Tag: NHI

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags : Leave a comment

Spotlight’s Top 9 Health Stories to Watch in 2026

On By ModernMedia
With several important developments on the horizon, 2026 is set to be another eventful year in healthcare. Photo by Sergey Mikheev on Unsplash

19th January 2026 | By Marcus Low

From the limited rollout of a new HIV prevention jab to developments with new weight loss medicines, to high-stakes court cases relating to National Health Insurance (NHI), 2026 is set to be another tumultuous year in healthcare. Here are nine stories that Spotlight will keep a close eye on.

 1. How will things go with the local rollout of a new HIV prevention jab? 

Given the high rates of HIV in South Africa, the biggest HIV story this year is likely to be the rollout of a new HIV prevention jab at around 360 (roughly 10%) of South Africa’s public sector clinics. The jab, which contains the antiretroviral medicine lenacapavir, provides six months of protection against HIV infection at a time. It could be a gamechanger for people who, for whatever reason, struggle to take daily prevention pills. We will be tracking how and to who the jab is made available and whether uptake meets expectations. 

As we reported last year, work is also underway on a new lenacapavir formulation that could provide 12 months of protection per shot. We’ll be scouring journals and conference programmes for new data on this formulation. 

2. Will we see better access to weight loss medicines? 

The class of diabetes and weight loss drugs called GLP1-RAs have taken the world by storm in recent years. Until recently, drugs like semaglutide (brand names Ozempic or Wegovy) and tirzepatide (brand names Zepbound or Mounjaro) were only available as injections. The GLP1-RA market is, however, set to be upended by the introduction of some of these medicines in pill form. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently registered a semaglutide pill for use for weight loss. Another weight loss pill called orforglipron is also expected to be registered this year. One big question is when these pills will be registered and made available in South Africa and at what price. 

Another important GLP1-RA development this year will be the expiration of a key patent on semaglutide in India. This will open the door to generic manufacturers bringing their own versions of semaglutide to market – something that usually leads to substantial price reductions. We will be keeping a close eye on how this situation plays out and analysing what the implications are for people in South Africa. 

3. Might we see earlier than expected findings from pivotal TB vaccine trials? 

The one TB vaccine we have is over a hundred years old and only provides limited protection for kids. Several experimental vaccines are, however, currently being evaluated in late-stage clinical trials. Arguably, the most notable of these is the M72 vaccine, which is being assessed in a massive phase 3 study, partly conducted in South Africa. 

While timelines suggest most of the key TB vaccine studies will not yet have anything to report this year, it is possible that we might see a surprise or two. Findings are sometimes reported early if it becomes apparent ahead of schedule that a medicine or vaccine is clearly working, or clearly not working, as the case may be. Whether or not we see findings this year, it is important to start thinking about what a rollout might look like in our health system should results be as good as hoped. The M72 vaccine had around 50% efficacy in phase 2 trials, so there is reason for optimism. 

4. Will we see a concrete plan to address public sector healthcare worker shortages? 

Arguably, the most important dynamic in South Africa’s public healthcare system today is that provincial health departments are not employing enough healthcare workers across multiple categories. One reason for this is simply that budgets have generally shrunk over the last decade – obviously corruption and mismanagement in several provincial departments have made things even worse. There was a glimmer of hope in last year’s budget in which we saw a meaningful upturn in health funding for the first time in years, but that was at best a good first step toward recovery. As we enter 2026, our understanding is that all of the nine provinces are still facing severe healthcare worker shortages. 

More money for health in the next budget will certainly help, but there is a broader sense that government doesn’t really have a big picture vision for how to address the crisis. We do have a 2030 Human Resources for Health Strategy, but as with many such strategies, it seems to have so far gone largely unimplemented. 

5. Will enablers be held accountable for corruption such as that at Thembisa Hospital? 

One of last year’s big media moments was a Special Investigating Unit (SIU) press conference in which they described the extensive corruption said to have taken place at Thembisa Hospital. One snag, however, is that while the SIU can recoup funds and take matters to the Special Tribunal, the SIU does not conduct criminal prosecutions – though they can refer matters to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for prosecution. Whether we will see successful NPA prosecutions relating to the Thembisa Hospital corruption is one of the year’s top questions. 

