Category: Healthcare Politics and Regulations

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical IndustryTags :

Life-saving TB Drug is Now Cheaper in South Africa – But Not as Cheap as It can be

On By ModernMedia
Diagram by the United States-based National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases showing the medicine options for drug-resistant tuberculosis. (Via Flickr, CC BY 2.0 Deed)

By Daniel Steyn for GroundUp

The South African government and pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) have agreed to a lower price for bedaquiline, a medicine used to treat drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) in South Africa.

This comes off the back of mounting pressure from activists and amid an ongoing investigation by the Competition Commission, looking into J&J’s pricing of the drug.

An estimated 14 000 people in South Africa fell ill with DR-TB in 2019. Bedaquiline is one of the main drugs used to treat DR-TB. Before bedaquiline became available, treatment for DR-TB would consist of up to two years of injections with serious side effects. The bedaquiline-containing regimen has no injectables, far fewer side effects and is typically six months. 

Bedaquiline has been provided by the South African government since 2018.

In July, J&J agreed to sell bedaquiline to lower and middle-income countries through the Stop TB Partnership’s Global Drug Facility for $130 (R2470) per six-month regime, but South Africa does not make use of this facility due to national procurement policies.

Instead, about the same time that J&J made this announcement, the National Health Department agreed to pay J&J R5500 for the drug.

The Competition Commission announced in September that it will be investigating Johnson & Johnson’s pricing of the drug. The commission assisted the Department of Health in renegotiating the price, says department spokesperson Foster Mohale.

This week the department sent out a circular indicating that it will be paying R3,148 for bedaquiline.

Bedaquiline is prescribed to 7000 to 8000 people a year, Mohale told GroundUp. Mohale says the new price amounts to a 40% saving on bedaquiline for the next two years.

Candice Sehoma, Access Campaign Advocacy Advisor for Medicines Sans Frontiere (MSF), told GroundUp that the “momentous” cost saving is a “big achievement”. Sehoma says it is a sign that the global campaign to ensure accessible and affordable treatment for TB is yielding results.

MSF has estimated that bedaquiline could be manufactured and sold for profit for as little as $102 (R1940).

Fatima Hassan, director of the Health Justice Initiative, says that while the price drop is a victory, it is important to ensure that this does not happen again.

“The significant price reduction emphasises why price scrutiny is significant,” Hassan told GroundUp.

Alleged “evergreening”

J&J’s patent for bedaquiline expired in July 2023, but J&J had already applied for a new patent for a slightly different version of bedaquiline, which was granted. This meant their patent protection continued in South Africa after the original patent expired.

This amounts to “evergreening”, says Hassan. Evergreening, as explained in this article in The Conversation, “is achieved by seeking extra patents on variations of the original drug – new forms of release, new dosages, new combinations or variations, or new forms”.

The Competition Commission will be looking into J&J’s alleged “evergreening” as part of its investigation.

After making its agreement with the Global Drug Facility, J&J has announced it will not be enforcing the new patent – a move that will allow generic versions of the product to enter the market and further lower the price.

GroundUp sent questions to J&J but received no response.

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

Source: GroundUp

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

With Funding and Partnerships, Africa’s Healthcare Sector can Become More Capable

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Sora Shimazaki

By Robert Appelbaum & Prelisha Singh, Partners at Webber Wentzel

In Africa, dysfunctional governments are often unable to allocate sufficient funds for essential aspects of healthcare. This results in a shortage of new primary and specialised hospitals, little local pharmaceutical and medical device manufacture and the inability to train doctors beyond undergraduate level, creating a shortage of medical specialists.

In a recent seminar hosted by Invest Africa and moderated by Webber Wentzel, panelists Silven Chikengezha, Liza Eustace, Jen Pedersen, Jasen Smallbone and Dr Sue Tager, shared their insights on how to tackle the problems of financing healthcare in Africa, and building a pipeline of medical professionals who remain in Africa.

Funding

From the perspective of the IFC, the obvious need for greenfield hospitals in Africa is not sufficient to attract funding. To be attractive, projects need to meet certain criteria.

The first is that it must have a sponsor with experience in construction and operations. The second is that it has to have the potential to grow. It takes at least three years for a hospital to start making returns. Primary care is an identified area of potential growth on the continent, but it offers low margins so it needs to build up volumes. If the hospital is a primary healthcare facility that addresses an identified need in the local community, it is more likely to attract reliable footfall. But there is very little revenue in basic services like treating TB, AIDS and giving vaccination, so the facility should offer a range of affordable treatments.

The third criterion for any hospital project seeking funding is that it should have, or will be able to attract suitably qualified staff. Doctors like to work in complementary practice groups, so the hospital should be able to offer an attractive environment for medical professionals.

The next important issue is the certainty of cash flow. Although government-sourced revenue for the hospital can provide a steady income stream, governments can be slow payers. It is important to look at each government’s history of making timely payments. Commercial banks will also consider the affordability of the hospital’s services, given that a very small proportion of Africa’s population has medical insurance. In some countries, governments require employers to pay their employees’ medical bills, which provides a level of comfort to the banks. Technology can help to improve affordability, for example, innovations such as monitors that track the temperature of heat-sensitive medicines in transit, which reduces wastage.

A fifth critical issue for funders is the way the funding is structured. If a large hospital project is structured with 60-70% debt from its initial stages, it is likely to struggle to meet interest payments. It is better to start with a smaller facility that is scaleable, and structure the funding so that there is more equity than debt in the early years.

