Category: Healthcare Politics and Regulations

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

In-depth: What Two Major Bills Might Mean for Health Sector Procurement in SA

On By ModernMedia
Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town

By Alicestine October for Spotlight

Recently, in a major feat for transparency and accountability, the North Gauteng High Court ordered that the public must have access to COVID-19 procurement contracts – details of which, until now, have been kept away from the public eye as the government cited confidentiality clauses.

The Health Justice Initiative’s – who brought the court application – victory is a crucial one given the staggering size of public procurement contracts in the health sector.

According to Zukiswa Kota, South African Programme Head at the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM), this judgement deserves celebrating “as it deepens the case for transparency in public procurement and effectively challenges the many reasons often used to evade publication”. “Ultimately, what we need is proactive disclosure that is built into procurement legislation and – more importantly – is adhered to by government,” said Kota.

“It is inconceivable,” she said, “that in 2023 there continues to be limited transparency around fairly basic info – in this case COVID-19 vaccines. “The fact that there is no explicit transparency is an indictment and something we need to reflect on.”

The need for transparency has also been affirmed in the HJI judgement. “Non-disclosure of any of the records sought means that a shroud of secrecy is placed over the entire negotiation, procurement, and payment process – the very mischief our Constitution and legislation such as Paia seeks to address,” the judgement states. S217 of the Constitution states that public procurement by any state organ must be “in accordance with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective”. 

The case for transparency

The call for open contracting and to strengthen public procurement legislation is not a new one. It is also not confined to COVID-19 vaccines, but all public procurement, also in the health sector.

Dominic Brown, director at the Alternative Information & Development Centre (AIDC), also recently during a webinar on the launch of a report on pending legislative and regulatory changes in the healthcare sector made the case for transparent procurement. The Rural Health Advocacy Project compiled the report that also provides several recommendations for procurement reforms.

“The level of public procurement in the country is approximately 25% of GDP and the majority of government’s involvement in the economy is through this procurement, so it’s no small issue. It’s of extreme significance,” said Brown.

He said that in 2016, the former chief procurement officer in National Treasury estimated that between 30 to 40% of the country’s procurement budget is lost to inflated prices and fraud by the private sector. At the time, this amounted to R230 billion.

“At the moment, our procurement budget is about R1 trillion, which means that we are losing between R300 and R400 billion each year as a result of corruption linked to public procurement and this has major detrimental impacts on service delivery.”

Putting this impact into perspective, especially as it pertains to the health sector, RHAP’s director, Russel Rensburg during the same webinar said that provinces can spend up to 30% of their health budgets on the procurement of goods and services, which can run into billions. “Contrast this with the huge chunk spent on employee costs (often between 60 and 65% of health budgets), and growing inefficiencies and waste due to non-compliance to legislative prescripts – the pool of money remaining for health services is limited,” he said.

“Lack of compliance with financial management policies, particularly around supply chain monitoring policies, has resulted in the deterioration of several financial management indicators. We’ve seen an increase in qualified audit opinions of health departments and an increase in irregular and wasteful expenditure – amounting to R6 billion in the last financial year,” said Rensburg. “Competent financial management is essential to ensuring that maximum value is achieved from the resources deployed.”

The need for this “competent financial management” in the public sector was highlighted again last week when the Gauteng Department of Health’s Annual Report for 2022/23 was tabled in the provincial legislature. The report showed irregular expenditure to the value of over R2 billion, which means legislative prescripts were not followed in the procurement of goods and services, among others. In the Auditor-General’s (AG) report, she flagged the irregular expenditure stating that there were no effective and appropriate steps taken to prevent it. “The majority of this irregular expenditure,” the AG stated, “was caused by the department’s failure to invite competitive bids” when procuring goods and services.

Legislative reforms and procurement

Currently, in Parliament’s National Assembly, MPs are set to deliberate on the Public Procurement Bill. The bill provides for far-reaching reforms in public procurement. In Parliament’s National Council of Provinces, deliberations on the National Health Insurance Bill are underway. This bill also provides for far-reaching reforms to how health services will be structured and funded.

Both pieces of legislation have major implications for procurement in the health sector.

Yet, with these legislative reforms underway in Parliament, some stakeholders say that neither bill in its current form, will be a silver bullet to address all shortcomings in public procurement in the health sector. Questions also remain if these bills will ultimately result in real consequences for errant public officials in supply chain management or overreaching political office bearers.

Added to this is the overlap between provisions in the two bills, several provisions that lack clarity, and some areas of conflict between the bills that may lead to confusion down the line.

The case for alignment between the bills

The Public Procurement Bill aims to standardise and create a uniform regulatory framework for all procurement by government departments and entities. The NHI Bill, in turn, if passed will transform how publicly-funded health services are organised and delivered. The bill provides for a NHI Fund that will “strategically purchase healthcare services on behalf of users”.

Rensburg explains this fund must transfer funds directly to accredited and contracted central, provincial, regional, specialised and district hospitals based on a global budget or Diagnosis-related Groups. The bill also provides for an Office of Health Products Procurement (OHPP), he said, but the exact scope of this office’s mandate is not yet clear.

According to the bill, this office (OHPP) will be responsible for “the centralised facilitation and coordination of functions related to the public procurement of health-related products”.

According to Yana van Leeve, from the law firm ENSafrica, the NHI fund will be a S3A public entity so the procurement bill will apply to that entity. S3A public entities under the Public Finance Management Act can be defined as a public entity with the mandate to fulfil a specific economic or social responsibility of government and they depend on government funding and public money.

Van Leeve was also a panellist during the RHAP webinar.

She explained that section 217 of the Constitution will also apply to this process of acquiring services because the NHI Fund will be engaging in public procurement when it engages healthcare service providers and health establishments in both the public and private sectors. Van Leeve said that it is not clear in the NHI Bill, however, that “there is an appreciation that this dimension of the scheme will amount to formal procurement and will thus be subject to normal procurement law”. “The implication would then be that one of the prescribed forms of procurement, for example, quotations or open bidding must be used to secure the services of these health service providers.” According to her, the NHI Bill, however, creates the impression that there is a different type of arrangement to be considered for the acquiring of such services. In section 39 of the NHI Bill, for example, accreditation of health service providers is required.

The procurement bill, in turn, provides for a Public Procurement Office that must create and maintain a database of prospective suppliers. Departments or other public entities may only procure from suppliers listed in this database. This may result in some practical problems as the requirements to be added to the existing central supplier database of National Treasury may differ from what the NHI Bill requires from suppliers. For example, to get on the database, National Treasury may consider a legitimate entity as one with a valid tax certificate, but, said van Leeve, “If you are procuring health products, for example, you may need other things to accredit a potential supplier, which treasury does not necessarily look at when it builds its database”.

