Category: Expert Opinion

Categories : Expert OpinionTags :

Global Health Infrastructure is Changing. Why Getting it Right Matters for SA

On By ModernMedia
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.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Expert Opinion HospitalsTags :

Addressing Nursing Challenges in South Africa Through Practical Training and Ongoing Development

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Thirdman

By Donald McMillan, MD at Allmed

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.

Categories : Expert Opinion HospitalsTags :

Leading Healthcare Forward: Insights from HASA Deputy Chairperson, Mark Bishop

On By ModernMedia

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.

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Russell Rensburg | Consolidate the Funding of South Africa’s District Health System: Why Reform can’t Wait

On By ModernMedia
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.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Inside The Box with Dr Andy Gray | How Medicines Pricing Works in SA and How it Might Change in Future

On By ModernMedia
#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.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Expert OpinionTags :

Medical Aid Myth Busting: The Misunderstandings We’re Leaving Behind in 2026

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Alex Green on Unsplash

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.

Categories : Expert Opinion IT in HealthcareTags :

Can AI Help Make Prescriptions Safer in South Africa’s Busy Clinics?

On By ModernMedia
AI image created with Gencraft

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.

Categories : Expert Opinion Medical IndustryTags :

The Making of South Africa’s Medical Aid Crisis

On By ModernMedia

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.”

Categories : Expert Opinion Respiratory DiseasesTags :

Janet Giddy | If COVID-19, Why not TB? Mr President, it’s Time for a Family Chat

On By ModernMedia
President Cyril Ramaphosa addresses the nation in 2021 on developments in the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Photo: GCIS)

By Janet Giddy

South Africa had several “family chats” in which President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the nation during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. He should do the same for tuberculosis, argues Dr Janet Giddy of the advocacy group TB Proof.

Recently, I was flying home and got chatting to the stylishly dressed woman in the window seat next to me. We asked each other the sort of questions that traveller’s often do. Suzie (name changed) was going to Cape Town to facilitate an artist’s workshop. I told her that I worked for an NGO that did tuberculosis (TB) research and advocacy. Suzie nodded pensively, then said: “My dad had TB”. I was just thinking how to respond, when she added: “he died from it”.

I have conversations about TB almost every day, and have previously written about high-altitude chats with fellow travellers. I get into these conversations not because TB work is my “day job” – which it is – but because I am a TB activist, and a survivor of childhood TB.

There are many remarkable things about TB that keep me engaged, enraged and activated. For example, that 29 934 people were diagnosed with TB in 2024 in the Cape Town metro, which was more than the combined number diagnosed with TB in the whole of the United States (10 347), the United Kingdom (5 480), France (4 217), and Canada (1 258). The population of these four countries combined is over 500 million, while Cape Town has a population of just under five million people. If you do the math, the risk of getting TB clearly depends massively on where you live. If these figures do not shock you, they should.

Why are so many people in South Africa unaware and seemingly unconcerned about the extraordinarily high numbers of people infected with TB in our country? Could we take TB more seriously as a country? My answer is yes.

If COVID-19, why not TB?

As expected, South Africa worked up a huge head of steam at every level of society about COVID-19. I think back on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s regular avuncular “family chats” to the nation. In the first COVID-19 “family chat”, our president told us:

“This is a decisive measure to save lives of South Africans from infection and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of our people. While this measure will have a considerable impact on people’s livelihoods, and on the life of our society and on our economy, the human cost of delaying this action would be far, far greater.”

Why has Ramaphosa not ever spoken in this intimate “family style” way to the nation about how important or urgent it is to tackle TB? A disease which continues to cause significantly more suffering and death than COVID-19 did.

In 2018, our president spoke to the international world about TB, when he addressed the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) and Director-General of the World Health Organization at the first ever UN High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis. With great gravitas and in oratorial style, Ramaphosa said: “This … is a historic opportunity that we must embrace if we are to effectively respond to a disease that has killed more people than smallpox, malaria, the plague, influenza, HIV and AIDS, and Ebola combined. This meeting is taking place in the year of the centenary of the birth of South Africa’s founding President, Nelson Mandela. President Mandela was a survivor of tuberculosis, which he contracted while in prison, and was firmly committed to the campaign against the disease.”

