making practical training and ongoing learning a priority, we do more than just prevent mistakes. We empower our nurses to be the skilled professionals they want to be. When nurses are competent and confident, they provide better care, which helps rebuild public trust and makes the South African healthcare system stronger for everyone.
Mark Bishop, Deputy Chairperson of the Hospital Association of South Africa (HASA) and Chief Commercial Officer at Lenmed Health Group, is a prominent voice in South Africa’s private healthcare sector. With more than three decades of experience, he brings deep insight into hospital management, healthcare systems and patient-centred care. Known for his strategic leadership and operational expertise, Bishop has played a key role in driving sustainable growth and innovation within Lenmed and the broader healthcare industry.
In this Q&A, Mark shares his perspectives on HASA’s role, sector priorities and the future of healthcare in South Africa.
Q: As HASA Deputy Chairperson, what do you see as the organisation’s core contribution to strengthening South Africa’s health system?
A: The private hospital sector plays a vital role by providing essential facilities and capacity for healthcare professionals to deliver quality care. Over the past four decades, private hospitals have expanded bed capacity while public sector capacity has not kept pace with population growth. This helps meet rising demand and relieves pressure on an already overburdened public system. All industry players, providers and funders, will need to consider the best collaborative approach, and the impact this would have for all and not just concentrate on the impact on their own organisations.
Q: What are HASA’s priorities for long-term sustainability of the healthcare sector?
A: Sustainability depends on affordability across both public and private healthcare. Cost drivers are the same, staffing, infrastructure and medical equipment. Improving the utilisation of limited resources across the system is critical to meeting growing healthcare needs.
Q: How do you view the current medical schemes landscape?
A: Medical schemes operate in a challenging environment characterised by stagnant membership, an ageing population, increasing chronic disease and rising costs driven by advances in medical technology. This is a consequence of a raft of incomplete reforms over the years that together have placed a heavy burden on medical scheme members. Rectifying this could take considerable expense off them.
Q: What reforms could improve affordability while maintaining quality?
A: Increasing medical scheme membership would reduce unit costs. Mandatory medical scheme covers for employed individuals, as recommended by, would expand access to care, reduces pressure on public hospitals and support progress towards universal healthcare. This would need to be done with changes to the reimbursement processes for private care, reducing the impact of fee for service and aligning with quality improvements.
Q: Your career spans 30+ years in private healthcare. What have been the most significant shifts?
Over the years, we have seen patients become more informed about their healthcare needs, medical scheme requirements have evolved and the private healthcare landscape change significantly through consolidation in medical aids.
Q: Where do you see the greatest opportunities for collaboration?
A: The private sector has spare capacity that could be used to treat publicly funded patients. Public-private partnerships, shared infrastructure and co-located facilities offer opportunities to reduce waiting times, lower costs and improve access to care. The caution, is that this needs to align with a national strategy to increase the rate at which nurses are trained, the reality is that both public and private sectors struggle to do the limited professional nurse resources.
Q: What motivates you about your role at Lenmed?
A: Lenmed’s vision of building healthier, more prosperous communities resonates with me. Our hospitals maintain a strong community focus, rooted in the founding of Lenmed Ahmed Kathrada Private Hospital over 40 years ago. Private healthcare is at a tipping point and collaboration across the sector will be essential to grow access and create a sustainable, high-quality healthcare system.
The District Health Programme Grant is a mechanism for funding the country’s public health efforts, particularly relating to HIV, TB, and other communicable diseases.
By Russell Rensburg
District managers in South Africa’s public healthcare system currently have to juggle funding from multiple government budget lines, each with different strings attached. To improve district health services, we urgently need to simplify and integrate these funding flows, argues Russell Rensburg.
In his State of the Nation Address this year, for the first time in a long time, President Cyril Ramaphosa focused on the broader determinants of health, delivering the strongest message yet around the importance of prevention.
This included signalling reforms around the taxation and regulation of alcohol as well as announcing broad initiatives to improve child health through good nutrition.
And his announcement that government will be rolling out the HIV prevention injection, lenacapavir, means that South Africa stands at the cusp of a massive healthcare transition. The six-monthly injection will be a game-changer in the country’s ongoing fight against HIV.
His efforts must be applauded.