“So, immediately you can see there will be tension between what the NHI envisage for creating its services and products lists versus what the public procurement office will develop in terms of the national supplier database. So, on the one hand, NHI is creating a special procurement system for health and providing for units and committees that will be responsible for identifying health services and buying health products and it’s not clear how these two pieces of legislation are going to interact.”

Van Leeve did say, however, that it is possible that the Minister of Finance “can differentiate between institutions and categories of procurement, but nothing in the procurement bill currently requires the minister to do so and there is no guidance on the considerations relevant to differentiating between categories of public institutions”.

She said it is possible for the bill to still make clear provision for the minister to make exemptions from the procurement bill. Currently, section 56(b) of the bill, for example, only provides – “the Minister may, with or without conditions, by notice in the Gazette, exempt a procuring institution from any provision of this Act, if— (a) national security could reasonably be expected to be compromised, or (b) the procurement is to be funded partially or in full by donor or grant funding and such exemption will benefit the public in general or a section of the public”.

But van Leeve insists that one way or the other, “It will be important – certainly in the way in which the NHI and procurement bills become operationalised for there to be comity between the bills.”

The RHAP report also recommends that “the relationship between health authorities and the public procurement structures proposed in the draft Public Procurement Bill must be clarified. The Public Procurement Bill makes no specific reference to health procurement as a special type of public procurement. At the same time, the NHI Bill contemplates a very particular regime in respect of health procurement. These two draft Bills will have to be aligned.”

According to the report, “the tension between the decentralised nature of public finance management in South Africa under the PFMA and Municipal Finance Management Act on the one hand and the highly centralised nature of public health services spending under the proposed NHI on the other hand, will have to be addressed”.

The shadow of politics

There are also other considerations besides overlapping provisions in the two bills – the shadow of politics through the blurring of the administrative and political interface often becomes a problem.

Rensburg highlighted, among others, it is still not clear how compliance with procurement policies will be audited and how often, or what the different sanctions will be for those not complying. “We see, especially with emergency procurement, that managing procurement functions is open to a lot of different kinds of pressures, he said. “The procurement bill does create frameworks for public office bearers to not be involved in the procurement process and for subject matter experts to be involved in procurement decisions, but there are a lot of things happening in the shadow that you can’t explicitly link to involvement of political principles in administrative processes,” said Rensburg.

“There is an added complexity,” Brown said, “when you hear, for example, of ANC tender committees, or when there is a tender chairperson who then can determine who gets and doesn’t get various contracts. This is deeply rooted in the state – from local government all the way up to national level, and across state-owned enterprises.”

Case in point, in the public health sector, the Digital Vibes scandal epitomised this “complexity” when then-Minister of Health, Dr Zweli Mkhize was implicated in tender irregularities and subsequently resigned.

Another criticism of the Public Procurement Bill is that it leaves a lot, arguably too much,  of the detail of how procurement will actually work up to regulation rather than setting it down in primary legislation. This, suggested Caroline James and Sam Sole in a recent Daily Maverick article, leaves the door open to political interference.

Corruption Watch’s executive director, Karam Singh, during a different webinar in August on the procurement bill by the Special Interest Group on Public Procurement Law, also flagged some gaps in the definitions in the procurement bill, especially around issues like conflicts of interest and politically exposed persons.

In terms of chapter three of the procurement bill that deals with procurement integrity and prohibition of certain practices and debarment, anybody who is involved in the procurement process – that is from the accounting officer, bid committee, or tribunal – must comply with the prescribed code of conduct, failing which will constitute misconduct. According to Singh, however, the bill falls short of stipulating who must issue the code of conduct, how it would be updated, and where it would work, as well as where or when it must be made available. “There is very little detail on how misconduct would be handled,” he said, “and so there is a gap between understanding what this code of conduct would be, how it would come about and if it will be presented for public participation and public comment.” He said it is also unclear what would be the enforcement mechanism which would stand behind the code of conduct to make it effective.

Responding to concerns over tender corruption risks

In June this year, during a briefing by Dr Nicholas Crisp, Deputy Director-General in the National Health Department on the NHI Bill to MPs in the NCOP, concerns were flagged over the risk of tender corruption in the NHI Fund. Later, in August during a briefing to MPLs in the Western Cape provincial legislature, the same concerns were raised.

At every point, Crisp insisted, “The NHI Fund will handle very little by way of tender. The accreditation is not a tender process. It’s voluntary registration by a service provider – public or private – as long as they meet the criteria. The prices will be fixed and the way services are delivered will be fixed when it comes to the procurement.”

According to Crisp, when it comes to the procurement processes for goods, particularly health products, the NHI Fund is only involved in the first stage. “The Fund would not go about the logistics of purchasing anything. The providers needed to purchase once those prices were set. There was far less vulnerability in the Fund than first thought when one looked at the Bill,” he said.

Spotlight followed up with Crisp for further clarification in lieu of the RHAP report and the implications of the procurement bill for the NHI Bill. Crisp said, that according to the NHI Bill, the Fund will determine the Formulary that it will pay for and will establish the prices of the items in the Formulary. “It is the intention that the NHI agency will not buy any ‘health products’ and will not have storerooms and warehouses since the agency (the NHI Fund) is not a provider of services. The providers will buy what they need to deliver the benefits that they are accredited to provide. Accredited providers (public and private) will buy at the approved NHI prices and this is how the health department works now,” he said. “The provincial health departments do the buying and storing, etc.”

He stressed that the Fund will not go on tender for healthcare providers. “The bill in s39 says that providers will be accredited and all accredited providers will be paid for the benefits that they deliver. So, it is intended to not be exclusionary.”

On the implications of the Public Procurement Bill for the NHI Bill, he told Spotlight the department is still studying the procurement bill and these issues (as raised in the RHAP report and through various stakeholders) are being considered. He also noted that according to the NHI Bill, “If any other law, except the Constitution or PFMA, conflicts with the NHI Bill then the NHI bill prevails. But we will want to engage with the intentions, merits, and any potential challenges with Treasury,” he said.

Have your say

Members of the public have until 15 September to make written submissions on the version of the NHI Bill currently before the NCOP. Meanwhile, National Treasury this week briefed MPs in the Standing Committee on Finance on the Public Procurement Bill. The deadline for written submissions is 11 September.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons Licence.