ABSA noted that they would seek strong equity holders before considering debt, and they will look carefully at who the main equity funders are. This is an area where the IFC and other Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) can play a role because they are usually willing to take the “first loss” risk, which encourages commercial banks to extend debt. Commercial banks take comfort from developers with strong balance sheets.

An emerging source of funding for healthcare projects in Africa (as well as other projects, such as in energy, water and education) are social impact bonds, in which an institutional funder will lend money to an implementer that can correctly manage a project that meets a need – often a need identified by the government. Corporates should be pooling their available funds to create scaleable projects that will make an impact.

If healthcare financing is intended to support existing service providers in Africa, it has to adapt to the capacity of what are often very small- to medium-sized businesses. These businesses, which may be anything from manufacturers of medical devices to providers of digi-health services, need far less than USD 20 million, so they tend to be ignored. But funding is essential to help established businesses build scale. This is another area where DFIs and commercial banks working together can help, as the DFI can provide the first loss facility which allows commercial banks to take risk on smaller clients.

Public-private partnerships

The pandemic made it clear that perceived obstacles between public and private entities in providing healthcare together could be overcome if there was the right will and people in the room.

Speakers discussed the Wits Donald Gordon Medical Centre as an example of a successful PPP, which could be replicated elsewhere. The Donald Gordon offers treatment to the private sector, and the derived profits are used to train medical students from Wits University, which is the public partner. The centre also performs liver transplants for all patients, both public and private. Mediclinic has a share in Donald Gordon but does not receive dividends. All profits are recycled back into the hospital.

A PPP model for the provision of healthcare needs partners who have similar levels of sophistication and can work together. Governments have to appreciate that the role of the private sector is not merely to bring money so that the government can continue running things the way they have always done. Private sector partners should be allowed to introduce the levels of efficiency in delivery that are typically found in the private sector.

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Opinion: Exciting Health Reforms are Possible if We can Move Beyond All the Political Sclerosis

On By ModernMedia

By Marcus Low, Spotlight Editor

It is often enlightening for us at Spotlight to ask how and why certain services differ in the ways they do between the private and public healthcare sectors.

Take something as simple as needing medical help when you have a flu that just won’t go away. As a private sector patient, I’d call my GP’s office and make an appointment. Providing I get there on time, chances are I would at most be asked to wait for 10 or 20 minutes in a comfortable waiting room. By contrast, at many public healthcare facilities, you are not able to make an appointment, and often have to wait for long hours in a poorly ventilated and overcrowded waiting area and will likely end up seeing a nurse rather than a GP.

Some aspects of such differences are understandable, albeit deeply problematic. The shortage of doctors is much more acute in the public sector than in the private sector. There is a moral imperative to address this imbalance, but as previously argued, the current NHI plans are just one way to address it.

Why some public healthcare facilities still do not use appointment systems is harder to explain. Even if some users prefer to queue rather than to have appointments, it is odd that all facilities do not at least have hybrid systems with some appointments and some queueing. Having appointment systems is not rocket science and doesn’t have to cost millions.

There are, of course, other examples. As a private healthcare user, it is relatively trivial for me to get a six-month chronic medication script from my GP and to arrange for the medicines to be delivered to my home. Though there has been significant progress in this direction in the public sector, many people still find it hard to get scripts and collect their medicines.

Of course, differences in available resources are a large part of what is going on here, but it is not the whole story. As a private healthcare user, my needs, my preferences, and my time are generally respected in a way that seems rare in the public sector. To be clear, there are many committed healthcare workers in the public sector who show exemplary respect for their patients, but at a systemic level, as in the decision not to have appointment systems or not to allow for extended medicine refills, people’s time and needs are being disregarded.

Apart from the risk of corruption and mismanagement, much of the middle-class resistance to NHI may well have to do with the fear that people who can now access private healthcare services will become subject to precisely this kind of systemic indifference to their needs. And indeed, while the rhetoric around NHI has often been about ideals like the need for greater social solidarity, we haven’t really seen a vision presented of NHI as offering better, more respectful, and more personalised healthcare.

But, with a bit of flexibility, this could change.

Consider annual checkups. Rather than asking public sector patients to go to overcrowded clinics with long queues for tests, why not give public sector users the option of getting their basic screening tests for HIV, TB, hypertension, and diabetes done at private sector pharmacies along the lines of Discovery Health’s Annual Health Checkup. Of course, data systems will have to be developed to support this and it will have to be budgeted for, but the extra convenience will no doubt make a big difference for many and could help with early detection of these diseases. (We previously wrote about the idea of such an expanded annual checkup programme here.)

Getting the state to pay for such checkups at private sector pharmacies is not exactly NHI as set out in the bill, but the idea certainly shares some DNA.

To be fair, there are at least some exceptions that show such innovation is possible. Maybe most notably, these days many public sector patients can collect their chronic medicines at private pharmacies or other pickup points. Though still a work in progress, the evolution of the public sector medicines distribution system shows that we need not wait for the NHI Bill before taking steps to make things easier and more convenient for users.

In addition, with the NHI pilot projects we have seen at least some awareness that there is a need to try new things and learn from them. Unfortunately, on the whole the NHI pilot projects didn’t meaningfully pilot the key aspects of NHI, and where they did, as with GP contracting, it didn’t go well. And here one gets to the rub. From the outside one gets the impression that those who wanted to run pilots we could actually learn from lost out to those who consider the pilots just another step toward building political support for NHI.