But to deliver on this, Ramaphosa will need a functioning district healthcare system. The challenge, however, is that the district healthcare system often functions in name, but not in practice. This disconnect is mostly due to how district-level services – and healthcare in general – is funded.
In short, we ask for integrated healthcare services in a system built on siloed funding streams. We task district managers with coordinating care, but the budgets they depend on are split across the provincial equitable share, multiple conditional grants, and hospital-level allocations.
Health is funded from national revenue through two streams: the national department of health and the provincial equitable share. The equitable share, which funds healthcare and education, is calculated using several factors including population size, use of services and potential unmet and future needs. The allocations are unconditional allowing provinces to determine all the allocations relative to provincial realities, cost pressures and needs. With national funding, 85% is transferred to provinces through defined use conditional grants to fund strategic priorities. The challenge is that in recent years these grants have become transfers to provinces with poorly managed conditionalities resulted in fragmented healthcare.
One way to fix these challenges is to consolidate all district health funding — including district hospitals — into a single, nationally coordinated expanded District Health Programme Grant. This reform would align the system with the National Health Act, strengthen accountability, and prepare us for the healthcare transitions ahead.
This shift is not about centralising services. It is about aligning authority with responsibility, and aligning money with the legal design of the health system. Provinces would remain responsible for service delivery. But national government — as required by the Act — would finally have a coherent instrument to guide, monitor, and support the district health system.
A fragmented system
Twenty-three years ago, the National Health Act set out a detailed framework for how healthcare should be structured in the country. Health policy norms and standards are set nationally. Provinces are responsible for coordinating and providing technical and operational support to districts. Crucially, the act locates the delivery of health services within the district health system, which is mandated to plan, coordinate and deliver comprehensive primary healthcare services closest to where people live.
Where the National Health Act falls short, is in providing guidance on how these powers and responsibilities would be financed.
Currently, district health services are funded through three streams:
The provincial equitable share, allocated nationally to each province based on population size and demand for health services. This covers most primary healthcare services and all district hospitals.
The District Health Programme Grant, which focuses on HIV, TB, community outreach, and some primary healthcare enablers.
And thirdly, a patchwork of other conditional grants for training, infrastructure, oncology, and digital systems.
The challenge with this approach is that each of these funding streams has its own rules, reporting requirements, and political histories. None of them were designed to work together.
Making the case for consolidation
Twenty odd years ago, the case for split funding streams made more sense. In the early 2000s, South Africa faced an overwhelming HIV epidemic. We needed targeted programmes, ringfenced funds, and rapid scale-up. Conditional grants was an instrument, that in a specific context, helped save millions of lives. But this instrument has now hardened into permanent architecture. And unfortunately, it is not fit for today’s health challenges.
South Africa is at a critical moment. The population is ageing, rates of non-communicable diseases like diabetes and hypertension are rising, HIV and TB require lifelong, coordinated management, and the pace of technology is rapidly reshaping healthcare.
The system that was built 20 years ago simply cannot carry us through the next 20 years.
At the same time, South Africa’s health budget is tightening. Despite a small increase in last year’s budget, the trend over the last decade or so is clearly toward having to do more with less.
We cannot expect the system to meet these growing demands while the foundational governance and funding architecture is no longer fit for purpose.
How it could work
Under an expanded District Health Programme Grant, national government – as the law mandates – would set the healthcare package, standards, indicators, and information requirements. Provinces would continue to run services, hire staff, manage facilities, and account for performance in line with the provisions of the National Health Act. And districts would finally have a budget that reflects their actual responsibilities.
In simple terms, this means that the expanded district health programme will be structured as a conditional grant. It will be informed by a nationally defined package of district health services, developed in consultation with provinces. Provincial allocations will be informed by strategic priorities and service needs such as essential health services, reproductive, maternal and child health services, as well as infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases. The National Department of Health will be responsible for managing the grant conditions with stronger accountability mechanisms to ensure alignment with strategic aims and constitutional responsibilities. Provinces will continue to control human resources, service delivery networks and district variations. This is what the National Health Act intended.
This is the model used by many countries that have successfully strengthened district health systems: national sets the rules and maintains oversight, while provinces or local governments handle delivery.
As already noted, South Africa does have the legal architecture for this. We just don’t have the financial mechanisms in place to match it.