Source: Spotlight

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Medical Sector Airs their Concerns about the NHI Bill and the Impact on the Health of Citizens

On By ModernMedia

At a recent media briefing session hosted by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF), managing director, Dr Katlego Mothudi, together with a distinguished panel of healthcare leaders addressed critical concerns regarding the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill proposed by the South African government. The panellists, including BHF’s Chairperson, Ms Neo Khauoe, Dr Stan Moloabi, Chairperson of the BHF’s Universal Health Coverage Committee (UHC), Dr Mvuyisi Mzukwa, Chairperson of the South African Medical Association (SAMA), Prof Alex van der Heever, an expert in Health Care Governance at University of Witwatersrand  (WITS), and BHF’s Head of Health System Strengthening, Dr Rajesh Patel, jointly emphasised the critical importance of addressing the current shortcomings in the NHI Bill. The panel highlighted the urgent need for systematic amendments before the Bill’s implementation. 

While the BHF supports the concept of universal health coverage, Neo Khauoe strongly disagrees with the approach of the NHI Bill that public healthcare funding must increase at the expense of medical schemes.  “The private health funding sector in South Africa should not be sacrificed in favour of NHI. It is too valuable in terms of jobs, scarce skills, infrastructure, financial investment, the quality of the health care services its beneficiaries receive, the value it adds to the economy, and the support it has lent to the public health sector,’’ she said.  

Rajesh Patel, highlighting concerns within Section 33 of the Bill, pointing out the need for clarity in the Minister’s decision-making processes regarding the inclusion of rules for thorough implementation and addressed ambiguity in NHI contracting with health service providers. He said, one of the bigger complications is that maternity care has been excluded from the medical scheme’s benefits.  

“There are absolutely no indicators in Section 33 to guide the Minister as to when NHI is fully implemented. Section 33 is thus contrary to the constitutional principle of administrative justice and allows the Minister to act arbitrarily. The determination by the Minister is an administrative decision that is subject to Section 33 of the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No. 3 of 2000. As such, it must be lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. How is the Minister to know what will make his decision lawful if Parliament gives him no guidance in the NHI Act? The minister is not the lawmaker. That is Parliament’s role,” said Patel. 

He emphasised the complexity of the NHI fund contracting health service providers and proposed the simplification of the process to encourage the participation of private sector firms in this undertaking. The private health service providers are estimated to be between 65 000 and 70 000 individuals and entities. The issues raised include the capacity for the responsible party for certifying and accrediting these health service providers and facilities, which will thereafter determine their eligibility for contractual engagement. The slow pace of certification and accreditation may limit access to care for healthcare users, as the user must register with NHI via accredited health service providers. Should contractual arrangements fail the health citizens risk not being funded from the NHI.

Stan Moloabi, Chair of the UHC Committee at BHFs, emphasised that medical schemes are important in healthcare provision and this importance is beyond just financial aspects. Serving as an integral stakeholder in the ecosystem that allows the health citizen’ to access the necessary health services in a timely, effective, and efficient manner, ultimately ensuring the provision of high-quality care.  Moloabi concluded by saying, “We are currently facing uncertainties regarding the specific details that will arise from the ongoing policy changes outlined in the NHI Bill.  As private healthcare funders, our primary goal is to actively collaborate with policymakers, which is crucial to achieving our shared objective of achieving UHC.“

According to Alex van der Heever, the NHI Bill is designed in a manner that will further undermine the already precarious situation of the South African healthcare sector. The discourse surrounding the move towards the achievement of universal health coverage in the country necessitates a comprehensive examination of the underlying goals associated with the concept of universal health care. Medical schemes are currently an integral component of the health system providing cover to 9 million lives. The hybrid universal coverage model is widely employed across the globe. He expressed his concerns pertaining to the single funder in the NHI Bill and the pressure on the health care system should all citizens rely on a single scheme. Furthermore a single fund is an impractical approach for both rich and developing countries Given South Africa’s limited GDP strength, such a proposition appears particularly unreasonable. 

Neo Khaoue provided an in-depth analysis of the prospective financial consequences that enterprises may encounter because of the implementation of the NHI programme. Khaoue specifically emphasised the expected discrepancy in healthcare accessibility rates among employees under the NHI Bill in comparison to the existing system. The discrepancy is anticipated to extend the duration of employees’ recuperation, resulting in supplementary expenses for employers because of the postponed resumption of employees’ work duties. Considering the democratic nature of South Africa, it is crucial to prioritise the provision of opportunities for South African citizens to exercise their autonomy in shaping the course of their own future.  Khauoe questioned the means through which discrepancies between private and public healthcare systems can be mitigated, particularly considering the existing difficulty of lengthy waiting times for various medical treatments.  She said, “What strategies could be used to help the NHI Bill to simplify some of its processes, for example, if one is prepared for a certain operation but there is no anaesthesia available and the procedure is not performed on the specified day, what then? Furthermore, it is imperative to establish a reliable mechanism to guarantee that those who have been scheduled for operations or procedures will indeed undergo them on the designated days without any rescheduling. This demonstrates the necessity of both public and private sector involvement in addressing and resolving existing imbalances as a primary concern.” 

 According to Mvuyisi Mzukwa, the Chairman of SAMA, the NHI Bill has the potential to impose financial consequences on healthcare practitioners. Although healthcare providers may qualify for payment for services provided to beneficiaries of the NHI, it is important to note that the rates for these services may be standardised. This standardisation could potentially lead to a decrease in their revenue compared to the fees charged in private practice. Therefore, it may be necessary for practitioners to adjust their financial expectations and business strategies. He affirmed that the potential consequences of NHI could vary significantly depending on the legislative and regulatory framework in place. He went on to say, “Nevertheless, it is crucial to consider the financial implications for healthcare professionals when finalising the NHI Bill. The most important thing is that as the private health care practitioners we want to participate via collaboration with the policy makers in ensuring that we achieve those ideas they have.” 

“As BHF, we are resolute that we provide the health citizen with a comprehensive understanding of the potential implications, challenges, and shortcomings of the NHI Bill before the upcoming provincial briefing sessions to be convened by the government. This is essential for fostering transparency, informed public discourse, and evidence-based policymaking in healthcare reforms and for giving South Africans a clear understanding of how the Bill will affect the lives of every citizen. I urge all South Africans to participate as it will impact all of us,” Katlego Mothudi said. 

Mothudi highlighted that BHF firmly supports the freedom of the people of South Africa to spend their disposable income as they see fit, including insuring any of their health needs through medical schemes. This right is derived from the constitutional value of personal freedom in a democratic society and the rights to human dignity, privacy, freedom of association, freedom of thought, belief, and opinion, and the right to have access to health care services and emergency medical treatment. 

“The NHI Bill is anticipated to have a cascading impact on the already declining state of the public health system in South Africa,” concluded Mothudi.    

