Category: Healthcare Politics and Regulations

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Motsoaledi’s Return could Work, but he Needs a DG who can Say “No Minister”

On By ModernMedia

By Marcus Low

In some respects, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi was the right person for the job when he was appointed as South Africa’s Minister of Health in 2009. But in 2024, the healthcare context in the country looks very different. Spotlight editor Marcus Low asks what we might expect from this new chapter with Motsoaledi in the top health job.

When Dr Aaron Motsoaledi first became South Africa’s Minister of Health in 2009, the number one task in front of him was clear. He had to rapidly expand the country’s HIV testing and treatment programme.

Over the next decade, he did exactly that. When he left the health portfolio in 2019, there were around 5.1 million people on HIV treatment in the country – roughly six times the 850 000 there were in 2009. Driven largely by this expansion in the HIV treatment programme, life expectancy in the country increased from 58.4 years when he started to 64.9 when he left.

But while Motsoaledi largely succeeded on HIV and tuberculosis, there was a sense that he was not a details man and struggled to see through important health system reforms. He never got on top of fundamental challenges like healthcare worker shortages and poor governance in provincial health departments. That is why we were cautiously optimistic when Motsoaledi was replaced by Dr Zweli Mkhize in 2019. We thought it likely that Mkhize would be better at turning rhetoric into actual reform. As it turned out, any hopes of that happening were derailed first by the COVID-19 pandemic, and then more definitively by the Digital Vibes scandal.

The return

In a recent editorial considering possible health ministers after South Africa’s 2024 national elections, we argued that President Cyril Ramaphosa might feel that he can get more out of Motsoaledi back in the health portfolio than at home affairs, where we think it is fair to say he struggled. Even so, hearing Ramaphosa read out Motsoaledi’s name on Sunday night came as a surprise. Our money was on Dr Joe Phaahla staying in the job – as it turns out, he was demoted to again serve as Deputy Minister of Health.

What to make of all of it?

From one perspective, Motsoaledi’s return is understandable. He is a close and loyal ally of Ramaphosa and therefore someone the President would want to keep in his Cabinet. He is a medical doctor who knows the health portfolio. He is a staunch supporter of National Health Insurance (NHI) and his impassioned leadership style is probably considered an asset by the President.

If one considers the Health Minister’s number one task to be the implementation of NHI, and if one sees the implementation of NHI to be an essentially political process, then you can see a case for Motsoaledi’s return.

But even if one accepts this line of argument, it does come with some kinks that are hard to straighten out. For one, the NHI Act is now law and the political battle has thus, to some extent, already been won, and it is time to move from the broad strokes of political rhetoric, that Motsoaledi excels at, to the detail of implementation, which hasn’t been his strong point. And, to the extent that the political battle surrounding NHI has been reopened due to the ANC losing its parliamentary majority, the type of leadership required now will involve building consensus beyond just the ANC, and arguably more challenging for Motsoaledi, making strategic concessions such as allowing a greater role for medical schemes than envisaged in the NHI Act.

But all that only really matters if one accepts the premise that implementing NHI should be the top priority for the Minister of Health.

There is an argument that implementing NHI will take many years and there are much more urgent healthcare issues that need to be dealt with right away. The harsh reality is that provincial health budgets have been shrinking, healthcare worker shortages remain acute, governance in provincial health departments is often a disgrace, and health sector corruption remains a far from solved problem.

During his previous stint as health minister, Motsoaledi faced many of these problems and, while he often said the right things, the bluster wasn’t ever really backed up with a sustained programme of reform. To be sure, there were important successes like the establishment of the Office of Health Standards Compliance and attempts to revitalise health facilities, but when it comes to the fundamentals of having a well-managed healthcare system with enough healthcare workers, the picture was bleak when he left the health ministry in 2019 and it remains so today. In short, there is a view, only reinforced by his struggles at home affairs, that Motsoaledi is not the right person to have in charge if you want to implement the complex, systemic reforms required to sustainably address South Africa’s urgent healthcare problems.

That may be a bit harsh. Ministers are after all politicians and their roles are meant to be political. While it certainly helps to have ministers who are serious about, and committed to the details of implementation, they should be working in conjunction with government departments and directors-general (DGs) in particular. It certainly hasn’t helped our Health Ministers that our National Department of Health has often been overstretched and arguably lacking in strong leadership.

One underlying problem here is that over the last two decades, South Africa’s DGs and heads of provincial government departments for that matter, have too often been yes-men or people appointed as a political favour. While that may in some ways make a minister or MEC’s life easier, it does not make for good governance when a DG or a head of department is a walk-over. Ministers need to lead on policy, but have DGs and deputy DGs who are trusted and empowered to get on with implementation.

One criticism of Motsoaledi’s previous stint in the job is that even though he had a good DG in Precious Matsoso and a few decent deputy DGs, rather than shield them from the political crises of the day, he drew them into those crises. One expert we spoke to this week suggests that Motsoaledi loved the limelight and wouldn’t let others lead while another charged him with not being hands-on enough – maybe the key insight is that those things might all have been true to some extent.

Either way, given Motsoaledi’s strengths and weaknesses and the very complex health challenges South Africa faces, it is now more important than ever that as Minister he leads on political and policy matters, but gives the actual administration the space to lead on implementation. For that to work, he will need a DG who is not just another politician or cadre, but one who is an excellent manager and implementer, and maybe above all, who has the guts to say “no minister” when he or she needs to.

*Low is editor of Spotlight.

Note: Spotlight is editorially independent and is not affiliated with, nor does it endorse any political parties. Spotlight is a member of the South African Press Council.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Gauteng Non-profit Organisations Reject Findings of Province’s Forensic Probe

On By ModernMedia

Six out of 13 drug rehabs previously funded by the Gauteng Social Development Department are now “under investigation”

Photo by Scott Graham on Unsplash

By Daniel Steyn and Masego Mafata

Non-profit organisations whose funding by the Gauteng Department of Social Development has been withdrawn say they are being unfairly punished for “frivolous” and “flimsy” findings made by forensic auditors.

Among the organisations concerned are women’s shelters, drug rehabilitation centres and organisations that provide meals and social work services to homeless people. Many say they have no choice but to scale down their services and even close their doors.

Only seven in-patient drug rehabilitation centres, out of 13 that received funding last year, will be receiving funds for the first two quarters of this financial year, the department confirmed to GroundUp on Wednesday. Six rehabs are under investigation, the department said. 

A manager at a children’s home told GroundUp earlier this week that they had to send a teenager struggling with substance use disorder back to their family because there were no state-funded in-patient drug rehabilitation centres available in the West Rand.

