Category: Healthcare Politics and Regulations

Inside The Box with Dr Andy Gray | How Should the Compounding of Medicines Be Regulated?

Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

By Andy Gray

The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority, with the South African Pharmacy Council, recently announced what was described as a crackdown on a compounding pharmacy. They allege “critical regulatory non-compliance” in relation to the compounding of unregistered medicines. In his latest Inside The Box column, Dr Andy Gray provides some background to the issues at stake, while recognising that some key elements remain contested.

Until the 20th century, medicines dispensed by pharmacists were all compounded (mixed) from raw ingredients, most of which were inorganic chemicals and herbal products. The gilded majolica jars displayed in pharmacies and museums depict the names of those common ingredients, often in Latin. Hence, a jar labelled as “Paraf mol alb” would contain “paraffinum molle album”, or white soft paraffin (white petroleum jelly), more commonly known as Vaseline.

The market for finished pharmaceutical products, in the form of modern tablets, capsules and the like, has grown dramatically over the last century. Even so, the need for the preparation of medicines in a pharmacy, from either raw ingredients or existing products, has not entirely disappeared.

#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)

There has always been a need for the preparation of particular products for individual patients in cases where a commercial product does not exist or is not suitable. For example, a pharmacist may be asked to produce an eye drop when no commercial products exist, using an injection as the starting material. Similarly, where a patient is unable to swallow tablets or capsules, an oral liquid preparation may be compounded. In many cases, the preparation is done extemporaneously, meaning that it is done specifically for that patient at a point in time. Such medicines are compounded by pharmacists as part of their usual professional practice in community and hospital pharmacies.

Exceptions, limitations and contestation

Modern medicines regulatory practice is based on the concept of registration or marketing authorisation. This is where a manufacturer is required to provide evidence to the national medicines regulatory authority of the quality, safety and efficacy of a medicine, before it can be sold. However, an exception has been created, allowing for compounding of medicines. In the South African medicines legislation, this is provided by section 14(4) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act (Act 101 of 1965).

The usual approach is described in section 14(1) of the Act, which states that “no person shall sell any medicine … which is subject to registration by virtue of a declaration published in terms of subsection (2) unless it is registered”. The declaration in this regard refers to the call-up notices issued for different pharmacological classifications of medicines since 1967, when the Act came into operation. All pharmacological classifications have now been made subject to registration.

The exception is provided by section 14(4), which states that subsection 14(1) will not apply when a medicine is “compounded in the course of carrying on his or her professional activities by a pharmacist”. A similar exception applies to licensed dispensing and compounding practitioners and veterinarians. Two scenarios are envisaged: compounding a preparation in accordance with a prescription for a particular patient, or compounding by a pharmacist for the retail trade.

However, there are three critical additional restrictions: a compounded medicines shall “not contain any component the sale of which is prohibited by this Act or any component in respect of which an application for registration has been rejected”, the compounded medicine “is not or has not been advertised”, and the “the active components of such medicine appear in another medicine which has been registered”. Thus, unless declared undesirable or never before registered, an active ingredient may be compounded and sold without being registered. A compounded medicine may also not be advertised to the public or to health professionals.

Further details were provided by the General Regulations to the Medicines and Related Substances Act, which were published in 2017. The initial version of those regulations added some additional restrictions, for example restricting the quantity to be compounded to the “quantity that is intended to be used by a patient for not more than 30 consecutive days from the date of compounding”. More importantly, sub-regulation 3(3)(a) prohibited compounding that was intended “to circumvent the provisions of section 14 of the Act”, the requirement for registration.

Legal challenge

In December 2021, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled in a case brought by The Association of Compounding Pharmacists of South Africa, challenging the regulations. While noting that “[w]hat constitutes pharmacy compounding is not well defined”, Judge Norman Manoim ordered that the regulations be redrafted and that a draft guideline on good compounding practice be published. In particular, the judgment recognised the need to clarify what was needed for “anticipatory compounding”, where medicines were compounded in anticipation of a prescription or for sale by a pharmacist.

In accordance with the court judgment, amended regulations were published for comment and finalised in 2022, deleting sub-regulation 3(3)(a), and recognising that a pharmacist could “based on the amount of medicine compounded previously for a particular period, compound such medicine in anticipation of supply thereof within such particular period”. Lastly, the regulations required that draft guidelines on good compounding practice be published within 6 months, for public comment. These draft guidelines were published for comment in June 2023, but have not been issued in final form. The draft guidelines are no longer accessible on the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) website.

Compounding pharmacies

While the extemporaneous compounding of medicines for individual patients is routinely performed in most community and hospital pharmacies, “anticipatory compounding” has emerged as a speciality practice.

Compounding pharmacies are not recognised as a specific category of pharmacies licensed by the Department of Health and recorded as such by the South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC). The current regulations to the Pharmacy Act only recognise community, institutional (hospital), wholesale, manufacturing and consultant pharmacies. The services that each category of pharmacy can deliver are regulated, with both community and institutional pharmacies enabled to perform “compounding, manipulation or preparation of any medicine or scheduled substance”. Specialist compounding pharmacies are thus licensed as community pharmacies.

SAHPRA licenses manufacturers and wholesalers of medicines, not community pharmacies. Section 22C(1)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act states that the Authority “may … issue to a … manufacturer, wholesaler or distributor of a medicine … a licence to manufacture, import, export, act as a wholesaler of or distribute, as the case may be, such medicine … upon such conditions as to the application of such acceptable quality assurance principles and good manufacturing and distribution practices as the Authority may determine”.

Whether a compounding pharmacy, licensed as a community pharmacy, can import active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for the purposes of compounding, is contested. It is the API which is responsible for the desired medicinal effect but can also be the cause of adverse events. Inactive excipients are added to produce the final dosage form administered to patients.

The question of quality

As was outlined in a previous column in this series, patients are assured of the quality of medicines on the South African market by virtue of their registration by SAHPRA and compliance with Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards by licensed manufacturers. Compounded medicines are an exception to the rule – they are unregistered, and their preparation is not subject to GMP.

In the case of medicines compounded for individual patients, the risk is more manageable. Where larger quantities are prepared in anticipation of demand, and in particular where sterile preparations such as injections are made, the risks may be greater.

Equally, there is a need to ensure that APIs used for manufacturing or compounding medicines are of acceptable quality. A draft guideline on post-importation testing, published by SAHPRA for comment in May 2026, applies to all imported APIs.

Following a major incident in the United States, where contaminated compounded corticosteroid injections resulted in a number of serious fungal infections, US law was amended in 2013 to create a new category of outsourcing facilities regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), not by state pharmacy boards. State pharmacy boards were not considered to have the capacity to effectively regulate large scale compounding, especially for higher risk sterile preparations.

In South Africa, while the Good Pharmacy Practice standards issued by the SAPC cover the usual services delivered by community and hospital pharmacies, they are insufficient to cover larger scale anticipatory compounding or outsourcing services.

Ongoing contestation

Existing South African law may well be deficient in the way in which it regulates compounding pharmacies. How the current legal provisions are applied and interpreted is contested and will be the subject of a number of court challenges.

Patient safety must remain the key animating feature of any future regulatory process that is fit for purpose and effective.

*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.