As for the NHI Bill itself, the fact that the ANC and much of the portfolio committee on health, has been intent on reducing almost all discussion on the Bill to a simple for or against shows a clear disdain for meaningful engagement. Indeed, whatever its merits, the ANC’s version of NHI has become fundamentally associated with an overdose of ideology and an absence of curiosity and critical thinking.

But we don’t have to buy into the ANC’s sclerotic thinking.

There are many possible ways to reform and improve our healthcare system. Some will be affordable, some won’t. Either way, it would be foolish to simply turn our backs and pretend they are not there.

*Low is the editor of Spotlight.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons Licence.

Source: Spotlight

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Health Department Agrees to Pay Nurses Uniform Allowance

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash

By Marecia Damons for GroundUp

The Department of Health has averted a standoff with nurses in the public sector with a last-minute agreement to pay nurses a temporary allowance to buy uniforms.

Nurses threatened to work in their own clothes if the department failed to provide them either with uniforms or with an allowance by 1 October. This plan was put on hold pending negotiations between unions and the health department.

Since 2005, nurses received an annual allowance to buy their uniforms. But this ended on 31 March this year after a new agreement was signed by the Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council. Under the new agreement, nurses would be provided with uniforms.

As a result, nurses did not get the usual allowance in April this year. Instead, they were supposed to be provided with uniforms by 1 October 2023.

The agreement stated that in the first year, the department must provide nurses with four sets of uniforms, one pair of shoes, and one jersey. In the second year, it must provide three sets of uniforms, one belt, and one jacket.

But then, at a last-minute meeting of the bargaining council in September, the department told unions that it would be unable to meet the 1 October deadline. It proposed to put on hold the supply of uniforms until 2024.

Spokesperson for the Democratic Nursing Association of South Africa (DENOSA) Sibongiseni Delihlazo said labour unions said that if the department was unable to supply the uniform by 1 October, they must pay nurses an allowance as previously.

If the department failed to provide uniforms or pay an allowance, DENOSA said, its 84,000 members would embark on an indefinite protest action by wearing their own clothes at work from 1 October.

Following the last-minute bargaining council meeting in September, a new agreement was signed on 4 October.

The bargaining council resolved that a temporary uniform allowance of R3,153 be paid to all qualifying nurses by 30 November 2023. The health department also agreed to provide nurses with uniforms by 1 September 2024.

If the department fails to provide the uniforms by 1 September 2024, “the uniform allowance shall continue, considering the applicable inflation rate annually, as pronounced by the National Treasury in February”, the agreement read.

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

Source: GroundUp

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical IndustryTags :

Only with Both the Private and Public Sectors Working Together Will NHI Succeed

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Hush Naidoo Jade Photography on Unsplash

For National Health Insurance to succeed in South Africa, a meaningful collaboration needs to take place between private and public health care so as to speed up the implementation of the initiative and overcome major obstacles.

This was the opinion of the five panellists who on the first day of the Hospital Association of South Africa conference in Cape Town spoke of how best the NHI could be rolled out by calling on private health care for assistance.

“’It’s fundamental to the economic growth that we so desperately need in South Africa, and a productive nation needs access to health care. So we do need to address the inequalities, we need to address the gap and do not need to preserve the status quo,” said Professor Roseanne Harris, of Discovery Health.

But a concern she raised is the risk of the introduction of a single funding model reliant on taxes, and the introduction of a monopoly market.

“And one of the implications of the bill is centralisation (of health care). There is a need for planning to ensure that it won’t have an unintended consequence of impacting service delivery and impacting on the rights of the healthcare personnel,” she added.

Harris said that both the private sector and public sector needed to go through a consultative process and that sustainable critical milestones needed to be put in place to hold the process to account.

Another panellist at the event Dr Simon Strachan of the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF), pointed out that the COVID pandemic showed how public and private health care could collaborate successfully.  Here service agreements between the two entities were met and were focused solely on fighting the pandemic.

“So to create the way forward, what we need to be able to do is to have a very clear understanding of what it is we’re trying to achieve, that there is robust trust, and that there is a groundwork for sustainable collaboration,” he explained.

An urgent need for this collaboration he said was the recent introduction of Section 33 of the NHI bill, which in its present form would have health care professionals working for the state at a fee the state sets, with benefits not included.

A second issue he said was the need for a successful funding model that will be acceptable to all South Africans.

Economist Nicola Theron of FTI consulting told the audience that structures already in place and used in the private sector could make for a smoother transition for the NHI. In particular when it comes to issues like the pricing of medicines.

“We are now at a point with the current NHI that there are talks about the lowest possible price at a reasonable return for healthcare providers. There is no indication of what return means,” she said.

“But what we have is an existing system of pricing which has been developed over time, and which should form the basis of pricing going forward,” said Theron.

By not getting the pricing right could lead to investment leaving South Africa, she warned.  She suggested in turn that it would be a better model to have multiple buyers that will stimulate competition.

Dr Ali Hamdulay, CEO, Metropolitan Health, said that a way forward would be to implement the suggestions that came out of the Health Marketing Inquiry that took a hard look at both the public and private health care systems, outlining the problems with both.

“So effectively by addressing the recommendations of the Health Market Inquiry  you’re actually foster an environment of culture and direction to work towards universal health care,” said Hamdulay.

Barry Childs, of Insight Actuaries, said that while fundraising mechanisms in the public sector needed to be improved, the introduction of the NHI offers a great opportunity to reform the healthcare system.