Forensic auditors were appointed by the department in 2023 to probe allegations of maladministration and fraud in the non-profit sector. The department’s budget for non-profit organisations is R1.9-billion for 2024/25, but Gauteng premier Panyaza Lesufi has promised it will be increased to R2.4-billion. Fourteen department officials have been suspended based on findings of forensic audits, the department has said.

The forensic audits were supported by outgoing MEC Mbali Hlophe. Hlophe has claimed several times that non-profit organisations in the province were “stealing from the poor” and that there has been extensive corruption in the sector.

A report provided by the department to the Gauteng Care Crisis Committee last week, on the orders of the Gauteng High Court, contains a list of 53 organisations that are under investigation, out of several hundred funded by the department.

Among the organisations on the list are Daracorp and Beauty Hub which received millions of rands in subsidies for training, while others have had their budgets cut.

But while organisations such as these have received large amounts of funding under questionable circumstances, the department has not provided evidence that this applies to all organisations on the list.

In May, almost two months into the new financial year, organisations flagged in the investigations started receiving letters informing them that they would not receive funding due to the findings made by the auditors. Some only received the letters in June.

When they requested clarity from the department, some received details in writing. But others were only given reasons for the suspension of their funding during a meeting with the department’s lawyers on Wednesday.

GroundUp spoke to representatives of five organisations who attended Wednesday’s meeting. They said the findings they were presented with on Wednesday were minor issues that should have been picked up by the department’s own monitoring and evaluation teams and would have been quickly resolved. They said they did not understand why a forensic audit was necessary.

The organisations have not received any funding from the department since the end of the financial year in March, and are battling to keep going.

“Flimsy and frivolous”

Derick Matthews, CEO of the Freedom Recovery Centre, which until March was funded for 52 beds for in-patient drug rehabilitation, told GroundUp that the allegations against the centre are “flimsy” and “frivolous”.

Matthews was told at Wednesday’s meeting that Freedom Recovery Centre had not submitted audited financial statements for 2022. GroundUp has seen evidence that he submitted the audited financial statements.

Matthews said the department had never before raised concerns about the organisation’s compliance with legislation. He said every quarter the department’s monitoring and evaluation officials would check the centre’s financial statements and that no concerns had ever been raised.

The auditors also found a “high turnover of security personnel” at Freedom Recovery Centre which was causing “instability in the organisation”. Matthews explained that this was because the security staff are employed from the centre’s skills development programme, through which a person who has been sober for a year works for three to six months at the centre.

“They are paid salaries from DSD funding. Our security is not working directly with the residents so they cannot impact the stability of the centre,” Matthews said.

The third finding against Freedom Recovery Centre was that staff members were being given “loans”. Matthews explained that sometimes when the department paid subsidies late, the centre would pay part of staff salaries from the tuck shop’s funds, which would later be deducted from their salaries.

Matthews says that they are in the process of discharging their last state-funded patients. “Both government-funded centres that we have been told to send people to during this crisis are full, they can’t help us. In the last week, I’ve received about 12 phone calls of people that needed urgent help and we can’t even help or intervene,” he said.

Representatives of other organisations GroundUp spoke to had similar concerns about the findings against them but did not want to be named for fear of victimisation.

They also raised concerns that their meeting on Wednesday was with only one department official and the department’s lawyers, while the organisations themselves did not have lawyers present.

They were told they have until Monday to provide evidence to dispute the allegations against them.

At the meeting on Saturday convened by Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi, it was agreed that the organisations would receive an interim service-level agreement from the department by Monday, which would be finalised once the organisations were cleared. But not one organisation GroundUp spoke to has received an interim service-level agreement. Then on Wednesday they were told they will receive the agreements next week.

One organisation under investigation, Child Welfare Tshwane, was finally paid by the department last week after Gauteng High Court Judge Ingrid Opperman issued a directive that the organisation be paid to prevent harm to the beneficiaries.

GroundUp sent detailed questions to the Gauteng Department of Social Development, but we were told that the department will not be responding to media queries relating to the non-profit sector until further notice.

Republished

Read the original article

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Progress, the Unreasonable Man and Technology

On By ModernMedia

Is complementing in-person care with virtual care (hybrid care) a key part of the answer to South Africa’s NHI aspirations, asks Deon Bührs, Managing Director of Genie Health SA, who suggests that technology is the ‘unreasonable man’ in complementing decent universal healthcare and that self-empowerment is the only solution to sustainable wellness.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

George Bernard Shaw

There is a school of thought that a young democracy can benefit from a well-considered blend of socialism and capitalism, particularly when it comes to healthcare and education. I would second that, to a degree.  That South Africa requires a more equitable health system goes without saying though, as the apparent disparity and divisions between the haves and have nots is ever widening.   

The status of our public healthcare system and the spiralling costs of the private offering need to find parity. A sad situation indeed, because at one stage, South Africa had one of the best public health sectors in the world, where groundbreaking heart transplants, for example, were done.

To the question of universal healthcare then. If it means that universal healthcare is a fundamental human right that everyone should aspire to, then it’s a yes, the NHI is essential. It should not be a matter of political affiliation, and let’s be clear, there is already healthcare for all in South Africa, through the public health system, free at the point of care for those who cannot afford care.  But it is the quality of this care, and the effective management of these services that lie in stark contrast to that of the private healthcare system. 

Signed in literally at the 11th hour before the country went to general elections, the National Health Insurance (NHI) bill is a polarising topic for many.  The massive cost of providing a functioning NHI as per the bill, has been estimated conservatively at more than R200 billion a year, while some estimate closer to R1 trillion. With an already strained tax base, we must adopt new thinking as to how to deliver healthcare in a cost sensitive and effective way.

To my mind, one of the most effective ways of ensuring there is universal care that works, is recognising and supporting the role the patient plays in empowering their own health, recovery and wellness journey.  They appear, however, to have been forgotten in the conversation that is the NHI bill to date.

For me, in its current guise, the NHI will unfortunately not bridge the quality divide. In fact, if we are not careful and if we do not find common ground, and hold government and the private sector to account, our entire healthcare system could well be in danger of failing – completely. 

The unreasonable man test – laying the groundwork for new ways of healthcare delivery

Although expediently signed into law with little regard to comments or concerns raised from many sectors including health and business, the NHI does lay the groundwork for new ways of delivering healthcare and sets the scene for changing the mindset from the current sick-care system mentality to one of a patient-empowered HEALTHcare system. 