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

SAHPRA Earns a Regulatory Accolade of Note

On By ModernMedia
Gloved hand holding vial of Janssen COVID vaccine
Photo by Spencer Davis on Unsplash

The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has been designated as a Regional Centre of Regulatory Excellence (RCORE) for Vaccines Regulatory Oversight for a period of four (4) years in the following functions:

  • Overarching Regulatory Systems
  • Marketing Authorisation and Registration
  • Vigilance
  • Market Surveillance and Control
  • Licensing of Premises
  • Regulatory Inspections
  • Laboratory Access and Testing
  • Clinical Trials
  • Lot Release

The rationale behind the African Union Development Agency, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (AUDA-NEPAD) designating RCOREs is to support continent-wide regulatory systems strengthening through leveraging capacity in better resourced regulators. The reality of medicine regulatory capacity limitation on the continent continues to hinder access to essential medicines as well as limit progress in regulatory harmonisation efforts. The intention is to address this regulatory gap and ensure the acceleration and strengthening of regional medicines regulatory harmonisation initiatives. RCOREs are required to support regulatory workforce strengthening through training in regulatory functions and enhance skills through hands-on training and exchange programmes amongst National Medicines Regulatory Authorities.

About RCOREs

The Regional Centres of Regulatory Excellence (RCOREs) is an initiative of the AUDA-NEPAD. As part of its mandate to strengthen regulatory capacity development in Africa, AUDA-NEPAD through its AMRH programme has designated 11 RCOREs in eight different regulatory functions which include:

  • Pharmacovigilance
  • Training in core regulatory functions
  • Quality assurance and quality control of medicines
  • Medicine registration and evaluation, quality assurance/quality control and clinical trials oversight
  • Licensing of the manufacture, import, export, distribution and inspection and surveillance of manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and dispensers of medicine
  • Clinical trials oversight
  • Registration and evaluation and clinical trials oversight
  • Medicine evaluation and registration

Source: SAHPRA

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

CMS Provides Clarity over BHF’S Court Challenges

On By ModernMedia

Various stakeholders within the medical schemes value chain have sharply raised concerns over the unending court challenges brought by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) against CMS. As an agile regulator, the CMS endeavours to clarify any misconception and confusion over BHF’s court challenges.

Chronology of Events

Initially, the main issue brought by BHF in this case was to request the court to grant them a general exemption for medical schemes to offer low-cost benefit options and to declare an alleged moratorium unlawful by the CMS and Ministry of Health in order to prevent medical schemes from offering low-cost benefit options.

In response, the CMS vehemently opposed the application on the basis that there was no moratorium as alleged by BHF and it would be thus unlawful to grant BHF a general exemption for medical schemes to offer low costs benefit options.

“It must be noted that while the main case/dispute was still ongoing (even after CMS submitted an extensive record of documents that were compliant with relevant information and documents having been exchanged between CMS and BHF), surprisingly BHF brought an interlocutory application alleging that CMS and the Minister were hiding certain information.”

Accordingly, the interlocutory application requested CMS and the NDOH to release an exhaustive list of documents which the CMS believed were irrelevant and had no bearing on the main application.

Despite CMS’s vehement contestation to the court on the additional requested documents by BHF, Judge Botha granted the BHF the order they sought, and the CMS, as well as the Minister of Health were ordered to produce the documents listed in Notice in terms of Rule 30A within 10 (ten) days of the Court Order, being 24 July 2023. 

Before the expiration of rule 18 of the superior court, CMS filed leave to appeal the court order of Judge Botha as CMS believed that the order was flawed in law and that the judge had no reasons for ordering CMS and the Minister to produce those documents.

While the CMS legal team was studying the order, BHF concurrently lodged a contempt of court on an urgent basis.

CMS, through its attorneys, moved swiftly and wrote to BHF urging them to withdraw the contempt application as the CMS had already lodged its leave to appeal the court order of Judge Botha and this meant that the court order by Judge Botha would been suspended. 

BHF refused to withdraw the contempt application and the application was heard on 8th August 2023 and the court dismissed BHF’s application on 10 August 2023 with costs in favour of CMS and Minister.

Citing Judge E van der Schyff who emphasised that “in the Practice Manual of the Gauteng High Court Division that while an application maybe urgent, it may not be sufficiently urgent to be heard at the time selected by an applicant” and also strongly highlighted that it does “not mean that applicants can indiscriminately approach the urgent court on the basis of extreme urgency without having regard to the context and facts of each individual application.”

Based on this order, the contempt application is now in our view moot or rather has been overtaken by the leave to appeal lodged by CMS and the Minister and CMS/NDOH. The leave to appeal will be heard somewhere September 2023.

The main application brought by BHF is likely to be heard in later parts of 2024.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations HIVTags : 1 Comment

In-depth: The Court Ruling that Gives Qualifying Pharmacists the Green Light to Provide HIV and TB Meds Without a Script

On By ModernMedia
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

By Catherine Tomlinson for Spotlight

Specially trained and accredited pharmacists in South Africa will now be allowed to provide people with medicines to prevent HIV and tuberculosis (TB) and to treat uncomplicated HIV without a doctor’s script. This is because the North Gauteng High Court this week ruled against an application by the IPA Foundation (an association of private doctors) attempting to block the implementation of Pharmacist-Initiated Management of Antiretroviral Therapy (PIMART).

PIMART involves the introduction of a legislative framework, a specialised training course, and an accreditation process to allow pharmacists to supply HIV and TB medicines to people visiting pharmacies, under certain conditions, without a doctor’s script.

The ruling in the case of IPA Foundation versus the South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC) was handed down by Judge Elmarie van der Schyff on 14 August 2023 – almost two years to the day exactly after legislation introducing PIMART was published by the SAPC. Board Notice 101 of 2021 was published on 13 August 2021 (at the time, Spotlight published an in-depth article on the case for PIMART).

While PIMART has been delayed for two years by the IPA Foundation’s legal challenge, Judge van der Schyff’s ruling now clears the way for the SAPC to proceed with its implementation.

Steve Letsike, Chair of the SAPC’s Health Committee and PIMART Task Team, said in a media conference on Thursday that the IPA Foundation has until 8 September to appeal the High Court’s decision. Speaking at the same media conference, Mogologolo Phasha, President of the SAPC, indicated that if the IPA Foundation appeals the ruling, the SAPC will continue to fight to preserve the initiative in higher courts.

Spotlight asked the IPA Foundation whether they plan to appeal the decision, but no response was received by time of publication.

The background

The introduction of PIMART was proposed by the SAPC in 2018 in response to a request from the National Department of Health for the SAPC to develop an intervention to enable pharmacists to help get HIV prevention treatment to more people quicker.

Pharmacists trained and accredited under the PIMART initiative will be able to provide preventative therapy for HIV (both post-exposure and pre-exposure prophylaxis – PEP and PrEP), TB preventive therapy, and first-line antiretroviral treatment for uncomplicated HIV.