Disclosure: Gray serves on three technical advisory committees at the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority.

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.

Why Pharmacists Still Can’t Prescribe ARVs, Months After Court Gave the Green Light

Specially trained pharmacists will soon be allowed to dispense antiretrovirals without a doctor’s script. Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

By Catherine Tomlinson

A Supreme Court of Appeal ruling in October 2025 cleared the way for specially trained and permitted pharmacists to dispense antiretroviral medicines without a doctor’s script. Seven months later, no pharmacists are yet providing these services. Spotlight explores the reasons for the delay.

After a three-and a half year court battle between a group of private doctors and the South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC), the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) cleared the way for the SAPC to implement pharmacist-initiated management of antiretroviral treatment (PIMART) in October 2025.

The SAPC welcomed the ruling with a bullish press conference promising rapid implementation of PIMART. “The South African Pharmacy Council, together with stakeholders and the Department of Health, will work with speed to ensure that PIMART-trained pharmacists join other primary healthcare practitioners in providing primary care in relation to HIV and Aids,” said Mogologolo Phasha, president of the SAPC, at the time.

Vincent Tlala, CEO and Registrar of the SAPC, also in October 2025, said that the SAPC aimed to issue an e-note inviting pharmacists to apply for the PIMART permits in November. However, seven months later, this has still not happened and no pharmacists in the country are yet permitted to provide PIMART services.

What is PIMART?

PIMART stands for pharmacist-initiated management of antiretroviral treatment. It is a form of task-shifting that allows pharmacists to provide some limited HIV services that are currently only provided by doctors and nurses. The programme seeks to better utilise pharmacists in the country’s HIV response and relieve some of the burden on overcrowded and under resourced public clinics. It will also offer a route into treatment for people who are not willing or able to visit clinics.

It is intended that, under the PIMART programme, pharmacists that have completed a dedicated training programme and have received a special permit from the Director-General of Health will be authorised to provide first-line antiretroviral treatment to people with uncomplicated HIV without a doctor’s script. They will also be allowed to dispense HIV prevention medicines without a doctor’s script – this includes both pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). PrEP is taken prior to sex to prevent potential infection while PEP is taken shortly after a possible HIV exposure to prevent infection.

Why is PIMART needed?

PIMART was proposed by the SAPC in response to a request from the health department for the SAPC to design an intervention to enable pharmacists to take on a greater role in the country’s HIV response.

South Africa has adopted the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets that aim to ensure that 95% of people living with HIV know their status, 95% of people diagnosed with HIV are on treatment, and 95% of people on treatment are virally suppressed (and therefore cannot transmit HIV onwards).

According to new estimates from Thembisa, the leading mathematical model of South Africa’s HIV epidemic, 7.9 million people are living with HIV in South Africa. Ninety six percent of people living with HIV know their status, yet only 82% of people who know they are HIV positive are on antiretroviral treatment.

While South Africa’s health system should be commended for the fact that around 6.2 million people are taking HIV treatment, it is concerning that 1.7 million people living with HIV are not yet on treatment. In recognition of this problem, the health department has launched the “Close the Gap” campaign.

The thinking behind PIMART is that pharmacies can help close the gap by providing an important third option to people who are disinclined or unable to access HIV treatment from public clinics or private sector doctors.

More urgent than ever following US funding cuts

While PIMART was always intended to help identify patients falling through the gaps between South Africa’s public and private health sectors and to link them to care, the need for this third option is now more urgent than ever. US funding cuts over the last 15 months or so have led to the closure of many NGO-run clinics that previously provided HIV treatment and prevention services to populations at high risk of HIV who often face stigma at traditional health facilities. These groups include sex workers, men who have sex with men, and people who inject drugs.

In addition to expanding access to HIV treatment, PIMART aims to increase access to PrEP and PEP to prevent new HIV infections. While the full impact of US funding cuts on these services remains unclear, the cuts likely contributed to the slight decline in PrEP use in South Africa seen in 2025, following seven years of steady growth in PrEP uptake.

Graph by Spotlight. Data courtesy of the Thembisa model.

Finger pointing and lack of accountability

Seven months after the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the SAPC could implement PIMART and the SAPC promised to move rapidly in implementing PIMART, pharmacists have still not been invited to apply for permits and no PIMART permits have yet been issued to pharmacists.

When asked why the programme remains unimplemented, the SAPC pointed to the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society’s (SAHCS) PIMART training course as the cause of the delay.

SAHCS is the only entity in the country providing PIMART training to pharmacists. In October 2025, Mokoena said several groups had expressed interest in becoming accredited to provide PIMART training. However, on 14 May 2026, Tlala told Spotlight: “While we have invited existing providers of pharmacy education in South Africa to offer (the course), the South African Pharmacy Council is yet to receive applications for the accreditation of the PIMART supplementary training course.”

He added: “Currently, the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society are the only approved provider for the PIMART short course.”

So, what’s going on with SAHCS’ PIMART training?

PIMART used to be on a very different timeline before it got tangled up in the court processes that led to the October 2025 SCA judgment. Back in July 2021, Spotlight reported that the launch of PIMART was imminent, and indeed, that was roughly the timeline the SAHCS training had been working toward.

In fact, the SAHCS has offered a PIMART training course for pharmacists that want to provide PIMART services since 2019. Professor Natalie Shellack, chairperson of the SAPC Education Committee, said in October 2025 that this course was developed jointly by SAHCS and SAPC.

Over a thousand pharmacists have completed SAHCS’s original PIMART training course as continuous professional development (CPD) training. But after the October 2025 SCA ruling, Lizeth Kruger, Dischem’s Clinical Executive, told Spotlight that due to the time lapse between the initial training and court ruling, Dischem pharmacists “will need to do a refresher course to ensure compliance and up-to-date knowledge”.

While SAHCS’s PIMART course has not yet been accredited by the SAPC as a PIMART course, it is accredited as a CPD course for pharmacists. Tlala told Spotlight in May that it has not been accredited as a PIMART course because of an identified “gap” in the course.

“The gap identified between the short course and the approved qualification standard meant that the approved provider of the short course, the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society, had to conduct a gap analysis and develop a bridging course to enable pharmacists trained in the short course to access the full PIMART scope of services,” said Tlala.

In response to questions about the “gap” in their training course identified by the SAPC, SAHCS’s CEO Dr Fiona Storie told Spotlight on 19 May: “SAHCS has completed a full review and update of the PIMART training course in line with the requirements for accreditation as a supplementary training course (i.e. not just a CPD accredited course).”

“As PIMART training was originally provided from 2019, there is a need for pharmacists to undergo refresher training since the field of HIV medicine is evolving and clinical recommendations change over time,” said Storie. She added: “SAHCS’ recommendation is that pharmacists undertake the newly updated PIMART training course as either a refresher/bridging course or, if not previously trained, as a new course.”

“SAHCS is engaging with SAPC to finalise the accreditation of the updated PIMART course as a refresher course and a new supplementary training course to make it available as soon as possible,” Storie said.

Limiting PIMART’s scope

Tlala told Spotlight that because of the “gap” in SAHCS’s training course, the SAPC has asked the Director-General of Health to grant limited scope PIMART permits.