Change must happen, but the extent of that change often depends on what Irish playwright and political activist, George Bernard Shaw, once stated as: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

At present, Prof Nicholas Crisp who has been tasked with helming the delivery of the NHI, could be seen as Shaw’s “unreasonable man” in his efforts to equalise and deliver universal healthcare.  Ensuring that the lever of technology is utilised in an effective way is critical though, to ensure that we don’t try and replicate previous perceived successes, and not move forwards.

With a challenged healthcare system, both public and private, we are called to not give up hope, but to lean into the solution, and at the same time, avoid a defensive posture of that which only served the few.  I believe that these circumstances force us to innovate, and to seriously consider new ways of providing healthcare for all. It should be seen as an exciting time of just where we can push the future of healthcare.

For instance, we already know that a traditional healthcare delivery system, with its associated costs and accessibility challenges for those living in remote parts of our country just won’t cut it.   But unlocking technology as the new delivery channel of healthcare complimented by affordable and fast internet, could well be the solution to cracking the code of healthcare for all.

Through technology we can drive the patient-centric approach to health and open the door for patients to more easily access the multi-disciplinary team of healthcare professionals they need.

The best of both worlds – prevention, and when required, recovery

An example of doing things differently, is a new approach to musculoskeletal health that has been facilitated by digital transformation, and which is finding growing adoption in South Africa.  With objective improvements in patient outcomes, satisfaction scores and recovery times, virtual care teams can support patients through their recovery programmes, ensuring improved compliance and ownership of their health journey.  And empowering patients to embrace exercise and activity over surgery and pharmaceuticals where appropriate, has a dramatic impact on the overall healthcare spend. 

Imagine patients having the choice to access a multi-disciplinary team of experts anywhere in the country – from the comfort and convenience of their own home or workplace, all at the tips of their fingers.  No need to be transported to a clinic or hospital every time they need healthcare services.  This is entirely possible, with platforms like Genie Health, that provide a hybrid approach in complimenting in-person care with virtual care.

NHI needs a strong front loader like these hybrid platforms that provide the full range of allied healthcare services, to reduce the burden of care and cost on an already strained system, by reducing unnecessary hospital admissions, surgeries, medication and travel costs and allowing for the existing framework to be brought up to date and even surpass expectations.  

With ICASA reporting over 75% of the population having Internet access in South Africa and more than 90% smartphone penetration, pressure on Mobile Network Operators to provide zero rated data for healthcare applications (as they have done in education and other areas) mounts. 

If measures like this can be implemented, they will have a tremendous impact on reducing the burden on the existing healthcare system through a self-health-empowered approach, with the backing of a full clinical team on the ready to assist the patient.

The ultimate question is how do we make healthcare more affordable and accessible to all South Africans, which is the core aim of the NHI?  

The answer – we need to renew our focus on the key stakeholder, our patients – and empower them to drive their own health, by using technology as the backbone for sustainable wellness. It could well be, that with a renewed mindset and health-empowered citizens, the NHI is the true gamechanger for progress in HEALTHcare that we all need.

Categories : Cancer Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Increasing SA’s Blood Cancer Survival Rate Starts with the State Healthcare System

On By ModernMedia
Credit: National Cancer Institute

While cancer survivors are increasing in countries like the United States, South Africa faces a different reality, with 4000 people dying from blood cancer every year. Dr Sharlene Parasnath, Head of the Department of Clinical Haematology and Stem Cell Transplant Unit at Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital and DKMS Africa board member, believes that this discrepancy is largely due to the quality of care provided to patients who rely on the state healthcare system. 

Counting the costs

She explains that South Africa’s state sector relies predominantly on conventional chemotherapy to treat patients as opposed to newer targeted immunotherapies. “These may be accessible to some patients in the private sector and standard care in developed countries but are out of reach for public healthcare due to their unaffordability. Countries that use more targeted therapies not only improve overall survival but also decrease the undesirable adverse effects of cancer treatments. These therapies may be given with chemotherapy or on their own and work by attacking specific genetic mutations in cancer cells. Examples include monoclonal antibodies (MABs) and Bispecific T cell engagers (BiTES), which mimic the immune system to destroy cancer cells. There are also tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) which block the signals that promote cancer cell growth.”

“The prohibitive costs of these treatments are why stem cell transplants are being encouraged in South Africa since they offer those with blood cancers a chance of a cure,” points out Dr Parasnath. “However, this approach comes with challenges. For instance, the state will not pay for a transplant from an unrelated donor, despite two thirds of patients in need of a transplant being unable to find a suitable donor from within their family.”

Fewer nurses, fewer transplants

“Human resource constraints, particularly the shortage of specialist nurses, is another factor hindering more stem cell transplants from being carried out,” she notes. “Currently, there is no formalised training for nurses in haematology in South Africa. So, what tends to happen is that the majority of blood cancer patients end up being cared for either by oncology-trained nurses or registered general nurses with limited practical education and training in the kind of care they require. Important aspects of nursing which can improve patient outcomes include dietary restrictions, visitor guidelines, decreasing bleeding risk, infection control and early detection of potential complications such as graft rejection, graft vs. host disease and veno-occlusive disease that can develop following a stem cell transplant.”

Referring to an article in the South African Medical Journal titled Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in South Africa: Current limitations and future perspectives, Dr Parasnath adds that lack of staff ultimately leads to implicit rationing of healthcare, thereby limiting access to this life-changing medical procedure.

Mental health is health

She stresses that human resource constraints in terms of mental health support is also detrimental to patients with blood cancers. “Unfortunately, this tends to be the case both in the public and private sectors, as one out of three people diagnosed with cancer ends up struggling with a mental health disorder such as anxiety or depression as well, yet  less than 10% of patients are referred to seek help. The South African Society of Psychiatrists has even warned that if left untreated or undiagnosed, this could impact the patient’s ability to function on a daily basis, including undergoing treatment.”

Dr Parasnath emphasises another glaring gap in mental health support. “NGOs offer on-site social workers for hospitalised children with blood cancer, but adults, especially those who are not members of medical aid schemes, often have no options available to them. Not only do they grapple with the emotional toll of their diagnosis and treatment side effects, but this is further complicated by anxieties around their finances and the wellbeing of their children.”

The Cancer Association of South Africa’s (CANSA) Fact Sheet on Cancer and Mental Health highlights that there remains a huge unmet need for mental health in cancer care, calling for more effective clinical integration of relevant services, which must be informed by patient choice and clinical need, and accessible throughout the patient’s whole cancer journey. It also stresses the need for measurement of patient quality of life as a marker of treatment effectiveness.