According to Phasha, around 900 pharmacists, or 5% of pharmacists on the register have already undertaken specialised, supplementary training to enable them to provide PIMART services. He noted, however, that before trained pharmacists would be able to start providing PIMART services they would need to receive accreditation in the form of a permit granted by the National Department of Health under Section 22(A)15 of the Medicines and Related Substances Act.

The court’s response to the IPA Foundation’s arguments

In February 2022, the IPA Foundation filed an affidavit with the North Gauteng High Court seeking review and dismissal of the SAPC’s decision to implement PIMART and related legislation.

In its affidavit, the IPA Foundation argued that the provision of PIMART services falls within the domain of medical doctors and that pharmacists do not have the required training and competencies to provide these services. The IPA Foundation further argued that the SAPC does not have the legislative mandate to introduce PIMART, that the SAPC’s reasons for implementing PIMART were not adequately explained, and that the SAPC’s procedures for implementing PIMART were not procedurally fair and did not provide adequate opportunity for interested parties to comment.

The IPA Foundation warned of a “slippery slope” resulting from PIMART’s introduction, adding “this objection essentially warns of the opening of the floodgates or perhaps an anticipated negative precedent setting occurrence relevant to the provision of medication… without prescription”.

In her ruling, Judge van der Schyff noted that while tension between healthcare cadres regarding their scopes of practice is common, the World Health Organization calls for “a collaborative approach to primary healthcare issues and the embracing of task-shifting”.

She added that “competition, per se, does not limit or curtail the rights of medical practitioners to continue providing the services that they currently provide,” further stating that “even if the assumed competition is regarded to affect family practitioner’s rights adversely, the alleged adverse effect it holds for medical practitioners has to be considered against the need to expand primary healthcare services aimed at preventing and treating HIV”.

Judge van der Schyff dismissed the IPA Foundation’s argument that the SAPC is not mandated to introduce PIMART, stating that “the SAPC is empowered to prescribe the scope of practice of the various categories of persons registered in terms of the Pharmacy Act”. She added, “The development and implementation of PIMART, does not expand the existing scope of practice of pharmacists that generically provides for PIT [pharmacist-initiated therapy] and PCDT [primary care drug therapy]. It introduced a specialised category of PIT and PCDT focused on preventing and treating HIV.”

Judge van der Schyff also rejected the IPA Foundation’s arguments that PIMART’s introduction was procedurally unfair and the decision for its implementation was not properly explained, arbitrary, or capricious. She says that “through its collaboration with the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society, whose members include numerous medical doctors, the development of PIMART was given great exposure”.

“The need to widen access to first-line ART [antiretroviral therapy] and TPT [TB preventative therapy] on a community level is not a figment of SAPC’s imagination, but a dire need that is also evinced in other countries,” held van der Schyff.

Finally, Judge van der Schyff rejected the argument that pharmacists are not adequately trained to provide PIMART services, stating, “The PIMART training course was developed to ensure that pharmacists who successfully completed the training would be ‘suitably qualified to safely and effectively assist in providing ART’.” She adds that the PIMART training course was “developed by suitably qualified experts in the field, which experts include medical practitioners”.

The ruling was welcomed by the SAPC and several HIV groups.

“The superior court yesterday (Wednesday) confirmed what has been our long-held view that PIMART is a necessary and competently designed intervention programme to support South Africa’s efforts in providing access to patients diagnosed with HIV and AIDS,” said Phasha. “The programme may also arrest and lower the ballooning HIV budget, which is nearly half the national health budget, by reducing the rate of new infections.”

Nelson Dlamini, Head of Communications at the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC), told Spotlight that SANAC welcomes the court ruling.

“The magnitude of South Africa’s HIV burden requires innovative ways of accessing HIV treatment, care, and support. PIMART is one such approach that will improve access to antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV and those requiring PEP & PrEP,” said Dlamini.

Sibongile Tshabalala, Chairperson of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), said the organisation also welcomes the ruling. “The challenges that we are facing in the country include one of people queuing for a long time in facilities… and also the attitude of nurses in facilities which chases away so many people from facilities. We also have the issue of key populations that are not comfortable to go in public health facilities to access medication… so if a pharmacist is able to issue and prescribe ARVs and TB medication it will mean that we will be able to cover a lot of people.”

*NOTE: A representative of the TAC is quoted in this article. Spotlight is published by SECTION27 and the TAC, but is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously. Spotlight is a member of the South African Press Council.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons Licence.

Source: Spotlight

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations HIVTags :

Court Ruling Means that Pharmacists can Prescribe to People with HIV

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán: https://www.pexels.com/photo/syringe-and-pills-on-blue-background-3936368/

The South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC) has been given judicial go-ahead to introduce its Pharmacy-Initiated Management of Antiretroviral Treatment (PIMART) initiative, which will allow specially trained pharmacists to manage and prescribe medicine to patients with HIV and tuberculosis.

Pretoria High Court Judge Elmarie van der Schyff has dismissed an application brought by a doctors’ organisation – the IPA Foundation – for the setting aside of the programme.

She said the pilot project had emphasised the value of the initiative, which was in line with the World Health Organisation’s vision to promote widely accessible primary health care.

“The untapped value of pharmacists in fighting HIV was also emphasised by the efficient role pharmacies played in meeting health care needs and providing health care services during the Covid-19 pandemic,” she said.

“The need to widen access to first line ART and TPT therapy on a community level is not a figment of SAPC’s imagination but a dire need that is also evinced in other countries.”

Read the judgment here

The IPA Foundation approached the court, under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), seeking to review and set aside the SAPC’s decision to implement PIMART.

IPA claimed that the SAPC had failed to give interested parties an adequate opportunity to comment before the initiative was implemented. It further contended that PIMART unjustifiably encroached on the domain of medical practitioners and was in conflict with legislation.

IPA also accused SAPC of misleading the Director-General of Health, claiming there had been extensive consultation with stakeholders, which led to the approval and issuing of permits for the initiative.

The SAPC said the application should be dismissed. It said pharmacy-provided primary healthcare was a well known and functional concept in South Africa and PIMART was simply a “widening of this”.

Referring to the background and context, Judge van der Schyff said, in line with WHO recommendations that all people living with HIV must be provided with ART, the department of health had requested the SAPC to consider and implement interventions that would ensure that patients had increased access to medicines.

This led to the SAPC requesting the Director-General in August 2018 to consider issuing permits to pharmacists who had completed supplementary training, to manage patients and to dispense medication under PIMART.

In March 2021, the SAPC published a notice for public comment regarding the adoption of PIMART. The first permits were issued in August that year.