“As much as we talk about the need for reform of the private sector side, there’s been no meaningful reform of the public sector for many decades. And the NHI is a wonderful opportunity for them to introduce some better, more responsive financing mechanisms.” he said.

But for NHI to ultimately provide the services it promises, Childs said South Africa’s economy needed to improve, and more jobs to be created.

Source: Hospitals Association of South Africa

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Respiratory DiseasesTags :

Opinion: This Court Case will Literally Determine whether Some People Get to Breathe

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

By Aneesa Adams for Spotlight

In a pivotal case for access to affordable medicines in South Africa, the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and Doctors Without Borders (MSF) Southern Africa – represented by SECTION27 – earlier this year came together to help champion access to lifesaving new cystic fibrosis treatments.

Cheri Nel, a South African woman living with cystic fibrosis, and the Cystic Fibrosis Association started legal action against Vertex Pharmaceuticals earlier this year, challenging Vertex’s monopoly on the treatments. The TAC and MSF approached the court to be joined as amici curiae. Vertex, an American pharmaceutical company, holds the patents for both Trikafta and Kalydeco – medicines that have the potential to significantly improve the lives of cystic fibrosis patients. However, at a price of US $311 000 per year per patient in the United States (over R5 million), it is out of reach for most people living with cystic fibrosis.

The court application is for a compulsory licence, which, if granted, will mean another manufacturer of generics for Trikafta and Kalydeco would be permitted to enter the South African market. In this case, it is likely that competition between manufacturers would affect the price of this medicine, thus making it more accessible. A compulsory licence allows the holder of the license to produce a patented product without the patent holder’s consent.

Johannesburg-based investment banker Cheri Nel is the driving force behind a court case that may result in dramatically expanded access to life-changing new cystic fibrosis (CF) medicines. PHOTO: Supplied

Spotlight previously reported that Nel’s lawyers argued that by failing to register or supply their CF medicines in South Africa, make them available in South Africa at reasonable prices, or license other companies to supply the medicines, Vertex is abusing its patents. They further argued that Vertex’s actions are violating the Constitutional rights of people with cystic fibrosis in South Africa, including the right to health care. (Spotlight previously reported on the issue here, here, and here.)

Cystic fibrosis is a devastating multi-system illness known for causing frequent and severe lung infections, liver and pancreatic damage, lung failure, and can result in the potential need for lung transplants even in children from as young as two years old.

This case will set an important precedent that can influence access to medicines not only in South Africa but around the world. The involvement of SECTION27, where I work, underscores the broader issue of affordable access to medicines and the impact of intellectual property on healthcare access.

At present, MSF and TAC are awaiting the court’s decision to be admitted as friends of the court, while in the main application, the respondent (Vertex) has filed answering affidavits.

And while the clock is ticking in the courts, many families in South Africa are waiting and holding on to the glimmer of hope access to this medicine represents. For many who live with cystic fibrosis, a successful outcome of Nel and the Cystic Fibrosis Association’s application will mean a life where they can breathe easier.

Among those waiting is 6-year-old Janco Koorts.

A journey of hope

His mother, Tanya Koorts, says living with cystic fibrosis is like fighting every day for every breath. She says Janco had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at the age of two. She has since been on a mission to raise awareness about this life-threatening disease. It is hope, her family, and the support from the cystic fibrosis community that has kept her going, she says.

Reflecting on the start of their journey in the Northern Cape, she says, “The knowledge about cystic fibrosis is very little. We were lucky that Dr Jooste at the Kimberly public hospital diagnosed him so early on. After that, he sent us to the Red Cross Hospital in Cape Town and so our long journey of hope started.”

Later in a new job in a new city, the Koorts began again in Pretoria. They started Janco’s treatment at the Steve Biko Academic Hospital and then moved to the Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital.

“They don’t have much, but they do everything they can there to help. They also don’t have a lot of support but the people at Charlotte Maxeke helped Janco on his journey to stay breathing,” Koorts says, applauding the public health system.

Janco now has comprehensive medical aid which covers his monthly R48 000 medication bill and Koorts says she can now “breathe easier”. That, however, is just a fraction of the cost of living with cystic fibrosis.

When the Koorts family heard about Trixacar, a generic version of Trikafta, it only strengthened their resolve to save Janco’s life. The patent rights registered by Vertex Pharmaceuticals in South Africa, however, do not allow for the import of Trixacar. Trixacar is produced by the pharmaceutical company Gador in Argentina. Koorts will thus have to travel to Argentina to buy the medicine. This will cost about R400 000 to cover the travel costs and six boxes of Trixacar that will last six months, she says. (You can help the family fund this by donating here.)

‘a thief of joy’

Apart from the financial burden, having a young child with cystic fibrosis has affected the Koorts family mentally and emotionally.

“Cystic fibrosis is a thief of joy. Nobody speaks about fighting to save someone’s life,” says Koorts.

She says her family had to adjust to some of the social changes in their surroundings as well.

“At school, he has to fight for himself to stay alive. If we go to a restaurant and there are people smoking, it affects him and we have to move. So, as much as we have tried to give Janco a normal childhood, these social aspects will always hinder progress, and he is always reminded that he is sick. But I live in hope and so does he.”

In terms of her family relationships, Tanya says that her other children are healthy and for them to see their baby brother suffering every day hurts them.

“It’s painful as parents. Janco needs all the attention. I can’t go to a parent’s evening for my other kids. It’s difficult,” Koorts says.