Unfortunately, even when the SIU does sterling work and delivers cases to the NPA on a plate, there is no guarantee that the NPA will do its job. One depressing example is that of Buthelezi EMS. Last year, the Special Tribunal ordered Buthelezi EMS (and other companies with similar names) to pay over half-a-billion Rand back to the state. The SIU also referred a related matter to the NPA in 2024 for prosecution, but Spotlight understands that the NPA has rather mind-bogglingly decided to drop the matter. 

6. Which, if any, senior health leaders will lose their jobs this year? 

While we won’t have national or provincial elections this year, that is no guarantee that we won’t see any health leaders losing their jobs. Over the last two decades, there have after all been many examples of people being ousted between elections, be it for purely political reasons or due to corruption scandals. 

Possibly the political leader in the health sector at greatest risk is KwaZulu-Natal MEC for Health, Nomagugu Simelane. Should the currently governing coalition of political parties in the province crumble, as it seems it might do, chances are several new MECs will be deployed, including for the health portfolio. 

There is also an outside chance that the country’s top health official, Dr Sandile Buthelezi, Director-General for Health in the National Department of Health, might be forced to step down. As reported by AmaBhungane, Buthelezi played a central role in an “irregular” R836-million oxygen procurement process and is also “at the centre of a Hawks investigation into allegations that he solicited a R500 000 bribe”. Our understanding is that Buthelezi has not been charged and that in the absence of charges he will stay in the job. 

7. What will happen in the landmark NHI court cases? 

Despite a new call for dialogue from Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana, chances for a political settlement over National Health Insurance (NHI) remains very low. The bottom line remains that Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi refuses to yield an inch on the version of NHI described in the Act and President Cyril Ramaphosa is not willing to force the matter. 

Instead, it seems the battle over NHI will this year be fought mainly in the courts. At our count, there are at least eight cases challenging the NHI Act, parts of the Act, or the process resulting in the Act. A first development to look out for is whether or not some of the cases will be combined and heard together. In case you missed it, last year we published a two-part series in which we tried to pin down the issues on which these court cases are likely to turn (see part 1 and part 2). 

While we will cover the NHI court cases in some depth, we will also try to foster constructive discussions on health reforms on our opinion pages and in our analysis. In our view, it is dangerously limiting to reduce the debate over South Africa’s healthcare reforms to a simple binary of whether one is for or against NHI. 

8. What will be left of the FDA, NIH, and CDC by the end of 2026? 

It used to be the case that United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions and health advice from the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) carried a lot of weight around the world. In recent months, however, there have been increasing signs of political interference at these institutions and a turn away from evidence-based policy making. It seems inevitable that we will see more of the same in 2026 and the credibility of both the CDC and probably also the FDA will be further diminished. 

Similarly, the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) has been the world’s leading funder of health research for many years. But as with the CDC, the work of the NIH has been overly politicised over the last year and its reputation for rigour and scientific excellence has already been severely degraded. As with the FDA and CDC, the outlook is bleak. 

9. How well will SA and other countries recover from last year’s US aid cuts? 

With the dust settling after last year’s severe and abrupt cuts to US healthcare aid and US funding for medical research, the longer-term impacts of those cuts in South Africa and neighbouring countries should become clearer this year. Among others, we will get the first reliable estimates of key HIV and TB indicators for 2025 (reliable figures for a specific year are typically only published in the subsequent year). New HIV estimates from the Thembisa mathematical model (Spotlight’s preferred source for HIV estimates) should be out around the middle of the year, while new World Health Organization (WHO) TB estimates are usually released in November. 

Last year Motsoaledi was widely criticised by activists for underplaying the seriousness of the cuts for South Africa’s HIV response and the scale of specialised services and capacity that was destroyed here. Eventually some extra funds were made available in response to the cuts, but it amounted to only a small fraction of what was lost. The harsh reality is that in some places the aftermath of the aid cuts will be felt for years to come. 