However, IPA submitted objections outside of the timeline for comments. It said this was because its members were struggling with another wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Pharmacists and doctors operate in distinct and separate professional domains, the boundaries of which are closely guarded and some tension exists … IPA’s objection to PIMART seems to be rooted, partially at least, in this professional tension.

“This is evidenced by its fear that the decision to implement PIMART might ‘open the floodgates’ and ‘pave the way for pharmacists to ultimately treat and prescribe other schedule 4 drugs in respect of acute illnesses’,” the Judge said.

She noted, however, that the National Drugs Policy, in line with WHO guidelines, promoted “task shifting” to advance access to medicine and that at primary level, prescribing should be competency based, not occupation based.

Any alleged adverse effect that PIMART held for a medical practitioner had to be considered against the need to expand primary health care services aimed at preventing and treating HIV and providing first-line ART therapy.

Judge van der Schyff said the initiative gave members of the public a choice as to whether they wanted to approach a pharmacist, who had been issued with a permit, or a general practitioner.

In considering procedural fairness, the judge said there was nothing sinister in the timing of the notice calling for comment, that the project was not something hidden in secrecy and “I find it improbable, as alleged, that none of IPA’s members had timeous knowledge of the board notice”.

The decision to implement PIMART also fell within the ambit of the SAPC’s powers.

Evidence also showed that the PIMART training course was developed to ensure that pharmacists who successfully completed the training would be suitably qualified to safely and effectively assist in providing ART.

Judge van der Schyff dismissed the review application and ordered IPA to pay the costs.

Professor Francois Venter, former President of the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society and Director of Ezintsha, an HIV research organisation at Wits University, commented, “I hope this is the end of it. The pharmacies are an essential part of the health system, and pharmacists internationally play a big role in expanding HIV services.”

Republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons 4.0 Licence.

Source: GroundUp

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical IndustryTags :

Analysis: Incentives Seem to Work in Private Healthcare, Why Not in Public?

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash

By Amy Green for Spotlight

Doing ‘the right thing’ for one’s health, be it eating well, exercising, or going for an annual HIV test or blood pressure check, is easier said than done. One way to nudge people to make these ‘right’ decisions is to offer rewards or incentives. Discovery Health Medical Scheme’s Vitality programme is probably the best local example of such an incentive programme.

While incentive programmes have made a splash in private healthcare, they’ve hardly caused a ripple in South Africa’s public sector. In fact, the only public sector incentive of any notable scale of which we are aware was the vouchers that were offered to people who got vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. There have been several scientific studies of cash transfers and other incentives, but the data is relatively limited and the differences between studies were substantial, as indicated in this review of cash transfers for HIV prevention, among others.

Evidence from other countries has shown that a targeted public sector incentive programme could yield significant positive results. The Indian Government launched a programme called Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) in 2005, “with the goal of reducing the numbers of maternal and neonatal deaths” using a conditional cash transfer scheme to encourage giving birth in a health facility. In those who benefited from the scheme, there was a reduction of 4.1 perinatal deaths per 1000 pregnancies and a reduction of 2.4 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births.

As Spotlight has recently reported, South Africa is doing relatively poorly against its diabetes and hypertension targets and substantially better against its HIV targets. Yet, we can find no evidence that the Department of Health has given serious thought to incentive programmes in these various areas.

Some might argue that the impact of such programmes is unproven and that they are too expensive. No doubt, a carbon copy public sector version of Vitality is wishful thinking. But are there any elements of it worth copying or adapting for the public sector?

“It has always amazed me that incentives are always so OK for rich people like me, on Discovery, but somehow unacceptable for poor people ‘who should do it for their own good’ in the public system,” says Professor Francois Venter, who heads up Ezintsha at the University of the Witwatersrand. He describes it as patronising.

Venter says that while hugely complex issues like controlling non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and obesity can’t be solved with incentives, they could certainly be added to the very limited toolbox of the existing arsenal being used to prevent disease or death through early detection, testing, and screening. He says incentives “definitely should not be dismissed right off the bat when it comes to the 84% of people who rely on the public system”.

The power of ‘points’

An estimated 60% of diseases across the board are caused by unhealthy lifestyles, according to a 2022 study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. In line with such evidence, Discovery’s Vitality programme is primarily focused on encouraging its members to make healthier lifestyle choices.

“Vitality aims to leverage behaviour change techniques, most notably using incentives, to motivate or nudge members to adopt healthy behaviours,” says Dr Mosima Mabunda, who is the Head of Wellness at Vitality. She says that four core factors are implicated in most NCDs, namely an unhealthy diet, a lack of physical activity, smoking, and alcohol misuse.

The Vitality programme is complex and uses a wide range of incentives and rewards to motivate members, including giving members monetary rebates for healthy food purchases, subsidised gym membership, and a comprehensive points-based system that rewards a range of healthy lifestyle choices. These points can be converted to cash or used at a range of local retailers. There is an incredible variety of Vitality rewards that range from discounts on flights to discounts at movie theatres.

According to a Discovery report, the “overall impact of Vitality on mortality rates is significant”. By “making people healthier” they say they have achieved an average reduction in mortality of 13%.

Several experts interviewed by Spotlight point out that most of this data has not been published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Even so, it is certainly plausible that Vitality’s annual incentivised health check helps with earlier diagnosis of hypertension, diabetes, and even HIV. Similarly plausible is the idea that points may successfully incentivise some people to exercise more. Scepticism of the health benefits of other elements of the Vitality programme may well be warranted – it is hard to know without independent analysis.

Importance of early detection

The underlying logic of such incentive systems is typically that the savings due to behaviour change or early detection outweighs the cost of the incentives. Put another way, the private sector isn’t just doing this to help people stay healthy, they are also doing it to save money. The costs and benefits for state-run incentive programmes will obviously look very different, but there may well be cases where the benefits of incentives outweigh their costs.

It is also possible that in some instances incentives are actually needed more urgently by users of the public sector than the private. As Professor Harsha Thirumurthy, who is an expert on behavioural economics and health incentives based at the University of Pennsylvania points out, “the majority of Vitality members don’t face barriers like transport costs” or even being located many kilometres away from the nearest state facility.

Late diagnosis or poor disease control has high human and economic costs in both the public sector and private. According to a 2013 study published in the Global Health Action journal, uncontrolled diabetes caused 8000 new cases of blindness and 2000 new amputations in South Africa in 2009 alone. More recent statistics reveal the situation is getting worse. In 2018, then KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Health Dr Sibongiseni Dhlomo revealed that six amputations occur every single day – which equates to over 2100 a year – in that province.

And the financial implications are staggering. For example, a 2022 literature review that looked at the costs of treating common NCDs in South Africa, estimated the cost of treating one person for one year with medication for type 2 diabetes to be roughly between R1000 and R3500 in the public sector. In comparison, the study also looked at the costs of treating common complications of uncontrolled diabetes. For example, diabetes-related renal disease was estimated to cost roughly R67 000 per person per year.