“The Department of Health must recognise clinical haematology as a discipline in its own right with its own unique needs. For too long, it has had to feed off of the limited oncology budget. But if we are to up the blood cancer survival rate, funding must be provided for necessities such as more modern treatments, unrelated stem cell transplantation and formalised training of nurses,” says Dr Parasnath.

She also urges South Africans to increase the pool of available stem cell donors either by registering themselves or supporting organisations like DKMS Africa which connects patients with potential matches by providing access to a global registry of over 12 million donors. Financial donations directly address two critical needs: funding the registration of new donors and assisting patients facing financial challenges as a result of the transplant process.”

“With focused efforts, South Africa can join the global trend of increasing blood cancer survival rates, offering a brighter future for patients and their families,” concludes Dr Parasnath.

To register visit https://www.dkms-africa.org/register-now or for more information, contact DKMS Africa on 0800 12 10 82.

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Debunking Myths: The Truth About Medical Schemes in South Africa 

On By ModernMedia

Despite the promise of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) for all, the recent signing of the NHI Bill has brought with it several misconceptions around medical schemes that undermine the very foundation of our healthcare system, writes Dr Katlego Mothudi, Managing Director at the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF).

In a historic move aimed at transforming the South African healthcare landscape, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill into law. This landmark decision promises to move South Africa towards Universal Health Coverage (UHC) for all citizens, regardless of socio-economic status.

While the goal of UHC is commendable, the rhetoric leading up to the NHI Act’s announcement has created misconceptions about the role of medical schemes. 

With many believing that they should cancel their memberships immediately to enjoy free health services for the foreseeable future. However, Dr Katlego Mothudi clarifies that the implementation of NHI will take several years, dispelling this misconception.

The NHI Act introduces a single-payer system, central to the idea is that healthcare is a ‘public good’, suggesting all healthcare funding should exclude medical schemes, and should be government-funded. Dr Mothudi counters that healthcare is more accurately described as a social good. A public good, like military services, is one that the government must provide and from which no one can be excluded, regardless of payment. While healthcare is essential, it is not feasible to provide it as a public good.

The Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF), concerned about the numerous misconceptions propagated by government representatives since 2009, commissioned Professor Alex van den Heever, Chair of Social Security Systems Administration and Management Studies at Wits Health Consortium, to investigate these claims. Despite their hyperbolic nature and lack of systematic research, these statements have significant weight due to their endorsement by influential individuals. Prof van den Heever’s report identified frequently repeated assertions that he concluded were unsubstantiated and untrue.

Key Findings from the Report:

1. Medical Schemes are Unsustainable – False

In 2009, claims suggested that many medical schemes were headed for collapse due to unsustainable financing models, with 18 schemes reportedly nearing insolvency. Prof van den Heever’s report refutes this, showing stability in medical schemes from 2005 to 2022. The number of beneficiaries increased by over one million from 2009 to 2022, with consolidated reserves of R114 billion in 2022, far exceeding the required 25% reserve ratio. Broker costs have not been a systemic concern, and total non-health costs per average beneficiary per month for all medical schemes decreased by 34.7% in real terms from 2005 to 2020.

2. Health Services are a Public Good – False

   In 2011, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi claimed that private healthcare was a “brutal system” due to commercialisation. However, Prof. van den Heever clarified that healthcare is not a public good in the economic sense, as it does not meet the criteria of being jointly consumed without exclusion. Healthcare is a crucial service but providing it as a public good is not feasible.

3. Most Medical Scheme Beneficiaries are White – False

Last year, Prof Olive Shisana, an honorary professor at the University of Cape Town and special advisor to President Ramaphosa, stated that the private sector predominantly serves the privileged white population. However, Statistics South Africa’s 2021 research indicates that of the total population utilising private healthcare services, 50.2% are Black African, 32.3% are White, 9.8% are Coloured, and 7.6% are Indian/Asian.

Need for Balanced Perspectives

While the BHF supports healthcare reform, it raises concerns about the NHI Act’s constitutionality and calls for a factual review of claims about medical schemes. It is crucial to present both sides of the debate to understand the implications fully. Including government perspectives and addressing how the NHI will affect individual citizens would provide a more comprehensive view.

Medical schemes remain a valuable national asset that plays a crucial role in ensuring the long-term viability of South Africa’s healthcare ecosystem. BHF advocates for a balanced approach to healthcare reform that considers both public and private sectors’ strengths and weaknesses.

For a comprehensive look at findings from the report commissioned by BHF, see Prof van den Heever’s presentation at the 2024  Annual BHF Conference here. (Click to download PDF)

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Substance UseTags :

Almost Half of State-funded Drug Rehab Beds in Gauteng Under Threat

On By ModernMedia

Organisations are “under investigation” but have not been told why

Photo by Colin Davis on Unsplash

By Daniel Steyn, Masego Mafata and Raymond Joseph

The Gauteng Department of Social Development has decided to defund more than half of its existing capacity for inpatient drug rehabilitation in the province.

The department funded 571 beds in 13 non-profit organisations in the 2023/24 financial year, but at least five organisations, with 246 of these beds, will not be funded in the 2024/25 financial year.

The five organisations to be defunded – Westview Clinic Empilweni Treatment Centre, Golden Harvest Treatment Centre, Freedom Recovery Centre and Jamela Rehabilitation Centre – have been providing inpatient treatment for several years, but they have not received subsidies since the end of the last financial year.

Organisations GroundUp spoke to said they received letters from the department in the past few weeks informing them that they would not receive funding due to ongoing investigations. But they had not been told why they are under investigation, they said.

Representatives of FSG Africa, a forensic auditing firm appointed by the department, briefly visited some of the centres earlier this year, but the centres received no feedback on the progress or outcome of these investigations.

The auditors spent less than two hours at most of the facilities, asking only a few questions before leaving, the organisations said.

The organisations said they are yet to receive a report on the findings of the investigations. Queries they sent to the department have gone unanswered.

In previous years, the funding process was managed at a regional level, but this financial year it was centralised, cutting out the regional officials who would usually be in direct contact with the organisations. This has caused catastrophic delays.

Several of the organisations have been operating without departmental funding since March, depleting their savings and taking on debt, and having to short-pay staff salaries.

The department’s spokesperson Themba Gadebe confirmed to GroundUp that the organisations are under investigation, but did not provide details on the allegations.

In October 2022, Premier Panyaza Lesufi said treatment for substance abuse disorder was a priority. Yet the department has decided to defund beds in treatment centres without a clear plan to replace the lost capacity.

Gadebe said the department’s state-owned facility in Cullinan, near Pretoria, which has 288 beds, is undergoing renovation to increase its capacity. But he did not provide further details or timelines for completion.