At an international level, we are also not convinced that a clear roadmap has been set out for building back better after US withdrawal, though we’d be happy to be proven wrong. What is clear though is that entities like the WHO and UNAIDS are facing unprecedented financial and political pressures – it seems possible that UNAIDS will no longer exist a year from now. Much reform has already been undertaken at the WHO. By the end of the year, we should have some sense of whether things have stabilised and whether a coalition of willing nations is truly committed to keeping the WHO and multilateralism in health alive. 

We have outlined only nine health issues in the above, but there are of course many more questions that we could have added to this list. Some of those include: 

  • Whether we will see meaningful improvement in the South African government’s response to non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cancers, and mental health conditions. 
  • How well implementation of South Africa’s latest TB recovery plan is going, and in particular how we are doing against the target of testing five million people in 12 months. 
  • How climate change will impact people’s health and whether the South African government is prepared for it. 
  • Whether South Africa will see real progress in addressing antimicrobial resistance. After adopting a good policy a few years ago, it appears momentum has been lost. 
  • Whether the state will start taking xenophobia in the healthcare system and around clinics and hospitals more seriously, as a recent court judgment requires it to do. 
  • Whether a serious effort will be made to better regulate private healthcare and to bring down the cost of private healthcare services and medical scheme membership – that after a half-baked effort to create a new tariff-determination framework was launched and then canned last year. 
  • Whether we will see legislation introduced amending the Patents Act in line with a policy adopted by government in 2018 and whether we’ll see progress on the much-delayed State Liability Bill, which should have relevance for the state’s vulnerability to medico-legal claims. 
  • Whether we will see concrete steps forward with the new electronic health records and data systems government is developing. 
  • What progress we might see with the local production of vaccines and pharmaceuticals – one of the areas in which we are quite optimistic, despite the lack of coherent and enabling government policy. 
  • What impact AI will, or will not, have in our healthcare system this year. 

Are there issues not mentioned here that you think Spotlight should cover in 2026? Let us know by commenting below this article or by tagging us on BlueSky. 

*Low is the editor of Spotlight. 

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

EDITORIAL | What has Actually Happened on NHI This Year?

On By ModernMedia

By Spotlight

It is not a stretch to say that the NHI Act has been one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in post-apartheid South Africa.

Since President Cyril Ramaphosa signed it into law in May 2024, just two weeks ahead of the national and provincial elections, at least nine different court cases have been launched against the Act, or specific provisions in the Act. None of those cases have made it through the courts and it seems likely some might be combined. 

In one preliminary to the bigger court battles, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ordered Ramaphosa to provide the record of his decision to sign the act, but the President is challenging that order. 

A subtext to the torrent of court cases is the sense that it is only through litigation that the NHI Act might be scrapped, or that some of the most controversial provisions in it might be repealed. The alternative to litigation, political compromise, for now seems dead in the water. There was some hope for such compromise around a year ago when Business Unity South Africa and several healthcare worker groups pushed government for a change in course – but while the Presidency seemed open to considering changes, the health minister did not, and eventually the ANC, and government with it, decided to buckle down behind their current NHI plans. 

The door to political compromise could of course reopen should the balance of political power in the country change – as it will surely do after the 2029 elections, if not earlier. 

To the courts then 

There has been much media coverage of the various court cases challenging the NHI Act. Understandably, a lot of the public statements were aimed at drumming up public support for the various points of view. In the end, the courts will hopefully look past the rhetoric and politicking and judge the cases on their merits. 

This is why in recent months Spotlight put substantial resources into combing through seemingly endless court papers and chatting to a variety of lawyers in an attempt to sift the wheat from the chaff. As with many other court cases we’ve reported on, we suspect the various NHI-related cases will in the end turn on just a few key legal questions. In a special two-part series, we tried to pin down what these key legal questions are likely to be – you can see part 1 here and part 2 here. (Thank you to the three lawyers we quote in the article, as well as those who shared their views, but opted not to be named and quoted.) 

In our view, this crystallisation of the legal case against the NHI Act, and/or specific provisions in the Act, is the most notable NHI-related development this year. After all, a major ruling against the Act could make much else moot. 