“The Director-General: Health has been requested to issue a limited scope permit granting PIMART-trained pharmacists’ access to those services fully addressed in the short course previously delivered by the South African HIV Clinicians Society,” he said.

The health department confirmed to Spotlight that this request was received on 23 April 2026.

Neither the SAPC nor the Department of Health responded to Spotlight’s requests for clarification on which PIMART services the SAPC had proposed for inclusion in the limited-scope permits.

Angela Tembo, director of pharmacy health at the research centre Ezintsha, told Spotlight that she understands that the limited scope permits that the SAPC has requested the Director-General of Health to grant “will be limited to HIV prevention (PrEP and PEP) and not treatment”.

“Our understanding is that the delays [in implementing PIMART] relate to ongoing discussions around training requirements, accreditation processes, and the practical implementation pathway following the SCA ruling,” she added.

Tlala said as soon as the Director-General of Health approves the limited-scope permits, the SAPC will publicly communicate the launch of the PIMART programme and the services that may be accessed under such a permit.

“The full PIMART scope of services will only be available once the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society has finalised and submitted a bridging course following gap analysis or, alternatively, once another training provider is accredited to provide the PIMART Supplementary Training course,” he added.

Republished from Sptolight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Global Health Progress at Risk Without Stronger Systems, Warns WHO

Organisations working to strengthen health systems in Africa, including COHSASA, are likely to find renewed urgency in the latest report from the World Health Organization, which warns that gains in global health are under threat.

The World Health Statistics 2026 report released yesterday highlights uneven progress, slowing gains and, in some areas, reversals – leaving the world off track to achieve the health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. WHO points to the need for stronger health systems and improved data to sustain progress and close persistent gaps.

There have been notable advances over the past decade. New HIV infections fell by 40% between 2010 and 2024, while the number of people needing interventions for neglected tropical diseases dropped by 36%.

In the WHO African Region, progress in reducing HIV (down 70%) and tuberculosis (down 28%) has outpaced global averages.

However, these gains are fragile. Malaria incidence has increased by 8.5% since 2015, and progress towards universal health coverage has slowed sharply. One quarter of the global population faces financial hardship due to healthcare costs, and an estimated 1.6 billion people were pushed into or further into poverty due to out-of-pocket spending in 2022.

The report also underscores critical weaknesses in health information systems. As of the end of 2025, only 18% of countries were reporting mortality data within one year, and just one third met WHO standards for high-quality mortality data. These gaps limit the ability to monitor trends, target interventions and ensure accountability.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the findings reflect “both progress and persistent inequality,” emphasising the need for stronger, more equitable health systems supported by resilient data systems.

For organisations such as COHSASA, the findings reinforce the importance of systematic approaches to improving the quality and safety of care. While the WHO report does not prescribe specific mechanisms, it points to challenges – such as uneven performance, gaps in measurement and preventable harm – that that are directly addressed through structured quality improvement and accreditation processes.

By applying measurable standards, supporting continuous improvement and strengthening the use of data at facility level, accreditation programmes provide a practical means of translating system-wide priorities into day-to-day clinical practice. The report sends a clear message: global health progress is real, but fragile. Strengthening health systems – supported by better data and sustained, measurable improvement – will be essential to regain momentum towards the 2030 health goals.

NHI Constitutional Court Arguments Hinge on Public Participation

Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

The Constitutional Court’s hearing over National Health Insurance (NHI) concluded on 7 May. The Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) and the Western Cape Provincial Government made a combined application challenging the NHI Act on public participation grounds.

The Court is now deliberating; on such complex constitutional matters, it can be weeks to months before a judgment is made. The implementation of NHI remains suspended, following February’s High Court order – President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Minister of Health have formally undertaken not to proclaim or implement any part of the act until the Constitutional Court’s ruling. Other legal challenges are now paused.

What were the arguments?

The hearings focused on one key question: whether Parliament’s process met the constitutional threshold for public participation (primarily under Sections 59 and 72 of the Constitution). Section 59 mandates proactive, reasonable, and meaningful public engagement for the country’s participatory democracy. Formalities alone do not satisfy it – rather, the test is contextual reasonableness aimed at genuine influence. Constitutional Court challenges for national legislation are the main means by which Section 59 is enforced.

The BHF argued that hundreds of thousands of written submissions were effectively ignored; critical information was not provided; and whether, without such information, the test for rational law-making was met.

The Western Cape (led by Premier Alan Winde) focused primarily on deficiencies in the NCOP and provincial stages of the process, arguing that these violated constitutional public-participation requirements and undermined provincial roles. For example, the NCOP process was compressed into only eight weeks, key inputs were ignored, and provincial roles were undermined.

Parliament contended that the process was far more than a “tick-box” exercise, presenting the NHI to the public as a radical, transformative process and that details would only emerge as the project proceeded. [Nevertheless, even a simple calculation would show an NHI budget of R200bn, requiring crippling taxation.] They also argued that accommodations were made, such as extending written comment deadlines. They also argued that changes were made to the Bill, and that engagement does not mean that the legislature agrees, but rather is informed.

Judges raised questions about the integrity and practicality of the public health system in the context of NHI, but the core legal issue remained procedural compliance as opposed to the policy merits.

Is there precedent?

This would not be the first time the Constitutional Court has set aside Acts. In 2006, in a case brought by Doctors for Life, the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act and Traditional Health Practitioners Act were invalidated as Parliament had failed to comply with its section 72(1)(a) constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement before passing.

Further cases reinforced that inadequate information, rushed timelines, and a lack of consultation over major changes would result in a breach. Parliament, however, argues that Doctors for Life shows that the requirement for participatory democracy has been met.

All parties now await the Court’s decision, which could either uphold the Act, declare it partially or wholly invalid, or remit aspects back to Parliament for correction.

Participatory Democracy: What Will Be on the Line When the Country’s Highest Court Turns to NHI in May?

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

By Sasha Stevenson

From 5–7 May, the Constitutional Court will hear two of the multiple challenges to the NHI Act. Sasha Stevenson, Executive Director of SECTION27, considers what will be on the line in these first potentially landmark cases that deal with the process that led to the Act.

The public discussion on National Health Insurance has gone from abstract; to alternatively excited or worried about implementation; to dizzying references to a range of court cases filed over the course of 2024 and 2025. It can be difficult to keep up with what NHI may mean for our health system and when the promised system reform may happen.

We may now be approaching a decisive moment, with the Constitutional Court set to hear two of the NHI challenges.

From 5–7 May 2026, the Constitutional Court will be hearing challenges brought by the Board of Healthcare Funders and the Premier of the Western Cape. These two challenges deal with public participation in the making of what is now the NHI Act.

In February 2026, parties challenging the constitutionality of specific sections of the NHI Act agreed with government to put their cases on hold, pending a decision of the Constitutional Court in the May 2026 public participation challenges. The parties bringing constitutional challenges include the South African Private Practitioners Forum, the Hospital Association of South Africa, the South African Medical Association, and the Health Funders Association, among others. They agreed to hold off because a decision of the Constitutional Court on public participation could make the constitutional challenges unnecessary.

So for now, all eyes are on the Constitutional Court, whose judges will decide whether government must go back to the drawing board and follow a different procedure, or whether it may go ahead (and face a slew of constitutional challenges).