In practical terms, such reforms will mean that for the first time, a district could budget for clinics, ward‑based outreach teams, HIV and TB services, chronic disease management, district hospitals, laboratory and pharmacy systems, emergency medical services linkages, and digital and information systems.
The artificial lines between primary healthcare and district hospitals would disappear. The system would fund itself as the Act intended, as one. District hospitals would no longer be expected to manage pressures created by primary healthcare gaps they have no control over.
There are several other benefits, such as improved accountability, an easier adaptation to demographic and epidemiological transitions, and more efficient use of limited budgets. These ultimately all develop a realistic pathway to universal health coverage.
A governance correction, not a revolution
There may be concerns that consolidating funding into a single grant means taking power away from provinces. The reality, however, is that this reform would restore coherence, not remove authority.
South Africa has spent decades speaking about equity. This is a practical way to make equity real.
When we underfund the district health system in structure, we undercut the very people who rely on it most. These are rural communities, working class households, and people managing chronic and infectious diseases who require continuity of care, not bureaucratic fragmentation.
A unified District Health Programme Grant will not solve every problem in our health system. But without it, we will continue asking a fragmented system to produce cohesive outcomes, and blaming managers and health workers when it inevitably cannot.
It is time to give the district health system the financial foundation it has always needed. Only then can we build the health system people in South Africa deserve.
*Rensburg is director of the Rural Health Advocacy Project and project director for the TB Accountability Consortium.
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.
#InsideTheBox is a column by Dr Andy Gray, a pharmaceutical sciences expert at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and Co-Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Pharmaceutical Policy and Evidence Based Practice. (Photo: Supplied)
By Andy Gray
In South Africa, as in many places, pharmaceutical companies are not free to change medicine prices as they wish. In his latest Inside The Box column, Dr Andy Gray unpacks how medicines prices are regulated in the country and considers how this regulatory framework might change.
South Africa’s medicine pricing policies are recognised internationally for their commitment to transparency, but the reality may be different from what exists on paper.
Medicine pricing is a good example of the deficiencies in the National Drug Policy (NDP), which has never been revised since it was first issued in 1996. The original policy document proposed the establishment of a Pricing Committee and committed to “total transparency in the pricing structure of pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesalers, providers of services, such as dispensers of drugs, as well as private clinics and hospitals”.
Two key proposals were that “the wholesale and retail percentage mark-up system will be replaced with a pricing system based on a fixed professional fee” and “price increases will be regulated”. There was also a commitment to monitoring prices in comparison to those charged in other countries. Finally, there was this statement: “Where the State deems that the retail prices of certain pharmaceuticals are unacceptable and that these pharmaceuticals are essential to the well being of any sector of the population, the State will make them available to the private sector at acquisition cost plus the transaction costs involved.”
Few policies survive an encounter with reality, and opposition, and this document is no exception.
Never the twain shall meet
A cardinal feature of South Africa’s medicine pricing system is the clear separation between the public and private sectors.
In the public sector, the prices paid by the provinces, military and prison services are the result of a tender process. Only medicines registered by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) may be offered in response to a tender call. The National Department of Health makes all tenders publicly accessible and also publishes the resultant tender awards, as well as the Master Health Products List, updated whenever any listing changes. The prices paid therefore reflect the downward influence of the buying power of the state. The tenders include a quantification of anticipated demand over the tender period (usually three years). Prices are also influenced by the number of potential suppliers and therefore the extent of competition in the market.
For some critical, high-volume medicines, such as the first-line antiretrovirals, the tender is split among multiple suppliers, at slightly different prices. Split tenders are intended to ensure security of supply if a contracted supplier is unable to meet demand.
Where the state accounts for most of the quantity sold in the country, it is usually able to attract bids at lower prices than are charged in the private sector. However, in some cases, tenders attract no bids and the state is forced to purchase on quotation. Where a registered medicine is only available from a single supplier, the price paid by the state may be closer to that paid in the private sector. In November 2025, the Director-General of Health published a statement of concern about bid prices exceeding the private sector single exit price (SEP), urging manufacturers to “reflect on their pricing practices”.
Although there are some limited agreements to provide state stock, such as childhood vaccines, to private healthcare providers, the two distribution chains and their pricing remain separate. The private sector cannot access medicines at the same price as the state.