Other NHI developments 

Meanwhile, the Department of Health is moving ahead on the assumption that NHI will be implemented as envisaged in the Act. The first formal step towards setting out the proposed governance structure and processes of the NHI Fund is underway with draft regulations that were published in the Government Gazette in March. Amongst others, the regulations provide for the appointment of the board of the NHI Fund, the fund’s chief executive officer, and for a benefits advisory committee and a healthcare benefits pricing committee. In the background here is the fact that, until the NHI Fund has been established as a public entity, it cannot be awarded a budget by parliament. 

One source of funding for NHI could be the phasing out of medical scheme tax credits. This is according to a presentation by the National Health Department’s NHI lead, Dr Nicholas Crisp, who was addressing the Standing Committee on Appropriations in the National Assembly. The presentation notes that medical scheme tax credits could raise as much as R34bn for the NHI Fund by 2027/28. At the moment, eligible beneficiaries receive medical scheme tax credits to the value of R364 per month for the primary member, R364 for the first dependant, and R246 for each additional dependant. The rough idea is that tax credits would first be phased out for high-income earners. This would eventually be followed by the state scrapping medical scheme subsidies to civil servants. 

But Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana seems unconvinced. He told BusinessDay: “It’s actually an attack on the middle class”. 

And indeed, the proposed scrapping of medical aid subsidies has added fuel to suggestions that government is intentionally undermining the viability of private healthcare in South Africa. A set of recommendations on how to better regulate the country’s private healthcare sector remains largely unimplemented six years after being published. Government did publish draft regulations for tariff determination in the private sector in February, but, as we recently reported, those draft regulations have now been withdrawn. In fact, those draft regulations were so poorly thought out that one wonders whether they were a serious attempt at addressing the issue in the first place. 

According to Crisp’s presentation, NHI could take “10, 15 or more” years to implement. There is some welcome realism in this. Rather absurdly, Section 57 of the NHI Act still states that it will be introduced in two phases, between 2023 and 2026, and between 2026 and 2028. 

Several experts have suggested to Spotlight that, mainly for financial reasons, NHI is essentially dead in the water and that the more serious people in the government and the ANC know this. Few are however willing to say this publicly. Others, like Crisp and Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, would of course beg to differ, and mean it. 

Not the only solution 

One thing that should not get lost in all this is that things really do need to change. Apart from being extremely unequal, much of the healthcare system in South Africa is deeply dysfunctional. But Motsoaledi is wrong when he suggests that the specific system set out in the NHI Act is the only possible solution. As we’ve previously argued, there are other viable paths to universal health coverage, even if the current set of leaders in the ANC refuses to seriously consider them. 

One of the great tragedies of NHI is that for all the noise, we have never really had an informed public debate about the policy options and the reasons for going with one set of health reforms rather than another. There were few things as depressing as watching members of parliament’s portfolio committee for health reducing someone’s nuanced and constructive feedback on the Bill to a simple question of whether someone is for or against NHI. The ANC of course had a majority in parliament prior to the 2024 elections, so maybe there was a sense that they did not need to listen and do the hard work of engaging and bringing people along with them. 

Either way, it now seems likely that in 2026, the courts will have to make one or more landmark rulings that will determine the future of NHI. We have some idea of what the key issues will be on which those cases will turn, but as to how the courts will decide, your guess is as good as ours. 

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

On Which Legal Arguments are the NHI Court Cases Set to Turn? Part 2: Right to Healthcare Services

On By ModernMedia

By Jesse Copelyn

The NHI Act is facing a slew of legal challenges from multiple organisations. For this special series, Spotlight combed through court papers, and spoke with legal experts to pin down what specific arguments litigants are betting on. In part one, we focused on the claim that the scheme is unaffordable and therefore unreasonable. Here, in part two, we discuss the argument that the NHI will unjustifiably compromise people’s right to access healthcare services.

Since the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act was signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa in May 2024, eight different groups have challenged it in court, with some filing multiple applications.

One core argument which appears in different ways across many of these submissions is that under the NHI, people will have access to fewer health services, or simply a reduced quality of care, than what they currently have.

If this was true then the NHI could be in violation of Section 27 of the country’s Constitution, according to which government has to do what it can to achieve the “progressive realisation” of the right to healthcare services (along with the right to food, water and social security). Courts have often interpreted this to mean that the government not only has to take active steps to advance people’s access to healthcare, but also that it should avoid doing things that might limit their existing rights.