The Western Cape’s case

The Western Cape government is challenging the NHI Act because it argues that consultation with the Western Cape government, over legislation that restructures health services provided by provinces, was lacking. They argue that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) failed to respond to a request for an extension for the Western Cape to submit the outcome of its provincial consultation on the NHI Bill and its voting mandate, and then went ahead without the Western Cape documents.

The NCOP also did not, the Western Cape government alleges, consider or debate any proposed amendments to the NHI Bill arising from the public participation in other provinces. When the Western Cape government submission and public participation report came in, the NCOP merely confirmed its earlier decision to approve the Bill.

In essence, the Western Cape’s challenge is about the NCOP’s role of ensuring that provinces and their residents have a say in the making of new laws, and whether that role was properly played. It argues that the NCOP’s failure to play its constitutional role should result in the NHI Act being declared unconstitutional and invalid.

The Board of Healthcare Funders case

While the Western Cape challenge does not deal with public participation in the NHI law-making writ large, the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) case fills this gap.

The BHF argues that both the National Assembly and the NCOP failed to comply with their constitutional obligations to facilitate meaningful and effective public involvement in the NHI law-making process. The BHF contends that the public was not provided with sufficient information to allow for meaningful engagement (such as details about the costs and the benefits package of the NHI Fund); and that law makers were not open to persuasion in the participation process.

The BHF asks that the NHI Act is declared invalid and set aside.

Why should we care about public participation?

The Constitutional Court has held that “[i]t is apparent from the preamble of the Constitution that one of the basic objectives of our constitutional enterprise is the establishment of a democratic and open government in which the people shall participate to some degree in the law-making process.”

There was a huge amount of public participation in the law-making process for the NHI Act, with roadshows, written submissions and oral presentations. Government respondents in the BHF case point to the fact that 338 891 written submissions were made at various stages, and many oral presentations were heard by Parliament. Few could argue that, if you wanted to, you did not have a chance to have your say on the NHI Bill.

But is being able to say something enough?

In a constitutional democracy where citizens participate in law-making between elections as a way of directly influencing the law, if there is no chance of having that influence, merely being able to speak is insufficient.

There is, of course, no obligation on government to adopt proposed changes as a result of public participation. Parliament cannot be required to agree with all submissions, and the validity of a process does not turn on whether amendments were made to take into account submissions. But when few or no amendments are made, it inevitably raises eyebrows.

In the case of the NHI Bill, while there were limited changes to the Bill when it went through the National Assembly, no changes at all were made following the NCOP public participation process. Given the hundreds of thousands of submissions, many of which were substantive, the small number of amendments is surprising. Particularly given that some submissions that were consistently made are now being conceded by the Department of Health, in public or in private. These include submissions related to the position of asylum-seekers, transitional provisions, and the role of medical aids.

SECTION27 and the Treatment Action Campaign made submissions at Draft Bill stage, before the National Assembly, and before the NCOP. As health activists and health rights lawyers, our submissions were carefully considered and proposed amendments to bring the Bill in line with the Constitution and the needs of healthcare users. Our experience was of MPs engaging to a very limited extent with the substance of the submissions, focusing rather on whether we were ‘for’ or ‘against’ the NHI, or their party’s position on it. It was an experience that brought into question how seriously real public participation was being taken.

The Constitutional Court will now be able to consider whether the public participation processes on the NHI Act were in line with the constitutional call for participatory democracy; or whether they were an unconstitutional tick box exercise. Its decision will determine if the NHI Act will be further scrutinised for substantive constitutionality through litigation, or if it should be returned to the legislature for further consideration and participation.

Either way, what NHI may mean for our health system is a question that may yet take some time to answer. On the other hand, what participatory democracy requires of parliament (arguably an even more consequential question) may soon be answered by the Constitutional Court.

*Stevenson is a human rights lawyer and executive director of SECTION27SECTION27 is representing the Treatment Action Campaign in an application to be admitted as amicus curiae in a court case relating to the NHI.

Note: Spotlight is published by SECTION27, but is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously. 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.

Leadership, Transparency and Culture Shifts Are Key to Improving Public Sector Healthcare Quality

COHSASA CEO, Jacqui Stewart (left), moderates the panel discussing “Quality in the Public Sector”. From left:  Dr Siphiwe Mndaweni, CEO of the Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC), Professor Sabelile Tenza, Associate Professor, Patient Safety and Healthcare Quality, North-West University, Professor Sibusiso Zuma, Chair of the Department of Health Studies at UNISA and Dr Arthur Manning, CEO of Rahima Moosa Women and Children’s Hospital.

Strong leadership, functional governance and an honest culture of reporting are among the critical factors needed to improve and sustain quality care in South Africa’s public health sector, experts said during a panel discussion at the Hospital Show Conference hosted by COHSASA in Sandton recently.

The session, moderated by COHSASA CEO Jacqui Stewart, brought together senior voices from regulation, academia and hospital management to unpack the persistent gaps – and opportunities – in public sector healthcare delivery.

Professor Sibusiso Zuma of UNISA set the tone, noting that quality varies widely across public hospitals and is often determined by how effectively leadership teams work together.

“In my experience, the level of care depends on how heads of departments—nursing, pharmacy and clinical leadership , function as a team,” he said. “They need to identify problems  and address them collectively. Management must also be visible, regularly engaging with what is happening on the ground.”

Dr Siphiwe Mndaweni, CEO of the Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC), reinforced the central role of leadership and governance structures, drawing on inspection findings.

“Where leadership is weak or absent, quality suffers,” she said. “Infrastructure is another major challenge. Many facilities are old, and maintenance budgets are often diverted elsewhere, meaning planned upkeep simply does not happen.”

She added that even basic resources remain a concern. “Without essentials like soap, effective infection prevention and control is impossible.”

Dr Mndaweni also highlighted shortcomings in clinical governance, linking these directly to rising litigation. “Facilities may have clinical committees on paper, but if they are not meeting to interrogate lapses in care, the system fails.”

Security risks, poor community engagement and underutilised strategic plans further compound the problem. “Too often, documents are developed and then filed away. Facilities lose sight of their strategy and have no real understanding of patient satisfaction.”

However, she noted that where leadership is engaged – actively interacting with staff and patients – outcomes improve significantly.

Responding to questions on balancing regulatory compliance with quality improvement, Dr Arthur Manning, CEO of Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital, argued that compliance should be seen as a starting point rather than an endpoint.

“Standards are a benchmark, but they are not the ceiling,” he said. “Our experience shows that it is possible to move beyond them.”

Professor Zuma agreed, cautioning against a compliance-driven mindset that fades once certification is achieved. “Facilities often put in intense effort to meet regulatory requirements, then step back afterwards,” he said. “Quality improvement cannot be a once-off exercise or confined to a single ‘quality person’. It must be everyone’s responsibility.”

He advocated for broader training in Total Quality Management and regular six-monthly audits involving all staff. “Quality must be continuous,” he said.

Professor Sabelile Tenza of North-West University pointed to a deeper cultural issue undermining progress: performative compliance.

“There is a tendency to be compliant on paper rather than in practice,” she said, citing research in which hospitals borrowed equipment to pass inspections, only to return it afterwards.