Private sector – not entirely transparent
The Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act, 1997, sought to put in place at least some of what was proposed in the 1996 National Drug Policy. After the multinational pharmaceutical industry withdrew a court challenge to the Act in 2001, and after another Amendment Act, the changes came into effect in 2003, but with the pricing portion delayed until 2004. Further delay followed, with court challenges brought by community and hospital pharmacy groups, leading to an eventual Constitutional Court judgment in 2005. While the basic construct remained in place, the government had to revise the dispensing fee.
The basic construct of the pricing provision, which has been inserted into the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 1965, but is not the responsibility of SAHPRA, relies on what is called the SEP. The SEP is defined as “the only price at which manufacturers shall sell medicines and Scheduled substances to any person other than the State”. In other words, the “exit” refers to the price which is charged by the manufacturer to the final seller such as a pharmacy, hospital or healthcare provider. This is a little different from the more commonly used term of a “factory gate price”, which then allows additions to be made at each step in the distribution chain.
The SEP is the price that the final seller charges to the patient or medical scheme. Final sellers are, however, entitled to a dispensing fee, which is set as a maximum each year and differs between pharmacists and licensed dispensing practitioners. Wholesalers do not add a mark-up to the SEP charged by the manufacturer, but are paid a logistics fee by the manufacturer, as a portion of the exit price.
Crucially, the “single” component refers to the intention that the same price would be paid by all buyers, regardless of the volume of medicine procured. In other words, the private sector cannot use its buying power to exert any pressure on manufacturers’ prices. The Act is prescriptive in this regard: “No person shall supply any medicine, medical device or IVD according to a bonus system, rebate system or any other incentive scheme.” While the application of this section to Schedule 0 medicines, medical devices and in vitro diagnostics has been paused, it still applies to other medicines.
Annually, the Pricing Committee asks for input on two elements: the dispensing fees for pharmacists and dispensing practitioners, and the SEP adjustment (SEPA). The latter is a maximum percentage increase that manufacturers can apply to the SEPs on an annual basis. In some years, exceptional additional SEPAs have been allowed, but they have generally mirrored the consumer price index. The SEPA allowed for 2026 was set at a maximum of 1.47%, compared with 5.25% in 2025. The SEPA mechanism has protected South Africa against the large pharmaceutical price increases that have been seen in other countries. However, the initial launch SEP remains unregulated.
The dispensing fees include a flat amount and a percentage of the SEP, varying across 4 price bands. As the price of the medicine increases, the percentage component decreases. For example, the September 2025 version states that where the SEP of a medicine exceeds R1 530.73, the dispensing fee charged by a pharmacist shall not exceed R270.54 + 5% of the SEP.
A spreadsheet showing all declared SEPs (for registered medicines in Schedules 1 to 6) is publicly accessible on the health department’s website. That site also provides access to various SEPA documents. All final sellers are required to disclose to a buyer what the SEP for a medicine is, and then indicate the dispensing fee charged, which cannot exceed the maximum gazetted each year.
So, what’s not transparent?
The first problem lies with the logistics fee paid to wholesalers by manufacturers. Although there is a column in the SEP spreadsheet that shows a logistics fee, the actual amount paid is known to vary considerably. Importantly, where a final seller, such as a large pharmacy chain, owns its own wholesaler, it can gain additional income from the logistics fee. That component is not disclosed to buyers (patients or medical schemes) – but may influence the seller’s ability to charge less than the maximum dispensing fee.
The Act enables the Minister of Health, in consultation with the Pricing Committee, to “prescribe acceptable and prohibited acts” in relation to bonus systems, rebate systems or other incentive schemes. Despite being published for comment on two occasions, in 2014 and in 2017, no final regulations have been issued. The extent to which co-marketing fees, data fees, shelf fees, formulary listing fees, patient assistance programmes, off-invoice rebates and bonus systems have crept back into the private sector is therefore unknown, as is the quantum of such potentially perverse incentives. Certainly, such revenue streams are not transparent to patients and caregivers.
The enforcement capacity of the health department and Pricing Committee is also questionable. South Africa’s much-vaunted transparent medicine pricing system may conceal many unsavoury elements.