Sasha Stevenson, who heads the public interest law clinic SECTION27, explained that the Constitution uses the phrase “progressive realisation” because of a “recognition that not everything can be perfect straight away, so the government needs to take steps to move toward full realisation of certain socioeconomic rights”. She added: “What that means logically is that you can’t move backwards.”

There is however some wiggle room, said Stevenson. This is because the Constitution only expects the government to take “reasonable” steps that are “within its available resources”, she said.

Thus, if the government was cash-strapped and able to show that it simply couldn’t afford to maintain its current levels of health expenditure without seriously compromising other core rights, then it may be able to take steps backward without violating the Constitution. Stevenson argued that, at its core, the key idea is simply that the state must fully justify what it is doing.

To show that the NHI Act violates Section 27 of the Constitution, litigants will need to prove that it not only limits people’s right to healthcare, but that the government hasn’t provided good enough reasons for why it is doing this.

But why are litigants arguing that the NHI would limit people’s right to healthcare in the first place? Let’s start with medical scheme members.

Cutting out medical schemes

Section 33 of the NHI Act states that once the scheme is fully implemented, medical schemes will only be allowed to cover top-up health services that aren’t covered by the NHI. In addition, the Act requires “mandatory prepayment”, meaning people will have to pay to be covered by the NHI, whether or not they want to join.

Thus, unless someone was able to afford both the mandatory prepayment for the NHI, and complimentary cover from their medical schemes, they would have to switch to relying solely on the NHI for their medical coverage.

This is an issue for the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF), which represents the medical insurance industry, and was one of the first groups to challenge the NHI in court.

“When you look at what medical scheme members are entitled to now versus to what they’re entitled to under an NHI scheme, it’s a regressive process,” Neil Kirby, who heads the healthcare and life science practice area at Werksmans Attorneys, which represents BHF, told Spotlight.

“You probably would be entitled to less under an NHI scheme than you would under the current regime,” he said.

Of course, at present we don’t yet know exactly what health services the NHI will cover, as the package of benefits has not yet been detailed. It thus may be difficult for courts to assess this claim.

When asked about this, Kirby said: “The current assessment by various economic experts is that if one were to price the value of the current basket of prescribed minimum benefits [the services which medical schemes have to cover]… and spread that cost over the entire population covered by NHI, the NHI would be entirely unaffordable.”

As a result, he said: “There would have to be some degree of compromise in respect of the benefits to be provided under NHI in order for the state to afford to purchase those benefits”. In other words, they’d need to offer less than what medical schemes currently cover.

In response to this, the National Health Department’s NHI lead, Dr Nicholas Crisp, denied that people’s coverage would be compromised under the NHI. In a conversation with Spotlight, he argued that the NHI would not need to incur the same total payment obligations as medical schemes in order to cover a comprehensive package of health services. This is given that it could purchase services more efficiently, he said.

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)

Crisp justified this on several grounds. One is that private health providers are currently accused of overservicing clients, which he argues could be rectified under the NHI.

For instance, Crisp pointed to the Competition Commission’s Health Market Inquiry report, which found that private health facilities are reimbursed for each consultation, operation or other service that they provide. The report found that this “creates an incentive for providers to over-service patients, to over-invest in generously remunerated services, and under-invest in poorly remunerated services [even if they have a positive impact on patient outcomes]”.

Under the NHI scheme, a different reimbursement model would be used to cover health providers both at private and public health facilities. For instance, in the primary healthcare sector, the NHI would rely on capitation. This means that health providers would be provided a fixed fee for each patient, rather than for each individual service, removing the incentive to overservice, and thus overcharge.

Crisp also argued that the government is able to procure medicines and other health services at lower prices than the private sector partly by buying in bulk. Additionally, he noted that billions of rands are reportedly lost in fraud, waste and abuse within the private health sector, due for instance to fraudulent medical claims.

According to Crisp, the NHI fund would be able to save on all of these unnecessary costs.

Pushing back on this view, Professor Alex van den Heever, from the Wits school of governance, told Spotlight that there was no reason to think the state could purchase cover more efficiently than the private medical schemes.