She described a culture of concealment, where staff hesitate to report shortages or failures. “There is fear of exposing the truth, even to boards that could advocate for improvements,” she said. “If we remove that fear, we can move forward.”

Professor Tenza also raised concerns about the reporting of adverse events, stressing the need to protect healthcare workers. “Clinicians ask why they should report incidents when they see no feedback or improvement,” she said.

She criticised the gap between policy and practice around “Just Culture” frameworks. “We talk about it, but confidentiality is not adequately protected. Without anonymity, reporting systems will not work “The focus should be on the incident, not the individual,” she said. “That is how  a learning culture is created.”

Although the National Department of Health has developed free online reporting tools, uptake remains low. Professor Tenza said the system needs to be more user-friendly and accessible via mobile devices, with less duplication between paper and digital processes.

“The focus should be on the incident, not the individual,” she said. “That is how systems learn.”

Dr Mndaweni acknowledged that regulation can be perceived as punitive but stressed that enforcement is a last resort. “The OHSC is designed to support compliance and improvement, not punishment,” she said. “But where there is persistent non-compliance, enforcement becomes necessary—even to the point of revoking a facility’s licence to operate.”

She added that the regulator is repositioning itself to play a more active role in quality improvement, rather than acting solely as an enforcer.

Dr Manning rejected the notion that compliance and quality improvement are competing priorities. “Regulatory standards define the minimum acceptable level of care,” he said. “Meeting them should be business as usual. The real goal is to exceed them – there should be no trade-off.”

Moonlighting, Money and Morals in a Looted Health System

Some healthcare workers in the public sector are allowed to moonlight in the private sector to earn extra money, subject to certain conditions. Photo by CDC on Unsplash

By Joan van Dyk

The Department of Health allows some public sector doctors and nurses to moonlight in the private sector, but the relevant policy and its implementation caused much controversy over the years. Set against the wider management dysfunction in several provincial health departments, the issue is now coming to a head.

Professional nurse Nomsa Dlamini* has been picking up extra shifts in Gauteng’s private health sector for years, without the required approval from her public sector managers.

The health department has no record of this work, a breach of the rules meant to regulate “moonlighting” among state employees.

She says the benefits of keeping her extra shifts off-book far outweigh the risks of getting caught. If that ever happens, she’s happy to face the consequences, such as disciplinary action. For her, that’s still preferable compared to the cost of following the rules.

Over the course of her 20-year career, Dlamini says she has watched retaliation against her complying colleagues, often in the form of a punishing shift schedule that makes rest unlikely and private sector shifts impossible.

Losing the extra income would be the worst-case scenario, she says.

Dlamini is not the only one bending the rules to avoid backlash.

Moonlighting often not declared

A survey of 1 397 health workers in Gauteng and Mpumalanga found that among public sector employees who were moonlighting, just 20% of professional nurses said they had permission, compared with 85% of doctors and 13% of rehabilitation therapists. The results were published in the South African Medical Journal in 2025.

The fear that managers would refuse permission, or that the act of asking would be met with hostility were high on nurses’ list of reasons for side-stepping the system.

The policy that allows moonlighting – usually called Remunerative Work Outside of the Public Service (RWOPS) – started in the 1990s as a retention strategy with few official rules. The government has gradually layered oversight roles and overtime limits into the system to stem abuse, with mixed success.

The latest policy guideline includes compulsory quarterly reporting to the Department of Public Service and Administration and tighter consequence management. Circulars and job adverts suggest the government is in the process of further beefing up its moonlighting monitoring systems but for now there is little detail about their plans on the public record.

A broader overhaul of South Africa’s health system staffing strategy is on its way too. A ministerial advisory committee (MAC), set up by Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi in April 2025, hosted an indaba in November 2025 and has sent out questionnaires to gauge health workers’ expectations and concerns about issues including moonlighting, overtime, and community service.

But for some nurses, the details of how their work is regulated has become less important than the everyday task of making a living. Dlamini says she and her colleagues understand why the government needs to make these rules, but they feel the health system no longer has the legitimacy to enforce them. They suggest that years of corruption has gutted the system by draining resources, stripping services, and eroding trust.

Over at Tembisa Hospital, for instance, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) found that medical supply spending dropped by nearly three-quarters in the year after massive graft was uncovered there. This suggests that money was being spent on ghost stock and overpriced consumables, not the supplies nurses need to do their work. Health workers and patients often flagged medicine shortages at the hospital and were reportedly still borrowing food and drugs from other facilities late in 2025.

Dlamini herself says she has had to push her aching body through understaffed shifts with stretched resources for years, and now she’s being asked to help restore what others have taken.

Worst of all, she says, is an ethics course the higher ups want staff to complete. The request feels alien and disconnected from the realities of a department that has allowed syndicate-linked health workers to siphon millions away from patients. A professional nurse at Tembisa allegedly pocketed nearly R28 million by approving appointments and managing the illicit flow of one of the three syndicates described by the SIU. According to the SIU, a nurse assistant made at least R7.3 million, the equivalent of well over two decades of legitimate salary.

So until Dlamini hears that her pay will be withheld if she doesn’t do the ethics course, she simply refuses. “It’s a slap in the face,” she says.

Standoffs and moonlight mistakes

In 2023, City Press reported that more than 8 700 Gauteng health employees meant to file disclosures had failed to report their financial interests. Nearly two-thirds of the province’s health staff were facing suspension.

The health department’s risk office sent an email saying the rule breakers should “make themselves available at the MEC’s boardroom … to explain themselves”. City Press reported that at least one hospital told its staff not to go.

Whether it is such standoffs between governmental leadership and public servants or the state’s inability to effectively regulate moonlighting, it is patients who ultimately pay the price.

Sometimes, patients aren’t being monitored because their nurse is selling cosmetics for a multi-level marketing scheme in the tea room, Dlamini says. Or a nurse has called in sick when they’re really working in the private sector while still being paid by the government.

There’s also a gruelling cycle that begins after a nurse spends their day at a private facility and then reports for night duty at a public hospital. At some point in the night, they might disappear to get some sleep, leaving an even smaller team to make sure dozens of patients are clean, comfortable and medicated by morning.

Jacky James and Isaac Rabotapi, both Gauteng shop stewards for the Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa (Denosa) say they know of many night shift tragedies. The pair regularly represent nurses during disciplinary hearings.

In one instance, they say a six-month-old baby needed a drip. The ward was short staffed and the nurses in attendance were exhausted. Nobody was monitoring the infant once the drip was in. By the time somebody checked up several hours later, the infusion had leaked into the surrounding tissue, causing irreversible damage. Surgeons had to amputate the infant’s entire hand.

The two shop stewards say this is one of many instances they believe are linked to exhaustion and compromised judgement of nurses who work non-stop.

In one nationally representative study from 2015 just over half of surveyed nurses said that they are too tired to work while they’re on duty. This study found no statistically significant link between moonlighting and medico-legal claims but South Africa’s action plan for health sector staffing acknowledges that burnout and clinical mistakes probably contribute to the health department’s sky high malpractice bill.