Screening for diabetic retinopathy, an eye condition that causes vision loss, costs between R110 and R370 per person. In comparison, the cost of treating ophthalmic disease in people with diabetes is estimated to be R59 000 per person per year.

These are only the health system costs and don’t include the costs of serious complications and lifelong disability to individuals, families, and communities.

Barriers to healthy lifestyle choices  

Most experts we spoke to agree that the Vitality programme in its entirety is too complex and expensive to be replicated at scale in the public sector. Additionally, helping the majority of the population make healthy lifestyle choices, particularly those around healthy diets and physical activity, is a mammoth task and exceeds the ambit and powers of the National Department of Health.

“It’s really important to appreciate that there are so many environmental, social, [and] structural factors that make it difficult for people to quote-unquote ‘do the right thing’ when it comes to health-related behaviours,” says Thirumurthy. “For example, people are constantly subjected to advertising of unhealthy food products. Many are living in environments that make it hard to eat a healthy diet even if they wanted to.

“To really make a difference, we have to take a step back and identify the overall system-level or structural changes that could be made to influence people’s diets and other health behaviours. We need to think about what types of government regulation and policy levers can be utilised to achieve better health outcomes,” says Thirumurthy, who is also the co-founder of South Africa’s first ‘nudge unit’, based at Wits University called Indlela: Behavioural Insights for Better Health, which is focused on identifying low-cost behavioural solutions to public health challenges.

As Spotlight previously reported, many of these issues are flagged in South Africa’s recently published Strategy for the Prevention and Management of Obesity in South Africa 2023 – 2028. But while most experts we interviewed felt the strategy flagged the right issues, there was also agreement that the strategy didn’t set out a realistic plan for dealing with those issues. And not finding ways to deal with these issues is costing a lot of money.

In 2018, the public sector cost of treating patients diagnosed with diabetes alone totalled R2.7 bn “and would be R21.8 bn if both diagnosed and undiagnosed patients are considered”, according to a 2020 report about the health promotion of NCDs published by the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC). Moreover, in real terms, it is estimated that by 2030 the cost of all type 2 diabetes cases will soar to R35.1 bn.

According to Thirumurthy, incentive-based interventions represent one creative solution with the potential to help improve health outcomes and reduce the financial burden on the health system in the long term. “I’m not saying incentives or rewards-based programmes are going to save the day, so to speak. However, they do represent a small but important part of an overall policy package that is necessary to address NCDs. Global experience suggests this policy package should prioritise regulatory interventions, including taxes on sugary sweetened beverages and other unhealthy foods, but incentive-based interventions can certainly be a useful addition to a broader strategy or policy package,” he says.

A public sector annual health check?

Early detection is one area where the public sector could potentially benefit from copying a private sector incentive scheme.

Vitality’s annual health check is a free screening and testing consultation that includes HIV testing, mental health screening, body mass index evaluation, blood pressure check and a blood glucose test, among other things. Members are rewarded handsomely with points, simply for showing up. Critically, these checks are offered at many pharmacies and are thus relatively easy to access.

According to Belinda Kahler, Wellness Specialist for Vitality, there is data that suggests that the inclusion of a screening questionnaire for depression in their annual health check yields significant benefits for both the scheme and its members. She says that members who complete the screening and are flagged as high-risk are over three times more likely to seek professional help which “fosters early detection and management which reduces complications and ultimately reduces healthcare costs”.

One way a public sector version of this could work would be for the state to contract with nurses at private sector pharmacies and GPs to provide the checkups in addition to public sector clinics. This would make it much easier for people to access these checkups, and may well boost early diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, and other diseases, especially if an incentive is included. For this to work, the public sector data systems to facilitate the capturing of measurements and test results will have to be in place, but presumably, work along these lines is already underway for the NHI data system that is being developed. Many public-sector clients already collect their medicines from private-sector pharmacies and some were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 at private-sector pharmacies – so it won’t be breaking entirely new ground to add checkups to the mix.

According to Thirumurthy, programmes that are ongoing, requiring daily or weekly action, are not feasible or sustainable for the public health system at this stage as they are too resource-intensive, requiring constant monitoring, and reward allocation. “But incentivising a once-off or annual behaviour, such as going for a vaccination or health check, is not only more likely to succeed compared to daily behaviours like going to the gym or taking a certain number of steps, it is also much more cost-effective and much easier for a government to implement,” he says.

He says addressing healthy lifestyles is incredibly difficult and preventive care interventions represent a more attainable goal for the National Department of Health. Screening, preventive care, and early detection save money and lives, but it is notoriously difficult to get patients to engage in the health system before they get really sick or experience noticeable symptoms. More often than not, patients seek care too late to prevent costly complications.

“Depending on the particular behaviour, test or screening combination that is incentivised, a programme like this could really move the needle on the intended health outcome and equate to money well spent in future averted healthcare costs,” says Thirumurthy.

Dr Brendan Maughan-Brown, who is the Chief Research Officer at the Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, points out that “we really are going to have a collision of comorbidities in the next seven to eight years” fuelled by an ageing HIV population. “All these NCDs are going to become even more burdensome to the health system – already in some areas, over 25% of people over 50 are living with HIV. This is going to be a major challenge for the health system, insurers, and the NHI, so thinking about solutions now, including a proposed annual health check or screening, is a good place to start.”

What should incentives look like?

Once-off or annual programmes do not need to be expensive, according to Dr Sophie Pascoe, who is the Indlela Co-Director. “They would require a level of coordination, but there are many companies who I’m sure would be willing to come on board as sponsors. The big supermarket chains could subsidise grocery vouchers or incentives could be in the form of airtime backed by one of the big mobile networks, for example,” she says. These partnerships would “benefit everybody” by encouraging those targeted behaviours, while sponsors would profit from the exposure and an increase in their customer base.

“I think part of the problem is, when we mention the word ‘incentives’, everyone imagines a lot of money and big rewards. But the rewards don’t need to be big or costly,” she says.

Maughan-Brown, who is also an expert in behavioural economics and the behavioural determinants of HIV risk, says that for an incentivised preventive programme to be successful, there needs to be a comprehensive understanding of the various “hassle factors” faced by those who rely on the public health sector. What would be valuable to people? Transport, airtime, grocery vouchers, child care, paid leave from work or something else? He says a lot of work would need to be done to understand what rewards will work and there needs to be a level of flexibility because different people will need or value different incentives.

Pascoe, in turn, suggests that a lottery incentive could be added and would be inexpensive to augment an immediate but smaller reward that would be received directly after the health check or screening intervention, for example.