Ramaphosa went on to highlight the social determinants of TB, including poverty, unemployment, poor nutrition, overcrowding and social stigma that fuel the spread of diseases. He also noted: “In South Africa, TB is the biggest cause of mortality in the general population, especially among men.”

This was an excellent message, but since 2018, our president has not had much to say about TB in public or to South Africans. It would be powerful and impactful if he were to talk about TB as a national emergency that requires a coordinated “family response” as a nation.

In considering the seriousness of TB as compared to COVID-19, let’s look at mortality.

By November 2022, the official number of deaths recorded as being due to COVID-19 in South Africa was around 102 000, approximately 34 000 per year when averaged out. Official numbers are however widely considered to be an underestimate. The Medical Research Council estimated in the region of 300 000 excess deaths relating to COVID-19 from 2020 to 2022, with around 85 000 in 2020, 200 000 in 2021, and around 15 000 a few months into 2022. Not all of these excess deaths would have been directly due to COVID-19, but it is likely that over 80% was (say 240 000 over the three years).

By comparison, TB has in recent years been claiming between 50 000 and 70 000 lives per year, based on estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Thembisa mathematical model. Thus, while there were many more COVID-19 deaths in 2021 than there were TB deaths, TB deaths almost certainly surpassed COVID-19 deaths in 2022 and subsequent years. The more one zooms out, the more the steady torrent of TB deaths over the last five, 10, 20 years, dwarfs the spike in COVID-19 deaths around 2021.

‘We are all at risk’

Back to my recent high-altitude chat in the plane: somehow, it was a uniquely South African sort of conversation. What is the chance that, while cruising at 10 000 meters over the Atlantic on a flight between the United States and France, that you’d sit next to someone whose parent recently died of TB? An extremely small chance. So, I would contend that all South Africans do need to know about TB, which is a disease that affects families profoundly.

It’s time for South Africa to have family chats about TB. There are many reasons to have these chats, starting with the fact that we are all at risk of getting it, given that we live in a country with a high TB prevalence – it was estimated that 389 people per 100 000 in South Africa fell ill with TB in 2024. We could compare this with the 2024 figures for the United Kingdom, at 9.7 per 100 000, which is higher than the United States’ rate of 3.2 per 100 000. For those who are interested, you can look up the latest numbers for different countries on the WHO’s excellent TB data portal.

The bottom line is that the higher the TB prevalence in the country you live in, the more chance that you or a family member could get TB. This is because it is caused by a bacteria which is transmitted through the air via talking, singing and coughing, so anyone can breathe it in – as was the situation (and therefore, panic) with Covid.  The mode of transmission is the main similarity between TB and COVID-19 – there are lots of differences.

While some people are more at risk of getting TB, anyone can get TB, from any background. As a recent example: in 2024 Anna (name changed), a professional woman who lived in a green leafy suburb, was referred to me by her GP. Anna was shocked and outraged that she had been diagnosed with TB: “Janet, I feel as if I have been infected with a third world plague”. Anna wanted to believe that she had been infected with TB on a visit to India 18 months previously, but together we traced back her potential exposure and worked out she most likely was infected six months earlier, by a family member in a care home. Because Anna and her GP did not think about TB, it took more than a month of her coughing, losing weight and having no energy and taking several courses of antibiotics, before the diagnosis was finally made. By this time, she was very unwell, and her family members and many clients were at risk of getting TB.

Anna’s experience highlights how stigmatised TB still is as a disease. Stigma is a challenge to people from all backgrounds, and there are different reasons for it. Talking about TB more openly is one way to reduce stigma.

As with many other diseases, the earlier TB is diagnosed, the better the chance of full recovery, with no residual lung damage. There is effective medication to treat TB, and although treatment typically takes 6 months, it is not lifelong unlike chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension and HIV. Young children with uncomplicated lung TB take medication for 4 months only.

Recent TB guidelines recommend that all close contacts of people diagnosed with TB (usually family or household members) should be tested for TB (even if they don’t have symptoms), and if they test negative, they can be offered TB preventive treatment (TPT), which will protect them against getting active TB disease. There is also more “user friendly” TPT now available, which consists of taking medication once a week for 3 months – a total of 12 doses only. Counselling people with TB needs to be family focused, given these new developments.

So, my challenge to readers is to have regular intentional conversations about TB with family and friends, with colleagues, in airplanes, and while waiting in queues.