New concerns – failure to declare an SEP
Once SAHPRA has registered a new medicine, the online database is updated. However, SAHPRA does not concern itself with pricing. The holder of the certificate of registration (HCR) can choose to sell the medicine only to the state. However, if the HCR wishes to sell the medicine in the private sector, an SEP has to be declared. Some of the questions asked in the declaration form are interesting, but of dubious legal weight. For example, manufacturers are asked: “The methodology used to determine the SEP and factors that influence the price at which the medicine will be sold.” Even though no external reference pricing system is in place, the prices in other countries are requested. While it is reasonable to ask what the registered indications for the medicine are, as approved by SAHPRA, to demand the “prevalence of the disease or condition as established by the applicant in South Africa” is less reasonable. To date, no SEPs have been declared to be “unacceptable”, as was signalled in the NDP in 1996. Manufacturers thus have a relatively free hand to set their private sector launch prices.
However, two high-profile registrations of HIV drugs by SAHPRA, of cabotegravir by GlaxoSmithKline and of lenacapavir by Gilead, have not been followed by the declaration of an SEP. One contributory reason may be a reluctance to make a price to be charged in an upper middle-income country such as South Africa transparent to the rest of world.
Unregistered medicines imported in terms of section 21 (an application to access an unregistered medicine in circumstances where there is no suitable product registered in South Africa) are not subject to the SEP. In the case of the cystic fibrosis treatments sold by the pharmaceutical company Vertex, a refusal to apply for registration by SAHPRA, thus forcing medical schemes and patients to rely on section 21, has allowed the company to reach agreements with specific medical schemes at undisclosed prices. These medicines are not available to public sector patients.
The unknown unknown
Although the National Health Insurance Fund is expected to be an “active purchaser”, using its buying power to exert downward pressure on prices, bolstered by health technology assessment processes, the exact manner in which the prices of medicines will be determined is unclear.
In particular, how the fund will contract with public and private sector providers to serve beneficiaries in a particular geographical area, given the current clear separation in pricing, is yet to be disclosed. Once NHI is fully implemented, the current tender system will not be tenable. A tender award to a single supplier would immediately make all competitors leave the market. Instead, a reimbursement system, perhaps closer to the reference pricing applied in medical scheme formularies, will be needed. The complexity lies in the period of co-existence of the current public and private sectors and a nascent NHI.
Has the NDP 1996 been implemented?
Although a fixed dispensing fee proved impractical, some elements of the 1996 policy are discernible. Regulated price increases are in place, for instance. Other elements are less clearly implemented, and full transparency remains elusive. There is a need to revisit the entirety of the national medicines policy, not least in relation to how best to deliver access to affordable, quality-assured, essential medicines as part of universal health coverage.
*Dr Gray is a Senior Lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and Co-Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Pharmaceutical Policy and Evidence Based Practice. This is part of a series of columns he is writing for Spotlight.
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.
From tracking steps and calories to getting the gains at the gym and taking care of mental and emotional wellness, South Africans have never been more health conscious. At the same time, there is a growing disconnect in how we perceive the systems that protect that health.
As we step further into 2026, it’s important to debunk the myths around medical aid that often cloud our judgement when it comes to looking after our own health and that of our families. Cover without interruption should be high up on our list of resolutions this year, and to achieve this, it’s important that South Africans get the facts straight.
Myth 1: Medical aid is a luxury
The most pervasive myth is that medical aid is a luxury. The data, in fact, suggests otherwise. According to the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) 2024 Industry Report, hospital expenditure remains the dominant cost driver in South Africa, accounting for nearly 36% of total benefits paid.
‘Medical aid acts as a bridge to immediate, specialised intervention,’ says Lee Callakoppen, Principal Officer of Bonitas Medical Fund. ‘For a scheme like Bonitas, being a member is a guarantee of access to a network of private facilities when time is the most critical variable.’
Myth 2: Plan adjustments mean lower quality
There is a common fear that moving to a different plan within a scheme is a step backwards. In reality, the healthcare market is defined by customisation, allowing you to choose a plan that fits your specific lifestyle and healthcare needs without paying for bells and whistles you don’t use.
This is best seen in the rise of options that make strict use of networks and digital-first plans like Bonitas’ BonCore that was unveiled in September last year. Network options offer reduced monthly premiums by requiring members to use a specific group of healthcare providers with whom preferential rates have been negotiated. BonCore takes this further by offering a digitally enabled hospital plan that combines unlimited hospital cover with virtual-first primary care. This means that simple GP consultations happen via video link, which lowers costs and increases convenience while still providing a Benefit Booster for physical visits and specialised tests.