Sedibeng’s only inpatient centres face closure

The only two drug rehabilitation centres with an inpatient programme in the Sedibeng region of Gauteng, with 116 funded beds between them, will be defunded this financial year.

One of these, Freedom Recovery Centre, was funded last year for 52 of its 94 beds (the remainder are for private patients). CEO Derick Matthews says when they received the department’s letter on 23 May “our world came crashing down”. What shocked him most was that there had been no warning that funding would stop.

Freedom Recovery Centre received a visit from the forensic auditors in March, who spent just two hours at the centre. They asked to see vehicles that the centre had supposedly received from the department.

“I was shocked by this request because we have never received vehicles from the department. But the auditor said that, according to their list, we had received vehicles from the department,” said Matthews.

“We are being punished for something. But we don’t even know what our transgression is,” he said.

On Monday, Freedom Recovery Centre began the process of discharging patients who were nearing the end of their treatment plans, as they can no longer afford to care for or feed them.

“We’ve had to take out loans for the past few months because of the delays in finalising service-level agreements and paying subsidies,” said Matthews. The centre has racked up more than R2-million in debt.

“Our staff are entering the third month of working without pay. Eskom is going to cut our electricity some time this week, because we are in arrears, and then we won’t even have water, because we rely on electricity to pump our boreholes. There are no funds left to keep the centre going,” said Matthews.

He said the centre will have no choice but to close completely in the coming weeks.

The other inpatient programme in the Sedibeng region, Jamela Recovery Centre, funded for 64 beds in 2023/24, faces a similar fate. CEO George Sibanda said they were relying on food donations from community members to feed their patients.

“We have been fully funded by the department since 2018 and our services are offered at no cost,” Sibanda said.

“We always had a backlog of patients. Our waiting list is sitting at 60 people so we were relieved when the department informed us that we would be getting additional beds in March this year. But what we don’t understand is how we must now provide a service to those patients if the department is not funding us this year?” said Sibanda.

Jamela also received a visit from the forensic auditors in March.

Despite not receiving any subsidies this financial year, Sibanda said the centre has been operating at full capacity.

“The department continued to refer people to us and we couldn’t turn them away,” he said.

Social workers at the centre have had to use their own money to pay for petrol for the centre’s car, which they use for outreach programmes.

Department spokesperson Themba Gadebe said that the closure of both centres in Sedibeng was not a concern as “the department prefers the placement of individuals within inpatient facilities far from where they reside, to limit the risk of them checking out or being contacted by those within their substance use networks.”

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

Read the original article

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

The Health Minister SA Needs: Astute Politician, Inspired Leader, Humble and Fair

On By ModernMedia

By Ufrieda Ho

By month end, South Africa will have a new Minister of Health. Ufrieda Ho asked some academics and activists what qualities that person should have to tackle the key health issues the country faces.

The precise health minister South Africa needs right now may not exist. But the portfolio still demands that the person appointed to this critical position be up to the job.

The appointment, when it happens, will come against a radically shifted political backdrop. Firstly, the elections results of the May 29 point to a coalition government for the first time in 30 years of democracy. The final configurations of a likely government of national unity is still anyone’s guess. And secondly, the National Health Insurance (NHI) bill is now an Act. President Cyril Ramaphosa signed off on the bill just a fortnight before the elections. It means by law, the work on the advancement of NHI must begin even as the contentions and contestations remain as thorny as ever.

Another reason why getting the right person matters is the money that comes with the portfolio. Annual government spending on health is in the region of R270 billion. Most of this spend is currently directed via provincial health departments, but flows under NHI will be nationalised and the NHI Act gives the minister extensive powers over NHI, and indirectly, the NHI fund.

At the same time, problems like entrenched health sector corruption and high levels of medico-legal claims against the state remain acute. Health budgets have been shrinking in real terms over the last decade. Financial shortfalls and shortages of healthcare workers in our health facilities are dire, while health needs enlarge.

Bridging ideological divides

Fatima Hassan, a human rights lawyer and founder of the Health Justice Initiative, says: “Policymaking in a coalition government is going to be so difficult – a Herculean task. And the place where you’re going to feel it most acutely is in health, because we have a dual health system and because NHI is sitting on the table.”

She says the role of minister will call for an astute politician. She says: “It must be someone who can work with different parties as well as constituencies in different sectors to try to bridge a number of these ideological divides.

“Health is a lightning rod for the differences between the different political parties; we saw this in how the parties campaigned for or against NHI,” she says.

Hassan says the worst case scenario will be someone in the position who is a “placeholder minister” who stalls on reforms, is a person more concerned with “calming the markets” and someone who will simply play the political long game waiting it out until the next elections.

“It must be someone who is able to work on creating a fairer system for access to proper healthcare services across the country, not just in specific provinces. They must invest in health infrastructure, invest in human resources for health, and invest in some of the more positive aspects of preparing for national health insurance,” she says. She adds that the person must prioritise fixing the “glaring issues in the NHI Act” to avert looming law suits.

In addition, Hassan says the minister must be someone who can stand up to the bullying of private sector power, including the likes of big pharma, and must be able to show leadership on domestic health issues while also being a strong Global South voice on international platforms to champion global health equity.

‘Health is more than a biomedical response’

Professor Scott Drimie is a researcher at the University of Stellenbosch and director of the Southern African Food Lab. Drimie works on food systems and food security and how these intersect with the social determinants of health.

For Drimie, South Africa’s health minister must be a person with an expansive leadership style; a person who is able to work across government departments and also be awake to the grassroots realities people face. Around 85% of people in South Africa rely on public healthcare.

“The minister must be able to grapple with the lived reality of most poor people and put in place a health system that supports the most vulnerable.

At the same time, that person should be someone who understands that health is more than a biomedical response – health is also issues like food security, sanitation, stable livelihoods and safety,” he says.

Another quality Drimie highlights is that the minister should be open to collaboration and experimentation. He says there has to be a “whole-of-government” approach and a “whole-of-society” approach. The Department of Health cannot achieve its key performance indicators on its own; it needs to collaborate with departments including social development, education and basic education.

“It must also be able to be bold with programmes and work with communities directly as well as with civil society, health advocates and health activists,” he says.

Reform of bureaucracies in the health department must also be something the minister tackles, Drimie says. He says it means appointing effective managers who are not micro-managed or politically influenced. Effective implementers of policies and programme, he says, can be a counterweight to politics.

“Politicians can come with very short-term, very narrow party politics,” says Drimie. But, he adds, enduring and relevant health programmes survive beyond political tenure and are more likely to achieve positive health outcomes.