She says she is proud of Janco.

“My child doesn’t know that he is dying. We fight every day so that Janco can have just one more breath.”

And that is ultimately what it is all about. From one perspective the exchange of documents in the High Court may seem abstract and full of legal technicalities. But let there be no doubt, for kids like Janco it is literally their futures that are being decided.

*Adams is a communications officer at SECTION27.

NOTE: This opinion piece was written by a staff member of SECTION27. Spotlight is published by SECTION27 and the TAC, but is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously. The views expressed in this piece are not necessarily those of Spotlight.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons Licence.

Source: Spotlight

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

National Health Insurance Bill: Will it Wipe out Medical Insurance?

On By ModernMedia

The NHI Bill does not contain any clarity on how South Africa’s large and complex medical schemes and insurance industry will be affected.

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

By Lenee Green, Partner, Mateen Memon, Associate & Mariam Ismail, Trainee Attorney at Webber Wentzel

On 12 June 2023, the National Health Insurance Bill (the Bill) was passed by the National Assembly and is currently with the National Council of Provinces for consideration. Its laudable aim is to make primary healthcare widely accessible.

The Bill has been closely scrutinised by various stakeholders in the healthcare sector. Concerns have been raised by medical schemes and insurers about the effect the Bill will have on their current businesses.

The Bill, among other things, covers:

  • who will be able to access health care services;
  • how these services will be funded;
  • the establishment of a board and advisory committees to achieve the objectives of the Bill;
  • general provisions applicable to how the fund will operate;
  • complaints about and appeals of decisions made by the fund; and
  • the source of income of the Fund and transitional arrangements.

Clause 33 of the Bill states that once the National Health Insurance (NHI) is fully implemented, medical schemes can only offer complementary coverage for services not reimbursed by the NHI. Clause 6(o) of the Bill allows individuals to purchase services not covered by the NHI through voluntary medical insurance schemes. This means medical schemes cannot cover services already covered by the NHI, potentially jeopardising their existence. This approach may face constitutional challenges related to the right to access healthcare, property rights of medical schemes, and freedom of trade and profession.

It is contemplated that the Minister of Health will introduce regulations limiting benefits to services not reimbursable by the Fund.  We have not yet seen any indication when these regulations will be published.

Current regime

Broadly, four main categories of business will be impacted by the Bill:

  • business of a medical scheme as defined in the Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998 (MSA);
  • insurers licensed to conduct insurance business pursuant to the Insurance Act 18 of 2017 (the Insurance Act);
  • insurers who offer products pursuant to section 8(h) of the MSA (the Exemption Framework); and
  • insurers who offer products pursuant to the regulations published under each of the Long-Term Insurance Act 52 of 1998 and the Short-Term Insurance Act 53 of 1998 (the Demarcation Regulations).

Medical schemes

Presently, only medical schemes may carry on the “business of a medical scheme” as defined in the MSA. The “business of a medical scheme” involves undertaking liability for the provision of obtaining “relevant health services”, defraying expenditure for “relevant health services” or rendering health services by the medical scheme itself or by any supplier of a “relevant health service” in return for a premium or contribution.

A “relevant health service” under the MSA is very wide. It includes “any health care treatment of any person by any person registered in terms of any law, which treatment has as its object…” The objects include a broad range of medical services, including the physical or mental examination of a person, the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any physical or mental defect, illness, or deficiency, ambulance services and hospital or similar accommodation.

Insurers

Medical schemes must be distinguished from medical insurance provided by insurers. Insurers may provide medical insurance under, among other dispensations, the Insurance Act. Schedule 2 to the Insurance Act provides for various classes and sub-classes of insurance business for which life insurance companies and non-life insurance companies may be licensed. Schedule 2 allows insurers to provide health and disability benefits under the risk class of business for life insurance and accident and health and travel insurance under the classes for non-life insurance.

Health insurance is provided upon the happening of a health event. A health event is defined in the Insurance Act as one that relates to the health, mind or body of a person or an unborn, other than a disability event. The disability event is defined and includes circumstances where a person loses a limb or becomes physically or mentally impaired. It is apparent that there is an overlap of products provided for in the Insurance Act and offered under the MSA.

The Demarcation Regulations provide for the demarcation between insurance business and medical schemes business. The regulations provide that a benefit that would otherwise have been a medical scheme benefit, but meets the exact requirements (definitions) set out in the tables in the Demarcation Regulations, is classified as an insurance product.

In March 2017, the Counsel for Medical Schemes (CMS) issued an exemption framework for insurers as a transitional arrangement while the development of a low-cost benefit option (LCBO) for medical schemes was developed (Exemption Framework). To the extent that an exemption was granted to an insurer in terms of section 8(h) of the MSA, and subject to the conditions of the exemption, the insurer was permitted to continue to underwrite those products until the expiry of the exemption. On 25 January 2022, the CMS granted insurers that had previously been granted an exemption in terms of the Exemption Framework an extension of a further two years.

The background to the LCBO is that a ministerial task team on social health insurance launched the low-income medical scheme consultative process in 2005. In 2015, the CMS issued a circular that considered introducing a guideline to allow medical schemes to introduce LCBOs in response to the growing number of working South Africans who did not have medical scheme coverage because they could not afford it. Following various engagement processes, the LCBO Framework Advisory Committee issued a Report in May 2022 (the Report). The Report states that LCBOs still have the potential to “alleviate pressure in the public healthcare system and allow resources to be redirected to the poor”. This process has progressed quite slowly, and it remains to be seen what comes of it if anything.