She adds that another difficulty when it comes to advocating for this kind of programme is that tangible benefits or outcomes will only be seen in the long term, while government is more receptive to programmes or policies with clear and quick results.

Venter has similar concerns. He says there is a perception that these programmes are expensive to implement and run. “But that is only part of the issue,” he says, “I find it bizarre that I get incentivised left, right, and centre by Discovery, yet every time we raise it for poor people, I get told ‘they should be doing it, anyway’. It makes no sense.” As it stands, Venter says that problematic and pervasive perceptions need to be addressed before any incentive-based programme will even likely be considered by policy-makers and government officials, and even international funders, civil society, and the media for that matter.

‘Already incentivised’

National Department of Health Spokesperson, Foster Mohale, told Spotlight that his department “is not against incentivisation but each preventive programme has its own issues and each community of health system user has different incentives for staying well”. He agrees that the “public health benefits of health checks and health screening” have the potential to “result in early detection and reduced costs to the health system”.

However, he says that these services are already incentivised and that considering interventions inspired by Vitality is “inappropriate”. Asked about the nature of the current public sector incentives, he said, “[It] depends on what one sees as an incentive! For me, a gym membership, Fitbit, express check-in queue or cheap flights are of no value and I regard them as an insult. For others, they rush to ‘benefit’. For the majority of South Africans, a visit from the [community health worker] is the incentive!”

Mohale argues that, by definition, incentive “means inducement, motivation, motive, reason, encouragement” and that, “in the true spirit of incentives”, “testing and screening services are incentivised through health promotion in ALL public health clinics, and in school health programmes”.

He says that “the massive programme for HIV testing [is] incentivised through free testing [and] specific clinics”. He adds that the department offers another incentivised programme in the form of adherence clubs, where groups of about 30 people who are on chronic medication meet regularly, share their experiences with each other and receive some screening and counselling from healthcare workers.

NOTE: Professor Francois Venter is quoted in this article. Venter is a member of Spotlight’s Editorial Advisory Panel. The panel provides the Spotlight editors with advice and feedback on the quality and relevance of Spotlight’s public interest health journalism. The Spotlight editors, however, remain editorially independent and solely responsible for all editorial decisions. Read more on the role and purpose of the panel here.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons Licence.

Source: Spotlight

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

High Court Ruling for Affordable Medical Scheme Benefits in South Africa not Adhered to

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

In the recent judgement handed down by the Pretoria High Court in favour of Board of Health Funders (BHF), the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS), Registrar of Medical Schemes and the Minister of Health were ordered to deliver a complete record, which will shed light on the moratorium on granting exemptions to medical schemes to provide LCBO benefits.  The order directed the CMS and the Minister of Health to deliver all documents or information requested under Rule 30A within 10 days of the order, but all the respondents failed to meet the deadline.

After the ten-day deadline had passed and noting that the documents were still not produced and there was no appeal to the court order, the BHF was forced to return to court to seek answers. The BHF filed a contempt of court order on an urgent basis. In this application, the BHF highlighted that no complete record had been submitted even though the deadline for the Minister of Health and CMS to do so was on 24 July 2023. In response, the CMS and the Minister of Health opposed the contempt of court action and appealed the rule 30A judgement delivered on 10 July 2023. The Minister of Health, acting through his attorneys, allowed his own team to submit certain documents in terms of rule 30A, and the attorneys have stated that the delivery of the documents demonstrates good faith. This is despite the appealing of the judgement and order delivered in the rule 30A application.

The legal battle against the CMS and Minister of Health not only highlights their failure to comply with the court’s order, but also raises concerns about transparency and accountability within the healthcare system. This delay not only hampers the progress towards implementing affordable healthcare solutions, but also undermines public trust in the decision-making process of these regulatory bodies.  This lack of adherence to court orders highlights the urgent need for effective enforcement mechanisms to ensure that court decisions are respected and implemented by the relevant parties.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags : 1 Comment

Council for Medical Schemes Approves 5% Increase – but no Details on Low-cost Options

On By ModernMedia

In a media briefing on Tuesday, 8th August, the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) sought to clarify its process and recommendations over the approved 5% increase to medical aid scheme contributions, levels above which the medical schemes must motivate for. As for low-cost benefit options (LCBO), the CMS indicated that they would only provide a report to the Health Minister by the end of the month. This could prevent medical schemes from applying for new LCBOs in 2023.

Mr Mondi Govuzela, Senior Manager of Benefits Management, explained that the 5% approved increase is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 2022, which indicated a 4.9% increase. Schemes therefore may raise contributions by 5%, in line with the Reserve Bank’s inflation prediction for 2024. A prudent percentage markup should be incorporated to take into account cost increases and demographic changes, he advised. Before COVID, contribution increases have typically been 2.4–5% above CPI. The years 2020 to 2022 saw contribution increases dip below CPI.

One of the cost drivers that Mr Govuzela noted in the media briefing was supplier pressure stemming from fewer doctors and specialists, who were pushing for higher remunerations. Increased costs elsewhere in the healthcare industry. On the member side, growing rates of chronic diseases, membership ageing and coverage for medical services also added pressure.

LCBO would appear to be a solution for many individuals to access private healthcare for at least some urgent conditions, but the CMS has yet to comply with a Pretoria High Court ruling ordering that they provide a report on their moratorium on granting exemptions to medical schemes to provide LCBO benefits. The case was brought by the Board of Health Funders (BHF).

As to what the CMS’s response to the LCBO ruling was, CMS Registrar Dr Sipho Kabane said that the CMS was preparing a report that would be delivered to the Health Minister “by the end of the month”, but would not be drawn on what it might say. The deadline for registering new benefit options is September 1.

In their circular explaining the decision increase, the CMS acknowledged the persistent macroeconomic headwinds facing medical schemes and their members, with a meagre 1% increase predicted for SA’s GDP next year. “Against the backdrop of the current adverse macroeconomic conditions characterised by multi-year higher interest rates due to stubbornly higher inflation rate, volatile domestic currency and surging energy prices and overall lacklustre economic growth, it is evident that most household budgets will remain constrained for a foreseeable future, leaving most consumers under a precarious financial position. To cushion members of medical schemes against further financial distress and the probable risk of losing their health insurance cover due to affordability constraints, medical schemes are advised to limit their cost increase assumptions for contribution increases for the 2024 benefit year to 5.0%, in line with CPI.”

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Opinion: There are Paths to Quality Universal Healthcare Besides NHI

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

By Marcus Low for Spotlight

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

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

Many varieties

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

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

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

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

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

Getting to there from here

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

Photo by Hush Naidoo on Unsplash

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

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

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons Licence.

Source: Spotlight