Put people first and ‘show humility’

For activist Anele Yawa, who is secretary general of the Treatment Action Campaign, we need someone who puts people first. He says the minister must serve the interests of people and show humility for the office.

“The minister must not be someone who pushes his or her agenda. A minister is appointed; he or she did not submit a CV to us. So a minister must understand that there will be times when we as citizens and civil society will disagree with them. It’s because we will continue to speak truth to power, we will continue to hold them accountable; whatever the new coalitions will look like,” he says.

“Our ministers must not be arrogant and think it’s because we hate them. We will disagree and we will fight because it is an effort to make sure that things are done the right way and we can bring health services to the majority – it’s that person who is working class, black and is a woman,” says Yawa.

He says it means a strong minister must be one who maintains an open-door policy; who arrives at community meetings in person; take calls personally and engages.

Yawa says it’s also critical that the seventh administration is one that works cohesively. “We voted on the 29 May for a contractual agreement with government; not a fashion show. It means that we don’t just need a good health minister, we need a good administration that delivers on water and sanitation, on education and on social development, and so on.”

Motivate and inspire

Professor Lucy Gilson is head of health policy and systems division in the School of Public Health at the University of Cape Town. Her top qualities for a good minister also centre on people skills. She says the health minister in South Africa must be an inspiring leader.

“The person must be able to motivate health workers and managers to be the best public servants they can be.

“The person must also inspire the public to trust in the public health sector,” Gilson says.

The new health minister must have strategic management skills, she says. These will be necessary to navigate the complexity of power and interests in a coalition government and to figure out how the NHI will take shape.

In the end, she says the person in the post should have patience and persistence. She adds: “Bringing change to the health system is a collective and sustained effort over time. The minister must be able to strengthen capacity, assemble coalitions and networks of learning, experience and mutual accountability.”

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

SAHPRA Releases Results Of Investigation Following Recall Of Benylin Paediatric Syrup

On By ModernMedia
Photo by cottonbro studio

On 13 April 2024, the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) initiated a precautionary recall of two batches of Benylin Paediatric Syrup (batch numbers 329303 and 329304), in response to reported high levels of diethylene glycol in an alert by the Nigerian National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC). The recall was implemented as a precaution to protect lives while SAHPRA investigated the reported high levels of diethylene glycol.

As the national regulatory authority for health products in South Africa, SAHPRA implements health product recalls as a crucial measure to address safety concerns or quality issues in the interest of public health.

As part of the investigation of the reported high levels of diethylene glycol, SAHPRA tested samples of the two affected batches of Benylin Paediatric syrup through an independent laboratory and a method developed by the World Health Organisation for testing products for the presence of diethylene glycol. The tests did not find traces of diethylene glycol in the recalled batches. This indicates that units of batches 329303 and 329304 that were stored at the required temperature would not contain unacceptable levels of diethylene glycol.

SAHPRA also wishes to indicate that there is no record of any adverse drug reactions relating to diethylene glycol for the two recalled batches in South Africa or anywhere else where they were exported to on the continent.

SAHPRA is mandated to regulate and apply due diligence to health products to ensure that products in circulation in South Africa and those exported from SAHPRA-licensed manufacturers are safe for public consumption. SAHPRA applies this due diligence throughout the product life cycle, from registration through to post-market monitoring.

“SAHPRA will continue to closely monitor medical products that have the potential of containing unacceptable levels of diethylene glycol. And we will continue to address safety concerns or quality issues so that the health of the public is protected,” says SAHPRA CEO, Dr Boitumelo Semete-Makokotlela.

Source: SAHPRA

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

At the Heart of the NHI Lies Fairness: Outgoing Chair of Parliament’s Health Committee Defends Record

On By ModernMedia
Dr Kenneth Jacobs entered Parliament as an ANC MP in 2019, and two years later was elected chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Health. (Photo: Parliament)

By Biénne Huisman

The chairperson of the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Health Dr Kenneth Jacobs played a pivotal role in deliberations on the National Health Insurance Bill. Spotlight’s Biénne Huisman asked Jacobs about some criticisms of NHI and about his plans for life after Parliament.

A week before South Africa’s sixth democratic Parliament drew to a close on May 21, chairperson of its Portfolio Committee on Health, Dr Kenneth Jacobs, observed President Cyril Ramaphosa sign the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill into law at the Union Buildings in Pretoria.

Back in Cape Town, Jacobs tells Spotlight the NHI signing was the culmination of his own work dating back fifteen years. He says he started working on public health projects relating to universal health coverage and the NHI in 2009, as a consultant to the National Department of Health.

For him, at the heart of the bill lies fairness.

“We should be able to provide all of the people of South Africa the opportunity to access quality healthcare,” he says.

Jacobs entered Parliament as an ANC MP in 2019, and two years later was elected chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Health after his predecessor, Dr Sibongiseni Dhlomo, became the Deputy Minister of Health. Committee chairpersons are elected by and from among the members of each committee, meaning the majority party in Parliament has the most influence in selecting chairpersons.

As chairperson, a large part of Jacobs’ job was to hold the country’s executive and the National Department of Health to account on behalf of South Africa’s citizens.

Amongst other tasks, he played a pivotal role in overseeing public deliberations around the NHI Bill, which included 338 891 written submission and presentations by 133 organisations. These included political parties, trade unions, medical aid schemes, health technology organisations, the South African Medical Association, and university departments.

“It is never in the history that the committee had such an engagement by the public,” says Jacobs. “So I’ve been very blessed and fortunate to go to Parliament in the final process of the NHI Bill.”

‘Disheartening’ criticism

Both before and after its signing into law, NHI has been deeply divisive, with several political parties and other role players threatening litigation. One line of criticism is that, while many people and organisations made submissions to the committee chaired by Jacobs, the final bill did not changed substantially from what it was prior to the public hearings.

Interviewed on the topic, Business Leadership South Africa CEO Busi Mavuso, said government rushed populist policy through Parliament – an electioneering ploy – as the significant public input into the Bill and its socioeconomic ramifications had not been considered.

Jacobs voices his frustration at such criticism of the NHI public participation process, saying it is “disheartening”, adding that criticism are doled out by South Africans who are “in better financial positions”.

He explains the process of collating so much information: “Well, firstly it’s driven by the chairperson [him]… We appointed a team through Parliamentary processes, who looked at the submissions, and interpreted the submissions using computerised systems. It’s thematic – what are the themes, really? These are developed into reports; the reports on all the public hearings, those reports are all available.”