Keely, a young women who read a previous Spotlight article I wrote, said she was amazed to discover that her colleague was very anxious because her mother was being treated for TB. If Keely had not decided to talk about TB at work, she would not have been able to offer her colleague support.

Try having a conversation about TB in the next week and see what comes of it.

*Giddy is a consultant at the TB advocacy group TB Proof.

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

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Environmental Effects Expert OpinionTags :

Opinion Piece: Can We Trust What Comes out the Tap?

On By ModernMedia

South Africa’s water quality monitoring gap explained

By Robert Erasmus, Managing Director at Sanitech

Source: Unsplash CC0

Access to safe and clean water remains a critical concern in South Africa. Recent incidents, including a highly contaminated water sample from Secunda that showed extreme levels of E. coli, have highlighted the urgent need for faster and more reliable water quality monitoring across the country. Public health depends on the safety of the water flowing through our rivers, dams and municipal systems, yet current monitoring processes often struggle to detect contamination before it reaches communities. Improving these systems will require a combination of practical testing methods, independent oversight and community involvement.

Why traditional testing cannot keep up
South Africa’s public water testing framework is accurate but slow. When contamination is suspected, samples must be collected, couriered to an accredited laboratory and cultured to detect biological threats such as E. coli. While potential of Hydrogen (pH) and chlorine levels can be measured quickly on site, biological tests take one to two weeks because the organisms must be grown before results can be confirmed. This delay leaves a dangerous gap in which water quality could deteriorate without immediate detection.

The process is also costly. A single accredited test, including logistics, can cost around R5 000, which makes frequent testing inaccessible for households and many community organisations. As a result, many people rely on the assumption that water from the tap is safe. When contamination does occur, individuals may fall ill without realising the cause because there is no real time feedback on water quality.

How in-house testing can speed up detection
Although accredited labs are still required for official reporting, new approaches are emerging that can help organisations identify risks earlier. Some companies are now investing in equipment that allows them to carry out basic testing in house. These tests are not accredited but they give fast, useful readings that act as early warning indicators. If an organisation detects abnormal results, it can immediately escalate the matter to an accredited lab instead of waiting for contamination to spread.

Routine pH and chlorine monitoring also plays a valuable role. These tests are inexpensive, easy to perform and can be carried out continuously within businesses or local facilities. While they cannot detect biological contamination, they help ensure that the chemical balance of the water stays within safe limits. When combined with monthly or cyclical biological testing, this creates a more proactive monitoring system.

This approach recently proved critical in Secunda, where a business conducting its own branch-level testing discovered that municipal water entering the site was contaminated with sewage. The in-house test flagged the issue quickly, prompting further investigation. Without this internal programme, the problem might have gone unnoticed for far longer.

Why collaboration improves water safety
A stronger water monitoring system cannot rely on public authorities alone. Partnerships between municipalities, private companies and communities can help improve both the speed and reliability of responses. Independent testing at business level introduces greater transparency and can highlight water quality issues that may otherwise go unreported. When patterns of poor quality emerge, communities gain evidence to push for corrective action.

Transparency also drives accountability. If businesses in a region consistently report poor water quality, it becomes more difficult for the problem to remain hidden. Public pressure increases and municipalities have a clearer picture of where urgent interventions are needed. This type of shared visibility is essential for strengthening trust and promoting faster action.

Communities have an important role as well. Residents are often the first to notice discolouration, odour or unusual cloudiness in their tap water. Reporting these signs to employers or organisations with the means to test can lead to early detection. Raising issues solely through political channels may not always lead to immediate investigation, but involving local businesses can create quicker pathways to testing and response.

A path toward safer and more reliable water
A safer water future for South Africa will depend on strengthening both formal and informal monitoring systems. Accredited labs remain vital for official results, yet in house testing, routine checks and community reporting can highlight risks long before formal samples are processed. When contamination is confirmed, solutions like filtration, Ultraviolet (UV) treatment or proper chlorination can be deployed quickly to restore safety.

What this shows is simple: the safety of tap water cannot be taken at face value. Consistent monitoring and transparent reporting are key to safeguarding public health. With better coordination between public bodies, private organisations and communities, South Africa can build a water monitoring system that identifies problems early and protects every household.