While the Bill is a piece of framework legislation, it does not provide clarity on what will become of insurance under the current regime. The fate of medical schemes is dealt with in a very cursory manner, without considering the nuances of the current regime.

The LCBO could have been a path to make healthcare more accessible, but the process has become stifled, and it may never come to fruition. What is left in the wake of the Bill is a great deal of uncertainty. Industry participants and stakeholders will have to keep abreast of the process and ensure that their comments are taken into account as the system evolves.

Categories : Emergency Medicine Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Alarm Raised over Amendments to Road Accident Fund Act

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Pixabay

By Tania Broughton for GroundUp

The Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) has urged members of the public and civic associations to formally object to proposed amendments to the Road Accident Fund Act which, if approved, will have “dire consequences” for all South African road users.

The draft amendment bill was gazetted earlier this month by the transport minister. It proposes major changes to how the fund operates and how it will pay claims.

According to the LSSA, it proposes significant changes to the existing law, including removing the rights of drivers, passengers and pedestrians to claim compensation for injuries they have suffered. Instead, it proposes that the fund will only provide significantly reduced “social benefits”.

And, says the LSSA, an innocent injured party would still be denied the common law claim against the guilty party for the balance of his or her loss.

Yet all road users contribute directly or indirectly to the fund through the fuel levy, estimated to be about R45-billion a year.

“The poor and disempowered, who make up the vast majority of claimants and who are compelled to use public transport, will bear the brunt of the consequences of these amendments. They will be forced into the public health system, as the prescribed tariffs will not cover the actual costs incurred at a private hospital. Under the present system, many receive treatment at dedicated private healthcare facilities,” the LSSA says in its statement.

Claimants will also not receive any lump sum payments and, if they are not able to produce a payslip, it was unlikely that they would receive compensation for loss of earnings.

The LSSA said those who can afford it will be compelled to take out private accident cover for medical and other expenses as well as accident benefits.

“This is likely to be very costly, as there will be no reimbursement of expenses covered from the fund. Medical aids will more than likely exclude cover or the cost thereof will have to materially increase to preserve the funds in the pool for all members.”

The LSSA said road accident victims will be uniquely discriminated against by the proposed legislation.

“Their rights to be compensated for harm suffered by the fault of another will be taken away. Persons who suffer harm from medical negligence or are injured in train or plane or boat accidents or in shopping centres, hotels, construction sites, holiday resorts, private homes or by electrocution or pollution and by a host of other causes, have unfettered rights to seek compensation from the person or entity who caused them harm.

“Innocent motor vehicle accident victims, alone, do not have this right, despite the fact that they pay premiums to the fund.”

At present, injuries sustained in a motor car accident anywhere in South Africa by any person are covered by the Fund.

The Bill now excludes injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents in parking areas, sports fields, farm roads, driveways, private estates, game reserves or any other private road.

People who are not citizens or permanent residents are also not covered.

Persons crossing a highway are not covered. Persons injured in a hit and run are not covered. Pedestrians, drivers and cyclist who may test over the legal limit for alcohol and their dependents are not covered.

The Bill also proposes doing away with payments for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, disability, disfigurement or shock.

It also does away with lump sum payments for loss of earnings or support, replacing them with monthly payments, and giving the fund the right to continually reassess its liability to continue to pay.

While at present all medical and other expenses reasonably incurred that arise directly from the accident are covered, these will now be subject to a prescribed tariff. Any future medical expenses have to be pre-authorised.

The LSSA said the Bill also largely ousts the role of the courts in determining contested claims, establishing instead alternative dispute resolution procedures followed by referral to be a yet-to-be established Road Accident Fund Adjudicator.

Co-chair of the KZN Personal Injury Lawyers Association Anthony De Sousa said the biggest issues around the Bill was what was not known, such as what “social benefits” were and what the treatment tariffs would be.

“We don’t know what we are signing up for”.

“What also worries me is the people it excludes, such as pedestrians crossing highways. They don’t do that for fun. They do it because they have no choice and are trying to get to work or home.

“They are poor people and if they are knocked down, they really need help. To exclude them is just weird.”

He said while there may be a case not to cover motorists who don’t have licences, or who are over the legal alcohol limit, the Bill also proposed that their dependents are not covered, such as a child who is injured.

“The kids are not at fault, but suddenly they have no claim.”

He said the approach seemed to be: “Let’s try and save some money”.

“We pay a lot of money to the fund in terms of the levy. If you were to take that money and take up an insurance policy, you would probably get better cover and better value for money.

“I don’t think, no matter how they change it, it won’t work until they sort out the dysfunctionality, the administrative inefficiencies in the fund. You can change it to whatever system. They cannot properly administer it and run it.

“If they did their jobs properly, the fund would be saving itself a bucket load of money.”

De Sousa said the association was presently putting together its formal response to the proposals.

Collen Msibi, spokesperson for the Department of Transport said, “The bill is out for comments. The department will welcome all views and suggestions for its consideration.”

Comments and objections can be sent to Lindiwe Twala at twala@dot.gov.za or Trevor Mphahlele at mphahlelet@dot.gov.za

The deadline for comments is 8 October.