He adds: “So people who want to write and say all these negative things, they really should go and access these documents and see what the submissions were.”

‘It’s attractive to make people insecure’

Another aspect of NHI over which many have expressed concern is the potential for corruption, particularly in light of massive healthcare corruption during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and more recent alleged corruption at Tembisa Hospital in Gauteng. Here criticism ranges from a simple distrust in government to run such funds, to more nuanced criticisms of aspects of the bill that critics say increases the risk of corruption – such as the Minister of Health’s expansive powers and accountability to cabinet rather than to Parliament.

In an interview following the signing of the bill, DA Chief Whip who was also a health portfolio committee member, Siviwe Gwarube, said: “The NHI will not address the underlying issues in our healthcare system; it is financially unfeasible, an election gimmick, and will burden South Africans with increased taxes.” She added: “The potential for corruption is staggering, and the flawed parliamentary process further erodes public trust…”

When asked about fears that money might disappear from centralised NHI coffers – to be governed by a board appointed by the minister of health – and accountability to prevent such, Jacobs says: “I think that people are putting the cart before the horse. You must remember this will be an entity [with tender procedures], and then who is supposed to appoint them [board members] in any case? Somebody has to have the responsibility. Why can that not be the minister, for example. But remember that it will be a transparent process, the same as the appointment, I think, as what we do with the appointment of judges.”

The NHI fund will be a schedule 3A entity, similar to, among others, the Road Accident Fund, the National Lotteries Commission, the National Laboratory Service, the Office of Health Standards Compliance, the Competition Commission, and the Council for Medical Schemes.

Jacobs says checks will be provided by the country’s forensic investigation agency, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU). “And there are many ways to put checks and balances into place,” he says, “we talk [in the bill] about the interventions which can be made, or the investigations which can be made by the SIU and other law enforcement agencies”.

Shortly after taking over as health committee chairperson, Jacobs told Spotlight that rooting out corruption in the health sector was a priority. At the time, he stressed the importance of safety nets for whistle-blowers, and of establishing systems to enforce accountability. Around the time of his appointment in 2021, whistle-blower Babita Deokaran was murdered for exposing R1 billion worth of allegedly irregular tenders issued at the Tembisa Hospital in Gauteng.

Asked about these particular earlier priorities, Jacobs responds: “I have no answer on that, I don’t think I want to talk about corruption now…” Upon reflection, he adds: “Of course corruption is important. Losses to the fiscal is important; people doing wrong is important. People need to be brought to book, be held accountable for doing wrong…”

Later on in the interview, when the issue of corruption comes up again, he says that corruption has decreased in South Africa: “I think we’ve advanced quite a bit from the time when corruption was more rife. I think nowadays you hardly hear about these things and it’s because unprecedented intensive programmes were put in place to address these issues of corruption and fraud. I really think what they [critics] are doing is fear-mongering, telling people that you need to be frightened, and I’m going to say again, those who are telling others to feel frightened, are in a better financial position. So it’s attractive to make people insecure.”

Money for NHI?

Another common argument against implementing NHI is that it is not affordable. Government’s spending on health has declined in real terms for much of the last decade and the South African economy is struggling by most measures.

Asked about crippling budget cuts in the health sector as it stands, and questions around the NHI’s affordability, Jacobs says South Africa has insufficient central funds because of unemployment, and that South Africa needs more jobs and more workers to increase its tax-base.

“My personal view is that we need to understand why there’s a budget problem,” he says. “So where is government supposed to get money? Who are supposed to contribute? Those who are employed. And look at our employment rate – is it government’s responsibility? No, the emphasis is wrong. It is businesses’ responsibility.

“When people have employment they can contribute to the coffer… and I’m going to keep on saying, the narrative is in the wrong place. We need to say to South Africans: ‘don’t all of us have a responsibility?’ Those who have the economy in their hands and those who don’t have the economy in their hands, all of the responsibility to drive our country forward.”

How to drive South African healthcare forward, remains contested. Several organisations representing healthcare workers, such as the South African Medical Association, do not support the NHI Act in its current form. Others, including the South African Medical Association Trade Union, welcome it.

Meanwhile, Jacobs expresses empathy for his clinician colleagues: “As a medical doctor, I have absolute respect for all of my colleagues. I would like you to write it; I understand the conditions under which our medical and or health personnel have to function. And I don’t think that National Health Insurance be a negative thing for healthcare professionals.”

‘Why should there be people who profit from the ill health of other people?’

Another concern in some quarters is that NHI will over time squeeze out medical aid schemes and leave people with no alternative to health services provided through NHI. This because, according to Section 33 of the NHI Act, medical schemes will not be allowed to cover services that are already covered by the NHI fund.

Asked about the future of medical aid schemes in South Africa, Jacobs says: “What is the medical aid system? It’s a profit driven system by people who are in business. Is it correct that there are people who make profit off the lives of people, and the health of people? I don’t think that is correct.” (Note: Medical schemes are non-profit entities while medical scheme administrators are for-profit.)

He adds: “What is wrong with having one single system, in which everybody has access to the same healthcare? Why do we need to keep exclusionary rights for some people, based on them having a better income than others? I think that’s the bottom-line on the answer of the medical aid. Whether medical aid will stop functioning or not. I think that’s not the question to ask. The question is why should there be people who profit from the ill health of other people?”

‘From policy to practice’

Going forward, given that he won’t be returning to Parliament, Jacobs hopes to resume doing public health consulting work for the National Department of Health.

“I have a project which is very dear to me,” he says. “I want to start an institute for health governance, and it’s called, ‘from policy to practice’. It’s on health governance, universal health coverage… and will be instrumental in influencing dialogue. So, I can’t wait to stay active in the health sector, but not being restricted in that I’m no longer a member of Parliament, not feeling that there’s some sort of conflict.”

Jacobs will now move from the Acacia Park Parliamentary Village on Cape Town’s northern fringes back to his family home in Wellington.

Jacobs says that they will soon have seven public health doctors in his family – that is, when his son completes medical school at Stellenbosch University. His daughter recently finished medical school and is contracted as a doctor at a clinic in Khayelitsha.

Originally from Gqeberha, Jacobs holds a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree from Stellenbosch University where he also obtained a Master of Medicine degree in family medicine. He went on to get a Master of Science degree in sports medicine from the University of Pretoria. In earlier years, he served as a physician to the Stormers and Springbok rugby teams.

In the previous interview with Spotlight, Jacobs relayed how his formative years were tough. His family were forcibly evicted from sea-facing South End, in what was then Port Elizabeth, and moved to Gelvandale, in the city’s northern suburbs. His father worked in a shoe factory, but lost his job when Jacobs was in grade 10.