In a submission to Motsoaledi’s advisory committee, the South African Medical Association (SAMA) describes a health system trapped in a destructive loop in which low base salaries and chronic understaffing feed off each other. Clinicians rely on excessive overtime and side jobs as a financial lifeline. While this keeps services running 24/7, they say extreme burnout and fatigue triggers medical errors and drives overextended staff to quit. When people leave, SAMA says, the staffing gap widens, forcing those who remain to work even more hours. This restarts a cycle that ultimately relies on overworking clinicians to prevent the system from collapsing, SAMA maintains.

The high cost of low salaries

Dlamini, James and Rabotapi are all professional nurses. Among them, they have about 85 years of experience in South Africa’s public hospitals.

“I love my job,” Dlamini says. “For me, it’s about the patients. But the workplace has become unbearable.”

It is worth pointing out here that, even while much of what we describe in this article is negative about the state of nursing in South Africa, we have in the course of our reporting over the years come across scores of nurses who are deeply committed to serving their patients. We have profiled some of these nurses – see hereherehere, and here.

James and Rabotapi say they also used to love nursing, but they both switched to union work in an effort to help patients by improving the system in which they’re treated.

Rabotapi’s view of the system is even worse now that he’s on the road for Denosa because he can see the full extent of poor nursing care. “The lack of empathy is shocking.  I’ve seen nurses addressing their patients by conditions instead of their names. That’s a violation of their right to privacy and confidentiality.”

Harsh treatment seems to have become a rite of passage, passed on from older nurses to young recruits, says James. This is especially visible in maternity wards where nurses can be judgemental or cruel towards young mothers, she says.

Obstetric violence, which includes verbal or physical abuse, humiliation or forced medical procedures is widespread. A 2025 report estimates that 1.79 million people who gave birth in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng experienced some form of obstetric violence in the past decade.

In February, a coalition of local human rights organisations including Embrace and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies sent Motsoaledi a memorandum demanding change.

By August, they want legal recognition of this abuse and for respectful maternity care to be added to district performance dashboards. They also demand an explicit ban on hiring freezes in sexual and reproductive health services to ensure good staff levels and an adequately funded budget to upgrade dilapidated infrastructure.

“We wouldn’t have any of these problems if nurses were paid well,” Dlamini says.

It’s a sentiment that was repeated by everyone Spotlight interviewed, and in line with the findings of multiple studies conducted over the past decade.

A 2023 study published in BMJ Open found low baseline government pay, the desire for financial freedom, and the need to pay off debts were the biggest drivers of moonlighting among doctors, rehabilitation therapists and professional nurses.

Today, nurses are caught in a financial squeeze. According to our analysis of DSPA data, below-inflation wage increases cumulatively wiped out about 8 percentage points of public sector nurses’ buying power between 2021 and 2023. After three years of losses, their pay has started to recover thanks to lower inflation and wage increases but ultimately, they’re still worse off than they were before the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/28328338/embed?auto=1

Made with Flourish • Create a chart

Dlamini says many nurses also earn too much to qualify for government housing subsidies or NSFAS funding for their children’s education, yet they don’t earn enough to afford a bond or expensive university fees on their own.

Professional nurses typically progress through three tiers of seniority as they gain experience. They also get annual salary increases based on performance. The upper limit for the most experienced professional nurse (who isn’t a manager) is about R50 000 per month before tax, according to the DPSA’s latest salary data. This amount includes benefits such as pensions so take-home pay is lower.

Civil servants’ contributions to the state’s medical aid, the Government Employees Medical Scheme (GEMS), are outpacing their earnings. In two years, monthly contributions have jumped 23% in total, and members say they’re paying more for less.

Nurses aren’t legally required to join GEMS, but some government subsidies are tied to the scheme so opting out can also come at a cost.

There are reasons for hope. For the first time in two years, Treasury is adjusting tax rules so that inflation doesn’t eat into raises, helping people keep more of their take-home pay.

It’s hard to get a representative picture of what nurses are paid in the private sector. Leading public health researcher Laetitia Rispel, who chaired the process that led to government’s 2030 staffing strategy, explained that private sector partners are not obliged to share this information. They wouldn’t disclose what they paid nurses during the drafting of the staffing plan and withheld this information as confidential during the Competition Commission’s Health Market Inquiry (HMI).

According to the government’s staffing plan, reimbursement data shows that junior nurses tend to have higher salaries in the private sector, while private sector senior nurses may earn less than their counterparts in the public sector.

The coming retirement wave

A retirement crisis now looms over South Africa’s nursing profession, which remains the heart of the public healthcare system.

The latest data from the South African Nursing Council shows nearly half (48%) of the country’s nurses and midwives are aged 50 or older, with about a fifth already in the 60-69 year age bracket.

This exodus will be a massive loss of the nursing expertise and institutional knowledge essential for high-quality care. Their retirement could also exacerbate the existing nurse shortages, which already force nurses to the brink and often, out of public service.

This is more pronounced in rural areas, where exhausted nurses have described stress-related headaches, sleep disturbances and chest pains to researchers. One nurse at a psychiatric hospital in Limpopo told researchers she was responsible for 40 patients on a single night shift. Another collapsed in the ward while she was pregnant. “It’s a prison sentence,” a third nurse told the researchers.

Related Posts

The researchers at the University of Venda argued that low wages could explain why some nurses steal and resell hospital supplies, and why they don’t consider it outright theft.

South Africa is also battling a critical shortage of nurse educators, an unintended consequence of the Occupational Specific Dispensation, which favoured clinical practice over teaching, and thereby created a pay gap that pushed faculty to transition into better paid clinical roles within government hospitals.

The health department’s staffing strategy until 2030 admits that South Africa needs to view nursing as an investment rather than an expense. It describes the many benefits of investing in nursing care which include economic growth and improved health services.

The document, drawn up in 2020, included measurable goals to address workforce issues by 2025, including a plan to meet a shortage of nurse educators and to train and employ up to 34 000 professional nurses and midwives.

The government hasn’t yet tracked progress against these targets, says spokesperson Foster Mohale, but a review by the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation is in the pipeline to guide the strategy’s remaining period.

In the meantime, the government is building a Human Resources for Health information system and registry and rolling out systems to track workforce indicators, he says. Coordination structures are also being strengthened, and occupational health and safety committees are coming to facilities around the country.

Money isn’t everything

In her 2024 presentation to a panel of experts tasked with getting buy-in from the broader health sector, called the Health Workforce Consultative Advisory Forum, Rispel warned that the 2030 human resource strategy could not be rolled out with an austerity mindset.

Research published in the journal PLOS One in 2025 backs this up. It suggests that professional nurses would give up moonlighting in exchange for a minimum 20% pay increase. That’s much lower than doctors (46%) and rehabilitation specialists (43%).

Modelling suggests however that if the government banned moonlighting, the state would need to bump salaries up by 50% to counteract an exodus among all three cadres.

The study found that a well-resourced environment is worth more than money to many nurses. Nurses would trade a large portion of their pay checks if it means finally having the resources to provide quality care.

Bitter laughter

Dlamini says she became a nurse to continue her mother’s legacy. “I saw how passionate she was. People would come up to her in the streets and say ‘sister, do you remember me, you helped me give birth’, she was so loved.”

She knows that she’s operating in the shadows of the system her mother served and recognises the danger of her own exhaustion. “We really should all be declaring,” she says.