In the public sector, he said that “whether you have a [national] monopoly like Eskom, or a public monopoly in a province like the Gauteng Department of Health, they hardly spend their money efficiently”. Van den Heever added: “For Tembisa hospital to lose R2 billion and not get a cent back in terms of actual products is an indication of the risk.”

He was referring to a damning report by the Special Investigating Unit which confirmed large-scale looting to the tune of around R2 billion meant for patient care at Tembisa Hospital in Gauteng’s East Rand. Their investigation zoomed in on nine criminal syndicates, with three of them pocketing nearly R1.7 billion. The SIU found that R122 million in kickbacks were paid to at least 15 current and former health department officials.

“So you have to have some real evidence that [the state would] be able to procure services more efficiently, and there’s no evidence. All the historical evidence suggests they’d do worse,” Van den Heever said.

Does the state have good reasons?

If litigants are able to show that the NHI was regressive for people on medical schemes in the sense that it diminished their rights, the courts might still decide that the government had provided a good enough justification for why these limitations are reasonable.

But according to Van den Heever, the government has thus far categorically failed to do this.

“From the green paper to the white paper to the [NHI] bill, there is not a single technical document that provides a clear rationale for Section 33 [the restriction on medical schemes],” said Van den Heever. Overall, the very question about what specific problems the NHI is trying to solve and how it would do this remain elusive.

He added that one public health professor had submitted court papers in support of NHI which argued that the existence of the private health sector undermines the public sector, for instance by hoarding doctors and specialists. Yet according to Van den Heever, “no technical report has ever been produced” which provides evidence for that claim.

Additionally, he noted that doctor shortages at public facilities are evidently not driven by private sector hoarding but by financial constraints emanating from mismanagement and corruption. This prevents public hospitals from hiring people who are available for work. (Previous Spotlight reporting has also suggested that the shortage of doctors in the public sector is driven by a lack of funding, rather than a lack of doctors.)

Similarly, the Hospital Association of South Africa (HASA) argued in court papers that the NHI Act’s restrictions on medical schemes serves “no rational, reasonable or economic purpose”.

The association also argued that there are no examples of health systems that impose these restrictions, aside from a few provinces in Canada, and thus Section 33 of the NHI Act is clearly “not a requirement for a successful national health system aimed at [universal health coverage]”.

Defending the restriction on medical schemes, Crisp said that if two different streams of health financing are allowed to continue, then so will inequity. He also stated that single-payer health systems funded by the state are not unusual, even if their exact form differs across countries.

Limiting the rights of public sector users

In addition to the arguments that the NHI Act will unjustly restrict the rights of medical scheme members, some have also argued that it will be regressive for public sector users.

One organisation making this argument is the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC). It has applied to be a friend of the court in the dispute between the South African Medical Association (SAMA) and the government. The TAC argued that the governance provisions within the NHI are so weak that they threaten the entire health system, including for those relying on government health facilities.

Stevenson, whose organisation SECTION27 is represents the TAC, said that checks and balances within the governance of the NHI fund are deficient, leaving it vulnerable to corruption and mismanagement.

Related Posts

Van den Heever, who is serving as an expert in the SAMA case, seconded this concern. He also said that the NHI ultimately centralises the management and purchasing of healthcare services under national institutions. This introduces inefficiencies that will compromise patient care at government facilities, he argued.

“Healthcare is [a sector] where the purchasing and management [should be] decentralised,” he said, largely because different communities have different health needs.

Even in the United Kingdom, said Van den Heever, the responsibility for the National Health Service, which provides the majority of medical services, is devolved across England, Wales, Scotland and northern Ireland, with semi-autonomous trusts, boards and hospitals in each country having a major say in operational decisions.

Van den Heever argued that not only would the centralisation of health under NHI be highly undesirable, but the actual transition to this system from one in which provinces are responsible for healthcare would be enormously disruptive, impacting patient care.

Asylum seekers compromised by NHI

An additional argument concerns the rights of asylum seekers and undocumented people, a central concern for SAMA and the TAC.

Stevenson explained that under our current system, all people, including asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, have the right to free primary healthcare services in the public sector. Just like ordinary citizens, asylum seekers also have the right to access public hospitals on a means-tested basis (meaning your level of subsidisation is determined by what you can afford).