“South End was like Port Elizabeth’s District Six,” said Jacobs, in the earlier interview. “So yes, honestly, that was something that had a huge impact on me. I decided then that I would not allow somebody to suppress or oppress me and I think it is probably why I just kept on studying and improving.”

At 65 years old, Jacobs exudes ambition and enthusiasm. Wrapping up, he quotes an Afrikaans aphorism: “Die mens wik maar God beskik” (Humanity proposes, God disposes).

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Who will be SA’s Minister of Health in the New Cabinet?

On By ModernMedia

By Marcus Low

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

After the ANC received less than 41% of the votes in last week’s national elections, negotiations are now underway that will determine how and by who South Africa is governed. Ministerial posts, including the country’s top health job, might be on the negotiating table. Spotlight considers the candidates for the post of South Africa’s Minister of Health.

For most of the last 30 years, it went almost without saying that the country’s Minister of Health would be drawn from the ranks of the ANC. But given the dramatic decline in the party’s electoral fortunes and the consequent pressure to enter into coalitions or other deals, the pool of realistic candidates for the post of health minister might this year be larger than before.  

The President has the prerogative to appoint any members of the National Assembly as ministers, whether or not they are of the same party as the President. The President can also at his or her discretion appoint two ministers who are not members of parliament. It is also relatively trivial for a party to ask a Member of Parliament (MP)  to stand down and to have another sworn in, as happened with Minister of Electricity Kgosientsho Ramokgopa. This means that candidates who were not high enough on party lists to get seats in parliament could still be substituted in. 

Although technically the pool of possible health ministers is thus quite large, political realities narrow the choices down considerably. 

Let’s start with candidates from the ANC, given that odds are still that our next health minister will be from the party. 

First in line is South Africa’s current Minister of Health Dr Joe Phaahla. He is not on the ANC’s national candidates list, but he is high up on the party’s regional list for Limpopo and thus set to become a member of the National Assembly. Though some might describe his time as health minister over the last three years as uninspiring, he also hasn’t been implicated in any scandals or made any obvious blunders.

It might well be that President Cyril Ramaphosa, presuming he stays in the job, sees Phaahla as a safe pair of hands and considers him the right person to drive the ANC’s stated goal of preparing for and starting the implementation of National Health Insurance. Phaahla previously served for some years as Deputy Minister of Health. 

Second in line is the current Deputy Minister of Health Dr Sibongiseni Dhlomo. He is also not on the ANC’s national list, but he is high up on the ANC’s KwaZulu-Natal regional list and thus also set to join the National Assembly. He is a former MEC of health for KwaZulu-Natal and former chair of parliament’s portfolio committee for health. If Phaahla is not to return, Dhlomo would be the most natural replacement. 

After those first two candidates, things get much harder to predict. 

Former health ministers Dr Aaron Motsoaledi and Mmamoloko Kubayi are on the ANC’s national list and Dr Zweli Mkhize is on the ANC’s KwaZulu-Natal regional list. Given that Motsoaledi’s time at Home Affairs has been something of a disaster, it is not impossible that Ramaphosa might feel he can get more out of him back in the health portfolio where his record was somewhat better.

A return of Mkhize to the health portfolio seems extremely unlikely given the grubby circumstances under which he left. Kubayi’s role for a few months as acting health minister was really just that of a care-taker, and a return is unlikely. 

One interesting trend is that the ANC has largely chosen medical doctors as health ministers and deputy ministers – Phaahla, Dhlomo, Motsoaledi, and Mkhize are all medical doctors. 

Current Eastern Cape MEC for Health Nomakhosazana Meth is high on the ANC’s national list, though the poor performance of the Eastern Cape Department of Health in recent years should mean her chances of getting the top health job are slim.

In previous years, current Limpopo MEC for Health Dr Phophi Ramathuba was considered a possibility by some, but her name is only on the ANC’s candidates list for the Limpopo legislature and a few ill-judged incidents, such as a video in which she berated a pregnant woman, would make her a controversial choice. She’s also often been at loggerheads with unions in Limpopo. A lack of standing with healthcare workers may also hold back the prospects of one or two others with health backgrounds who did make it onto the ANC’s national list. 

Candidates from other parties 

The DA remains South Africa’s official opposition. Should they become part of a ruling coalition or government of national unity, the current Western Cape MEC for Health would be the party’s most obvious candidate for the role of health minister. Mbombo is however only on the DA’s list for the Western Cape legislature and is thus likely to again be the province’s MEC for health.

Jack Bloom, the party’s leading health MPL in Gauteng over the last two decades would be a long shot for the post of health minister, as would Dr Karl le Roux, an award-winning rural doctor who has joined the party. Bloom is on the DA’s list for the provincial legislature and not on the lists for the national assembly. It is thus not entirely out of the question that he could become MEC for health in Gauteng.  

The EFF received the fourth most votes nationally, having been third in the previous national elections. In the previous parliament they were represented on the portfolio committee for health by Dr Sophie Thembekwayo (not a medical doctor) and Naledi Chirwa. Chirwa is last on the EFF’s national candidates list and is thus very unlikely to return to the National Assembly. Thembekwayo is 36th on the EFF’s national candidates list. 

It is also possible that other parties such as MK or the IFP could end up as part of a governing coalition or government of national unity and that candidates from these parties would thus also be in with an outside chance for the top health job. There will be many new, and to us unknown, faces in parliament – no doubt we’ve missed some people with solid health backgrounds in our analysis. 

As mentioned earlier, the President can appoint two ministers to his or her Cabinet from outside the National Assembly. It is thus possible that someone with health management expertise could be roped in from outside the usual political circles.

Though very long shots, outsiders like Dr Fareed Abdullah – former CEO of the South African National AIDS Council and an important player in the early days of HIV treatment – or Professor Glenda Gray – outgoing President of the South African Medical Research Council – might well, and arguably should, be considered. Though we’d be surprised if strong outsider candidates like these two are interested in the job given how politically fraught the role is likely to be. That said, we suspect the right outsider candidate would be a hit in healthcare circles. 

Ultimately, whichever way the current negotiations pan out, the ball remains in the ANC’s court when it comes to determining who will be our next Minister of Health. That means the decision is likely to remain subject to the ANC’s internal politics, with all the complexities that entails.

Despite all the intriguing possibilities, chances are thus that it will be Phaahla or Dhlomo who get the nod – and in terms of South Africa’s healthcare trajectory things will probably remain roughly as they are now. 

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article