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

Source: GroundUp

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations HospitalsTags :

Concerns Raised at Public Health Conference over Freezing of Healthcare Worker Posts

On By ModernMedia

By Luvuyo Mehlwana for Spotlight

Photo by Hush Naidoo Jade Photography on Unsplash

The National Treasury’s Cost Containment Letter sent to government departments instructing, among others, the freezing of posts was one of the big themes underlying talks about building South Africa’s healthcare worker capacity during the Public Health Association of South Africa’s (PHASA) conference held recently in Gqeberha.

With Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana expected to deliver the medium-term budget policy statement on 1 November, the freezing of posts will further hamstrung already strained health services, some presenters at the conference warned.

An oversight visit to TB hospitals by members of the provincial legislature (MPLs) in the Eastern Cape in the first week of September (5 to 8 September) showed just how bad the staff shortages are. The only remaining hospital in Nelson Mandela Bay dedicated to TB services, Jose Pearson Hospital in Bethelsdorp, has had staff vacancies hovering around 20% since 2019. The hospital provides dedicated TB services to the western part of the province. MPLs heard that in some other hospitals, vacancy rates are even higher, and non-filling of critical posts in some cases results in further medico-legal claims against the department, as the current staff buckles under massive patient loads.

Last year, in response to a parliamentary question, figures the health department released showed that there were 3 892 vacant healthcare worker posts in the province. In the nursing categories, there was a vacancy rate of 15.3%. For paramedics (EMS) the vacancy rate was 10.7%, medical practitioners 8.4%, and pharmacists 13.7%. By June this year, in another response relating to specialist nurses, the vacancy rate in the province had dropped to 13%.

Dr Prudence Ditlopo Senior Researcher at the University of the Witwatersrand, was presenting her research on the impact of nurse workloads and professional support on healthcare outcomes at the PHASA conference. Ditlopo said nurses already have a huge workload and issues around budget cuts impact morale. “I am sure they are asking themselves what will happen to [them] when we [they’re] already understaffed.

“This is not the first time that this monotonous cycle has been happening. Yes, we understand the economic side of it, but at the very same time, what does it say about the well-being of the nurse practice environment, the patients, and the quality of patient care? If nurses see that they are overwhelmed by the workload, they will make sure to find ways that will enable them to cope.

“Enable them to cope” means nurses will find a way that works for them. If what works for them is only seeing ten patients per day, they will do that and they will be gatekeepers for other patients who are coming to the facility. That alone will influence the quality and standard of care in primary care in South Africa,” said Ditlopo.

‘Will create more problems’

Dr Busisiwe Matiwane of the University of The Witwatersrand’s School of Public Health also weighed in on the implications of the Treasury letter.

“In the current system, health professionals have to work for the government to fulfil their community service obligations. However, it can be challenging for them to be assigned to specific hospitals when it is time for their community service. Additionally, with the government announcing a freeze on posts, many individuals who are not government-funded may be compelled to seek employment outside of the government after completing their community service,” Matiwane told delegates.

“If these posts are indeed frozen, does that mean that the government will also halt the placement of individuals who are required to complete community service? The current structure dictates that if you fail to fulfil your community service, you will not be recognised by the statutory bodies as an independent practitioner.

“The implication of this proposal by the government will create more problems, as we already face the challenge of health professionals’ placement or their community services,” she said. “The main concern is whether the posts will be frozen and what will be done. I think this concern has raised questions for many people, who wonder what it means if they are unable to complete their community service or the internship. Does it mean they cannot work?” she asked.

‘protect what is already there’

Speaking on the sidelines of the three-day conference, director of the Rural Health Advocacy Project, Russell Rensburg, said the wage agreement on a 4.5% increase for the public sector had Treasury’s back against the wall since that was not budgeted for in their February budget.

“Treasury is playing hardball and the provinces must decide what they need. The national government must also decide what they need. If they follow through on this, they won’t be able to sustain the public health system. There is concern that doctors will leave as part of cost containment measures, and you can’t run a healthcare system without healthcare workers. But we will only know the true position of the Treasury when they publish the medium-term budget policy statement,” said Rensburg.

“I believe at the moment they are just testing the market. They are saying we must have one thing, but we can’t have both, so that is the game they are playing. Our position is clear on this issue. Before any salary cuts or job freezes, we need to protect what is already there. We need to retain this year’s cohort of community service doctors, pharmacists, and nurses because these people helped us during COVID-19. Some were interns during COVID-19 and they are the core that can build the health service in the post-COVID-19 era. So, the immediate priority is to retain those posts because we don’t know if there will still be community service going forward,” said Rensburg.

‘working with what we have’

Several speakers and presenters at the PHASA conference raised concerns about the existing scarcity of healthcare workers and urged the Department of Health to take action. The experts, academics, researchers, students, non-governmental organisations, and civil society members all agree that healthcare is a fundamental human right, but that right won’t be fulfilled without healthcare workers, as there cannot be health services without workers. The government’s key policy document on human resources for health warned as far back as 2020 that the country is facing a critical shortage of healthcare workers.

Dr Krish Vallabhjee, former Chief Director of Strategy and Health Support in the Western Cape Health Department, believes that management must use whatever resources are available to achieve good results.

Vallabhjee said, “Budget cuts are a reality, so whatever we talk about here and in many of these conference sessions, we can’t be talking about wanting more and more. We need to work with what we have. How can we repurpose the people we have? Can’t we use them more effectively to achieve the same effect?” he asked.