In addition, pregnant and lactating women, as well as children under six, are entitled to all services regardless of documentation status, and the government is compelled to screen, test and treat anyone with HIV.

Under the NHI Act, all of these rights are compromised for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. This is because Section 4 of the NHI Act states that these groups are only covered for emergency care and for services related to notifiable conditions. The country’s list of notifiable conditions includes diseases like cholera and pulmonary TB, but excludes HIV, diabetes and many other common diseases.

Stevenson argued that this not only compromises the rights of individual asylum seekers, but makes for terrible public health policy.

“It essentially means dropping part of our population off the HIV programme,” she said.

“It would also mean we’re waiting more and more for emergencies, because people can access care [at the point of emergency] but not at a primary healthcare level. So you can’t go and get yourself checked for diabetes… But when your foot is gangrenous [a symptom of untreated diabetes] and needs amputation then you’re in an emergency situation.”

Overall, the Act in its current form constitutes a clear regression for asylum seekers, said Stevenson, and the government has provided no comprehensive justification for why it is excluding this group. If the government wanted to justify the exclusion of migrants on the basis that it is too costly to cover them under the NHI then they “have to show the numbers”, Stevenson said.

Thus far, they haven’t done so.

“There has been no assessment of the so-called burden of migrants in the health sector, let alone how many people fit into which category or how much money is spent on services for people,” said Stevenson, “Instead, there has just been this persistent scapegoating, and these broad statements about the burden.”

Court documents submitted by SAMA have made similar allegations.

“There is no reliable study which shows the extension of the NHI to foreigners will have a significant effect on the affordability of the NHI,” it argued, noting that in fact the converse may be true, as the contributions of foreigners to the economy may outweigh the costs of providing them healthcare.

Asked about this, Crisp said that they were aware of the issue, and that while it was a complicated matter, the state would ultimately have to ensure healthcare for all people, in line with its domestic laws and international agreements.

Disclosure: SECTION27 is mentioned in this article. Spotlight is published by SECTION27, but is editorially independent – an independence that the editors guard jealously. Spotlight is a member of the South African Press Council and subject to the South African Press Code.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Ethics and LawTags :

On Which Legal Arguments Are the NHI Court Cases Set to Turn? Part 1: Affordability

On By ModernMedia

By Jesse Copelyn

Since President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the NHI Act into law last year in May, eight different groups have challenged it in court. One common argument is that it is irrational and unreasonable to restructure the health system when there’s no money to do so. In this feature, Spotlight dissects how the argument is being applied, and whether it has any chance of success.

Earlier this month, the Western Cape Government filed papers with the Constitutional Court challenging the validity of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act. In doing so, it became the eighth group to litigate against the Act, which aims to provide the same state-funded medical cover for all South Africans.

Not only are there now numerous litigants, each with their own distinct set of arguments, but some have also launched multiple applications, challenging different steps that led to it becoming law.

In this context, figuring out on which legal questions the future of the NHI Act will ultimately turn is difficult. Thus, Spotlight combed through some of the founding affidavits and spoke with legal experts to get a sense of the arguments litigants are betting on. A first key argument relates to the affordability of the scheme – in part two of this series we will turn to whether the NHI leads to an unreasonable regression in health services for certain groups.

Rationality and reasonability

Section 1(c) of the Constitution of the country holds that South Africa is a state governed by the rule of law. One of the implications of this is that governments can’t simply introduce laws arbitrarily without any justification. Instead, when an Act is passed, there has to be some aim behind that legislation, and some logical reason as to why passing it would advance that aim.

In other words, laws have to be rational.

Not only this, but Section 27 of the Constitution states that when it comes to the advancement of certain social rights like healthcare, government must act “reasonably”. This is a more demanding requirement than “rationality”. It doesn’t just require that an Act be logically related to its purpose but that it is practically feasible, and that it meets a range of other criteria (for instance, costs and benefits have to be fairly weighed).

A central argument of several litigants is that the NHI simply doesn’t meet basic standards of rationality or reasonability. One of the reasons for this, they argue, is that the government is unable to finance the NHI, and thus the Act has no hope of achieving its goals.