Myth 3: Secondary products can stand alone
A dangerous trend has seen some people viewing gap cover or health insurance as a replacement for full medical aid membership. While these tools have their place, they are designed as supplements and not replacements.
Gap cover, for instance, is a vital tool for managing specialist shortfalls, but it relies on the foundation of a medical aid to function. Without that foundation, the protection is incomplete. Real security comes from a holistic ecosystem, with Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMBs) ensuring that a pre-determined list of chronic conditions and emergency procedures are covered by law, regardless of the plan you choose.
Myth 4: Public-private hybrids are a universal quick fix
While the integration of public and private care is a key pillar of national health policy, the immediate reality for many in 2026 comes down to capacity. Public facilities are under significant strain, and while insurance products linked to public care provide a basic entry point, they often lack the elective agility that private medical aid provides.
In simple terms, this means that while you might be covered for a life-threatening emergency, you could face a very long wait for elective procedures like hip replacements, cataract surgery or specialised scans.
Securing private care through a scheme with a broad national footprint allows for proactive health management and the ability to treat a condition before it becomes a surgical emergency.
Myth 5: Medical schemes prioritise the young and healthy
South African medical schemes operate on a principle of social solidarity. This means that all contributions go into a collective pool of funds to be used by all members, as and when needed.
As per the Medical Scheme’s Act 131 of 1998, open schemes are legally required to accept all applicants. In fact, Bonitas’ 2026 strategy emphasises preventative care for all life stages, which includes a series of health screenings, vaccinations and wellness assessments. This ensures that the Scheme’s R9 billion in reserves is used to keep all members healthy for longer, regardless of age.
‘Ultimately, being a member of a medical aid is about having a partner that bridges the gap between health consciousness and health security. We must move beyond viewing healthcare as a grudge purchase to seeing it as a vital tool for long-term resilience,’ concludes Callakoppen.
By Henry Adams, Country Manager, InterSystems South Africa
Across South Africa, nurses and doctors in public clinics make hundreds of important decisions every day, often under enormous pressure. They’re short on time, juggling long queues, and sometimes working with incomplete information. In those conditions, even the most experienced professionals can make mistakes. It’s human.
The truth is, our healthcare system is stretched thin, and people can only do so much. That’s why I see real potential for AI to step in as a kind of virtual pharmacist. Not to replace anyone, but to back them up by checking prescriptions, catching errors, and helping ensure patients get the right treatment quickly and safely.
From data to decision support
I’m often asked how AI can make a real difference in healthcare right now. One area where it can have an immediate impact is in prescriptions. AI-assisted systems help doctors and nurses make safer, faster decisions by analysing medical data in real time. They can check a patient’s history, allergies, and possible drug interactions in seconds, flagging risks before they become problems.
Of course, because we’re dealing with sensitive medical information, trust and data quality are crucial. These systems only work when they’re built on accurate, connected data that healthcare professionals can rely on.
That’s where the latest health technology partnerships come in. By linking proven data platforms with smart AI tools, we’re already seeing real improvements overseas. In Europe, for example, these systems are helping clinicians catch potential drug errors early and prescribe with greater confidence.
There’s no reason South Africa can’t benefit in the same way. With clinics under pressure and resources stretched, technology that connects clean, reliable data with practical AI support could help reduce errors, save time, and make care safer for everyone.
Addressing local challenges
Medication errors can happen anywhere, but in South Africa the stakes are often higher. Our public clinics are exceptionally busy, staff are stretched, and doctors and nurses are doing their best under tough conditions. When you’re working under that kind of pressure, even a small mistake in a prescription can have serious consequences for a patient.
This is where AI can really help. Imagine a system that double-checks every prescription in real time, flagging possible drug interactions, incorrect dosages, or missing information before the medicine ever reaches the patient. It’s like having an extra set of expert eyes that never get tired. Instead of slowing things down, it speeds them up and gives clinicians peace of mind knowing they’re making the safest call for each patient.
For that to work, though, the data behind the system must be reliable and up to date. As South Africa moves toward a unified digital health record, the ability for these systems to connect to existing patient information becomes crucial. When healthcare professionals can trust the data they see on screen, AI becomes a genuine partner in care, helping them work faster, smarter, and safer.