“Managers need to work with their staff instead of just sitting in some corner and making budget cut decisions. Managers need to engage with staff to address the problem of not having enough budget. How do we work together? What are our priorities? As managers, we must listen to what people are saying on the ground. What are the doctors, nurses, and local managers saying? We must be united. [It should not be a thing that one hospital, clinic, and the district [are] fighting for their own piece. We are one department and we have this problem of a budget. How do we unite and do the best we can?”

Government will clarify

In a cabinet statement issued on 14 September, Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni said that Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana would clarify the cost-containment letter issued on August 31.

“Cabinet appreciates the current fiscal constraints which are not unique to South Africa but have resulted in budget shortfall. Cabinet has iterated that measures to address the budget shortfall must not impact negatively on service delivery. The Minister of Finance will shortly issue guidelines clarifying the unintended misunderstanding arising from the Cost Containment Letter issued on 31 August 2023. In addition, as part of the in-year performance review of progress in implementation priorities agreed to with Ministers, the President, and Deputy President will meet with individual Ministers to ensure that fiscal management does not derail the agreed to priorities.”

Source: Spotlight

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

1 in 3 Medical Students in UK Plan to Leave the NHS

On By ModernMedia
Source: Pixabay CC0

South Africa is not the only country faced with a flight of doctors over working conditions. According to a survey of UK medical students published by BMJ Open, one in three plan to leave the National Health Service (NHS) – either to practise abroad or to stop practising medicine entirely. Of those who plan to go abroad, nearly half plan on never returning.

The responses indicate that pay, work-life balance, and working conditions are the key drivers behind the decisions to leave.

The UK has 3.2 doctors for every 1000 people, ranking 25th among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. This figure also represents the lowest number of doctors per head among European countries in the OECD, note the researchers.

In response to the shortage of doctors amid rising healthcare demand, the British government has opened new medical schools and expanded the student capacity of existing ones. But without addressing the issue of retention, increasing the number of medical students is unlikely to provide a sustainable long-term solution, they point out. 

In a bid to understand current career intentions after graduation and on completion of the 2-year Foundation Programme, the researchers surveyed 10 486 medical students, around 25.5% of the total, from across 44 UK medical schools between January and March 2023.

The survey included sections on intended career immediately after graduation and after foundation training (if applicable), as well as the factors influencing decision-making.

Respondents’ average age was 22; around two thirds (66.5%) were women. All students were asked their career intentions after graduation with most (8806; 84%) saying they planned to complete both years of the UK’s foundation training after graduating. 

But around 1 in 10 (10.5%;1101) intended to complete year 1 of foundation training and then emigrate to practise medicine: completion of the first year of foundation training provides doctors with full registration with the UK’s medical regulator (GMC), which is recognised internationally.

Another  over 2% (220) planned to emigrate to practise medicine immediately after graduation while just over 1% (123) intended to take a break or undertake further study.

Just over 1% of respondents (132) planned to complete their first foundation year and then leave the profession, while just under 1% (104) intended to leave medicine permanently immediately after graduation.

Among the 8806 respondents intending to complete both foundation years, nearly half (49%;4294) planned to enter specialty training in the UK immediately afterwards. 

Around a fifth (21%;1859) intended to enter a ‘non-training’ clinical job in the UK such as junior clinical fellowship or clinical teaching fellowship, or working as a locum doctor).

A further 23.5% (2071) intended to emigrate to practise medicine abroad, while around 6% (515) planned to take a break or undertake further study. Just 67 planned to leave medicine permanently after completion of year 2 of foundation training.

Around half (49.5%;1681) planned to return to UK medicine after a few years, while nearly 8% (267) intended to return after completion of their medical training abroad. But 42.5% (1444) indicated no intention to return. 

Of those favouring emigration immediately after graduation, just under 81% didn’t intend to return to the UK. This fell to 60% (661) among those planning to emigrate after completing year 1 of foundation training and 29% (605) among those planning to emigrate after year 2.

Among the 2543 medical students expressing a preference for destination country, Australia was the most commonly mentioned (42.5%), followed by New Zealand (18%), the USA (10.4%) and Canada (10.3%).

In total, around a third of medical students (32.5%;3392) plan to leave the NHS within 2 years of graduating, either to practise abroad or to pursue other careers. 

Remuneration at junior level, work-life balance, lack of autonomy over choice of training location, and the working conditions of doctors in the NHS were cited as the most important factors for those respondents intending to emigrate to continue their medical career. 

These reasons were also given by those planning to abandon medicine altogether, with nearly 82% of them also listing burnout as an important or very important reason.

Only just over 17% of all respondents said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall prospect of working in the NHS.

Intention doesn’t necessarily translate into action, and minds may change, say the researchers. And while the 25% response rate is relatively large, that still means a substantial proportion of the medical student body weren’t surveyed.

But they highlight: “This study highlights that an alarming proportion of surveyed medical students intend to leave the profession or emigrate to practise medicine,” emphasise the researchers, “representing a potential loss of valuable medical talent.” 

They continue: “The findings of this study emphasise the urgency of addressing the factors that are driving the exodus of doctors from the NHS and suggest that increased recruitment of medical students may not provide an adequate solution to staffing challenges. 

“The causes of the problem are complex, and finding a solution will require a multifaceted approach. Steps could include improving work-life balance, increasing salaries, addressing the growing competition for specialty training posts and promoting greater flexibility in career pathways.” 

They conclude: “Undoubtedly, the continued loss of skilled professionals from the NHS represents a significant concern, so it is critical to consider means of reversing this trend.” 

Source: EurekAlert!