But the feeling fades when she thinks of all the nurses who remain jobless on the one hand, and those who joined syndicates on the other.

It hurts to think about those moonlighting to pay for their children’s education or basic needs while others have opted to “order their skinny jeans through Tembisa hospital”, she says referring to rigged tender contracts that the hospital is mired in.

The two shop stewards laughed when Spotlight relayed Dlamini’s disgust with the hypocrisy of the system. That particularly South African, absurd kind of laughter that sits on the edge of anger and resignation.

“She’s right,” says Rabotapi. “How many more nurses could we have hired with that money?”

*Dlamini is not her real name. Spotlight has agreed to withhold her real name since we believe there is a risk she will be persecuted for speaking to the media.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

What the Law Actually Says About Migrants’ Right to Access Healthcare in SA

Despite South Africa’s laws and policies, access to healthcare remains an issue, particularly for non-citizens. Photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash

By Teri Brown and Thembi Mahlathi

The media has reported several incidents where people were turned away at public healthcare facilities because they did not possess South African identity documents. As related cases slowly grind through the courts, Teri Brown and Thembi Mahlathi of SECTION27 connect the dots between what the law says and what people are experiencing.

Over the years, many migrants and undocumented people have reached out to SECTION27, where we both work, for assistance. These were often pregnant women, lactating mothers and children under six years, who were denied access to healthcare facilities.

Initially, it was easy to simply write a letter to hospital and clinic personnel where our clients were being denied access. But as time went on, the situation got significantly worse and more migrants were being denied access to public healthcare facilities. Writing letters and asking for meetings clearly wasn’t enough anymore.

We went to court and in April 2023 got an order in which the South Gauteng High Court held that important sections of the National Health Act applies to all pregnant women, lactating women and children under the age of six years, irrespective of their documentation status. This affirmed that in South Africa, they have the right to access free healthcare services at all public health establishments, including hospitals and clinics.

Public sector hospitals and clinics are required to assess the status of migrants and then apply a lawful means test to determine the healthcare services that can be offered to them. However, this does not appear to be done routinely. Instead, particular focus is often placed on South African identity documents, while other forms of documentation held by migrants are disregarded.

There have been incidents where entry to facilities such as Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital in Coronationville and South Rand Hospital in Rosettenville and several clinics across Gauteng have been denied to people, including South African nationals who have the necessary documentation.

Furthermore, we are aware that to avoid being refused healthcare and to demonstrate the urgency of their need for treatment for themselves or their kids, migrants have sometimes been forced to disclose their HIV status – information which they would otherwise have kept private.

In mid-2025, we started receiving a surge of calls from clients complaining about not being able to enter public sector clinics that they were previously assisted at. They informed us that a group of people stationed outside these clinics requested their identity documents, and when they produced their documents confirming either their refugee status or asylum seeker status, they were unlawfully prevented from entering the clinics. These group of people explicitly told them that they should go to a private clinic for treatment or go back to their home country.

Thus, two years after the April 2023 court order, the denial of access to healthcare had worsened, as it was not only women and children who could not access clinics, but anyone who could not provide South African identity documentation. The situation was also exacerbated by the fact that it wasn’t just healthcare staff denying access anymore, but vigilante groups stationed outside healthcare facilities.

Despite the crisis being widely reported, the state failed to address it effectively. We had no choice but to go back to court, and again the court found in our favour.

In December 2025, the South Gauteng High Court ordered the state to take immediate and decisive action to end the obstruction of access to public healthcare facilities in Gauteng. The case was brought by the civil society organisations the Treatment Action Campaign, Doctors Without Borders, and Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (the applicants), all represented by SECTION27.

In this landmark judgment, Judge Stuart Wilson concluded that the state entities tasked with upholding the constitutional mandate to safeguard everyone’s right to access healthcare had failed to prevent the obstruction of access to public health facilities. Consequently, this failure was in violation of the constitutional rights of patients seeking care at the Yeoville and Rosettenville clinics.

Despite this court order, our monitoring found ongoing vigilante activity at the two clinics. The applicants then launched an urgent contempt application, heard in March 2026, arguing that the state had failed to fully comply with Judge Wilson’s court order.

Following this, a court ordered settlement agreement was reached with the Gauteng Department of Health and other respondents. Among other things, it required the authorities to take reasonable steps to ensure safe and unhindered access to the Yeoville and Rosettenville clinics, and to report on the implementation by 18 May 2026. It also makes provision to continue legal proceedings if necessary to enforce full compliance with Judge Wilson’s order.

The laws governing healthcare for migrants in South Africa

Taking a step back from this case, and its specific set of facts, it is worth remembering that South African law really does provide extensive protection to migrants who need to access healthcare services.

The right to access healthcare services is guaranteed by section 27 of our Constitution, which states that everyone has the right to have access to healthcare services, and that no one may be refused emergency medical treatment. The term “everyone” is not restricted to South Africans only. It includes everyone within the borders of South Africa, regardless of their nationality.

This right extends to all children living in South Africa under section 28(1)(c) of the Constitution. This guarantees all children access to basic healthcare services dependent on the availability of resources, to which they can never be completely denied.

After the Constitution, the most important piece of healthcare legislation relevant to migrants is the National Health Act (NHA). The NHA assists in giving effect to the constitutional right to basic healthcare services by outlining who can receive services at public clinics free of charge. It obligates the provision of free healthcare services to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, or children under six. Moreover, the NHA requires that free primary healthcare be provided to those without medical aid. It also makes it clear that those working in healthcare cannot refuse any person emergency medical treatment.

Along similar lines, South Africa’s Refugees Act states that a refugee is entitled to full legal protection, which includes the rights set out in the Bill of Rights, except those reserved for citizens. The Act formally acknowledges that refugees are entitled to the same basic healthcare services and primary education that South African citizens receive. While the Act does not expressly cover undocumented migrants, it is grounded on the principle of non-discrimination, which supports equal access to essential services.

South Africa is also party to several international and regional human rights instruments that prohibit discrimination and guarantee equal access to healthcare for all. These include the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Why all this matters

The denial of healthcare services has significant impacts on many aspects of people’s lives. Migrants often become so desperate to receive care that they feel compelled to disclose their HIV status, which infringes on their rights, particularly the constitutional rights to privacy and dignity. It also creates feelings of stigma and discrimination, further marginalising people who are often already vulnerable.

There are also direct health consequences. Denying treatment to a migrant not only negatively impacts that person’s health it can also result in the continued transmission of infectious diseases to both other migrants and South Africans. For example, HIV and TB typically become non-infectious a while after someone starts treatment. Deciding not to treat someone ends up harming everyone. As untreated conditions worsen, it may require emergency medical attention that could have been avoided through early treatment. All of this places extra pressure on an already fragile health system – extra pressure that could be avoided by providing more migrants with healthcare services as soon as they need it.

The failure to provide healthcare services also affects migrants’ livelihoods and well-being. For those who run their own businesses, being unable to access treatment may prevent them from working altogether and could lead to them and other people, possibly South Africans, losing their jobs. Ultimately, this has a ripple effect on the country’s economy, job security, and perpetuates cycles of poverty and vulnerability.