Building confidence in AI
For AI to really work in healthcare, it must be clear and trustworthy. Doctors and nurses need to know why the system is recommending a specific drug or warning about a potential issue. If it can’t explain itself, people won’t use it, and rightly so.
That’s why transparency matters. The best AI tools don’t make decisions behind closed doors; they show their reasoning and help clinicians understand what’s happening in the background. When that’s combined with reliable, well-managed data, you start to build real confidence in the system.
It’s that trust, knowing the technology supports rather than replaces clinical judgment, that will make AI-assisted prescriptions part of everyday care, not just an interesting experiment.
A collaborative path forward
Technology on its own won’t fix South Africa’s healthcare challenges, but it can make a big difference in helping people do their jobs better. AI-assisted prescriptions are a good example of how smart tools can take some of the pressure off clinicians, reduce paperwork, and help patients get safer, faster care.
What excites me most is how practical this can be. Picture a nurse in a rural clinic who needs to prescribe medication but doesn’t have easy access to a specialist. With AI support, she can get accurate, instant guidance and know her patient is getting the right treatment. Or think about a busy hospital pharmacy, where an AI system automatically checks for drug interactions across hundreds of files in seconds, preventing errors before they happen.
This isn’t some far-off idea. The technology already exists and is being used successfully elsewhere. The goal now is to make sure it’s used in a way that supports our healthcare professionals, not replaces them. They are, and always will be, at the centre of care. If we get this right, AI can become a real partner in healthcare.
As of this month, South African medical aid scheme contributions have increased by between 6–9% – nearly triple the Council for Medical Schemes’ recommended 3.3% guideline. While lower than last year’s double-digit surge, the underlying problem remains: premiums keep climbing while benefit coverage keeps shrinking, exposing cracks in private healthcare that are becoming impossible to ignore.
“We’re watching private healthcare price ordinary South Africans out of the market, one annual increase at a time,” says Lungile Kasapato, CEO of PPO Serve, a healthcare management company that has been implementing value-based care in South Africa for more than a decade. “Medical schemes are caught in an impossible position – unable to control what providers charge, they’re left managing what they cover. The result is diminishing benefits, rising co-payments, and mounting out-of-pocket costs for members.”
The root of the problem lies in how healthcare is paid for. Fee-for-service, the dominant reimbursement model, rewards volume over outcomes. More tests, more procedures, more bed days – each generates revenue regardless of whether they actually improve patient health. This narrow focus fragments care and drives costs up while keeping value low.
“No amount of funding can fix a payment model that drives the wrong incentives,” Kasapato explains. “Real change requires rethinking not just what we pay for, but how we pay for it.”
Value-based care offers a fundamentally different approach: putting patients at the centre, rewarding proactive care, and linking payment directly to health outcomes. PPO Serve’s The Value Care Team demonstrates what this looks like in practice. GP-led multidisciplinary teams receive monthly, risk-adjusted payments based on patient complexity, supporting holistic care and linking meaningful incentives to measurable results. Rather than maximising billable services, providers focus on optimising patients’ overall health.
For members, this means care is no longer limited by rigid benefit caps or pre-authorisation hurdles, but structured around what genuinely enhances the efficient delivery of their care. A dedicated care coordinator guides patients through decisions made collaboratively by their GP and allied health professionals, with each team member sharing accountability for better outcomes.
But scaling models like this requires medical schemes and public funders to step up. “The challenge isn’t proving value-based care works – it’s embedding it in an infrastructure built for an entirely different system,” says Kasapato. “Claims processing, scheme administration, provider networks – every layer of private healthcare is designed with fee-for-service in mind. Transitioning to outcome-based payment means rebuilding that system and accepting the upfront investment and friction that comes with structural change. The alternative is stark: a private healthcare market that collapses under its own cost pressures, pricing out members faster than schemes can adjust. South Africa is already on that trajectory.”
“If we’re serious about universal health coverage and the long-term sustainability of the private sector, we can’t keep treating symptoms while ignoring causes,” says Kasapato. “Value-based care models are already demonstrating what’s possible. The question isn’t whether transformation is worth the investment – it’s whether we can afford to delay it any longer. The more organisations that embrace a strategic purchasing role, the greater the potential for meaningful change, not just for medical schemes but for South Africa’s healthcare system and the millions who rely on it.”