At its heart then, this issue is about who we choose to be as a society. Turning people away at their most vulnerable moments erodes not only their dignity, but also their humanity and ours. In a country built on the values of equality and dignity, we cannot allow this attack on our basic humanity and decency to succeed. We are, and must be, better than that.

*Brown is a legal researcher and Mahlathi is a paralegal with SECTION27In the court case discussed in this article, SECTION27 represented the Treatment Action Campaign, Médecins Sans Frontiers, and Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia.

Note: Spotlight is published by SECTION27, but is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously. 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.

World is Falling Behind on UN’s Child Mortality Sustainable Development Goal

Despite a 63% drop in under-five deaths since 1990, more than a quarter of countries won’t reach the UN’s 2030 child mortality target on time, with sub-Saharan Africa lagging the most

Years in which the U5MR reduction target is expected to be achieved. U5MR: under-5 mortality rate. 
Image credit: Cao et al., 2026, PLOS One, CC-BY 4.0

A new study tracking global progress on child mortality finds that the world will miss a key United Nations (UN) health target by at least five years at current rates, with the burden falling heavily on Sub-Saharan Africa. The findings are published on April 1, 2026, in the open-access journal PLOS One by Min Liu of Peking University, Beijing, China, and colleagues.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 calls for all countries to reduce the mortality rate for children under five to fewer than 25 deaths per 1000 live births by 2030. As that deadline approaches, there has been no comprehensive assessment of where countries stand.

In the new study, researchers used data from the UN to analyse annual under-five death counts and mortality rates from 1990 to 2023 across 200 countries and territories. They calculated the rate of change in mortality over time and used those trends to project when those countries still above the target threshold would be expected to reach it.

The researchers found that globally, under-five deaths fell by 63% over the study period – from nearly 13 million in 1990 to 4.78 million in 2023 – and the mortality rate dropped by an average of 3.18% per year. However, the global rate still stands at 36.72 deaths per 1000 live births, well above the SDG target, and is not projected to reach the target until 2035. 133 countries have already met the target and nine more are on track to do so by 2030. However, 58 countries will miss the deadline, including 25 that are not projected to reach the target until after 2050, and Dominica, where under-five deaths have risen. More than four-fifths of all under-five deaths worldwide are concentrated in just two regions: Sub-Saharan Africa, where the mortality rate remains at 68.82 deaths per 1000 live births and is not projected to meet the SDG target until 2055, and Central and Southern Asia.

The study is limited by the assumption that trends over the last two decades will continue unchanged. Data quality was also poor in some conflict-affected regions and low-income countries, the very places where child mortality is highest. 

The authors conclude that to meet UN targets, policymakers must focus on scaling up proven interventions – including skilled birth attendance, postnatal care, vaccination, improved nutrition, and treatment for common childhood illnesses – in every community, and especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Provided by PLOS

As NHI Stalls, the Real Debate Is About Trade Offs

ANC President Cyril Ramaphosa, with Minister of Health, Dr Joe Phaahla and his deputy Dr Sibongiseni Dhlomo, during the signing into law of the National Health Insurance Bill. (Photo: @MYANC/Twitter)

By Thoneshan Naidoo

Healthcare funding is always about trade-offs, writes Thoneshan Naidoo, CEO of the Health Funders Association. The hardest question in healthcare is not what we would like to provide, he argues, but what we can provide sustainably, fairly and at scale.

South Africa’s healthcare debate is shifting and perhaps for the first time in years, it is becoming more honest.

With the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act tied up in legal processes and no credible funding pathway emerging from the 2026 Budget, the conversation is moving away from sweeping promises about the future to a more immediate and uncomfortable question. That is how do we fund healthcare today, and what trade-offs are we willing to accept?

At the centre of that reality is a part of the system that is often misunderstood and frequently criticised – medical schemes.

They are often portrayed as profit driven and exclusionary. In reality, they are not for profit, member owned entities built on a simple but powerful principle, social solidarity. Simply put, members pool their contributions so that those who are healthy today help fund the care of those who are sick.

In practice, around 80% of members claim less than they contribute in any given year. Their contributions help fund the care of the 20% who need it most. That is not exploitation. It is the very definition of risk pooling, and it is the same principle that underpins universal health coverage.

But solidarity comes with trade-offs.

Every Rand paid out in benefits in excess of a member’s monthly contributions is funded by other members. That means decisions about what is covered, how much is paid, and when limits apply are not arbitrary. They are the result of difficult choices about what the overall pool can afford.

These trade-offs become most visible in moments of tension, when a claim is limited, a treatment is excluded, or a dispute arises. To the individual, the system can feel uncaring. But at a system level, the alternative, unlimited funding for every possible intervention, is simply not sustainable.

Even prevention, often presented as an obvious solution, is not as straightforward as it seems.

Take colorectal cancer screening. An inexpensive test such as a faecal immunochemical test can help detect disease early. But many false-positive results lead to follow up procedures like colonoscopies, even when no serious condition is ultimately found. At the same time, some cases are still missed and only diagnosed later, when treatment is more complex and more expensive.

The question is not whether prevention is valuable, it is how to fund it at scale in a way that balances early detection, over treatment and cost.

These are not abstract policy debates but are real world funding decisions that affect millions of people.

And they are taking place in a system under pressure.

Medical scheme membership is voluntary, so younger and healthier individuals often delay joining until they need care. This drives up costs for those already in the system. At the same time, schemes are required to cover a comprehensive set of 270 Prescribed Minimum Benefits, which raises the baseline cost of cover.

The result is a system that works well for those inside it but remains out of reach for many.

This is South Africa’s so-called “missing middle” – millions of working people who earn too much to qualify for public support, but too little to afford private cover. They are left exposed, paying out of pocket, and navigating a fragmented system while waiting for reforms that may still be years away.

As the NHI debate continues, this gap can no longer be treated as a future problem. It is a present reality.

The risk is that the debate remains stuck in ideology. That private healthcare is painted as inherently problematic, or that structural reform alone will resolve access challenges.

Neither is true.

Healthcare funding is always about trade-offs. There are no perfect systems, only different ways of balancing access, quality and affordability within finite resources.

If South Africa is serious about expanding access to healthcare, the debate must move beyond rhetoric and toward practical solutions.

These include using spare capacity in private facilities to treat public patients, and allowing medical schemes, through targeted regulatory reform, to offer affordable primary healthcare cover for people who are currently excluded. Done properly, this could unlock access to private healthcare for more than 10 million uninsured South Africans at a cost of as little as R400 per person per month. Combined with existing tax credits, the impact on a family’s take home pay could be close to negligible. By providing access to preventive and primary care through the private sector, they would reduce pressure on overcrowded public facilities and ease waiting times. Importantly, a strong focus on prevention and early intervention would reduce the need for costly hospitalisation over time.

Medical schemes are well placed to deliver these options, given the principles of social solidarity, community rating and cross-subsidisation that underpin their design. This approach is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the core principles of universal health coverage, and could serve as a practical transitional step as South Africa moves towards the full implementation of National Health Insurance.

After all, the hardest question in healthcare is not what we would like to provide. It is what we can provide sustainably, fairly, and at scale.

*Naidoo is CEO of the Health Funders Association, an industry group that represents several medical schemes and medical scheme administrators in South Africa.

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.