There are at least two ways in which this argument is being advanced. The first is as part of a series of applications seeking to invalidate the NHI Act itself. The second is as part of a procedural challenge to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to sign the NHI Act into law. Here, the focus is on the rationality of the President’s decision, rather than the Act.

Challenging the act itself

The first party to take legal action against the NHI was the conservative trade union, Solidarity, which launched its application in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on 24 May 2024.

In its founding affidavit, Solidarity argued that for the NHI to achieve its stated aim of universal access to quality healthcare services, the “requisite level of funding” must be available to establish the NHI Fund and its various mechanisms. But according to Solidarity’s application, it has already been shown that the government is incapable of raising enough tax revenue to support the scheme.

For instance, Solidarity references the position of the Davis Tax Committee, which was a group of experts chaired by Judge Dennis Davis that used to advise the government on how it could raise money to advance various policy goals. In 2017, the committee released a 48-page report on the NHI, which found that the state couldn’t cover the full cost of the NHI unless there was “sustained economic growth”.

Solidarity stated that this, in combination with its own research, showed that the NHI simply can’t be rolled out comprehensively. Thus, there was a “complete absence of a rational relation between the means selected and the objective sought to be achieved”.

Similarly, in February, a separate challenge was brought by the Hospital Association of South Africa (HASA), which argued that the NHI should be set aside because it is “fundamentally unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional”.

HASA’s submission argued that the burden of proof lay with the government to show that the NHI was financially feasible before passing the Act. This is particularly important given that the scheme involves a radical restructuring of healthcare with potentially detrimental knock-on effects for the private sector. The government thus had a duty to show that the scheme could lead to material benefits that justified these harms.

However, HASA argues that “no recent comprehensive and accurate financial feasibility and affordability assessment was conducted” by the government before pushing through the NHI, rendering “the passing of the legislation unreasonable and irrational”.

For its part, the National Department of Health has argued in court papers that trying to work out the full cost of the NHI would be a futile exercise. For instance, the health department’s NHI lead, Nicholas Crisp, filed an affidavit in response to Solidarity which stated that “attempts to conduct a once-off accounting exercise” were “not useful”.

He said: “The outcome of such an exercise is inevitably inaccurate, misleading and does not support informed decision making for reform.” Crisp argued that this was already evident from the “extremely wide range of figures that various parties have claimed to reflect the cost of the NHI in the public domain”.

Instead, Crisp stated that the World Health Organization (WHO) had advised the department to conduct an “ongoing costing approach for specific steps of the NHI implementation process”, which is something they were already doing, he said.

Nonetheless, many of the litigants have pushed back against this, arguing that this approach still leaves us without any evidence that the NHI can be funded in the medium to long term. In its affidavit, HASA argues: “In the context of constrained public finances and very challenging economic conditions… it is wholly irrational to commence the wholesale restructuring of the healthcare sector without long-term costing, and only with short-term piece-meal analysis”.

Challenging the President’s decision

While the above applications have sought to review and set aside the NHI Act itself, a separate set of challenges has instead focused on the decision of Ramaphosa to sign the Bill into law.

Section 79(1) of the Constitution states that if the President “has reservations about the constitutionality of the Bill”, then he should refer it back to Parliament for reconsideration.

If it can be proved that Ramaphosa had good evidence that the NHI may have been unconstitutional, but signed it anyway, then his decision can potentially be overturned by a court. In this case, the NHI wouldn’t be completely invalidated and set aside, but the President’s decision to sign it into law would be. Therefore, the NHI would go back to being a Bill, and would likely need to be reworked by Parliament.

President Cyril Ramaphosa holds a copy of the NHI Act after publicly signing into law in May 2024. (Photo: GCIS)

The Board of Health Funders (BHF), which represents medical insurance companies, is one of the litigants taking this approach. In addition, the South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF) has a two-part application challenging both the Act itself and Ramaphosa’s decision to sign it.

Once again, the affordability argument has been central in these cases. In particular, the BHF and SAPPF have both highlighted a number of documents that were sent to Ramaphosa before he signed the NHI Act, which they argue should have caused the President to reconsider whether the Act was affordable.

For instance, the parties note that in 2018, the Office of the Presidency received a letter from the acting director-general of Treasury which expressed several concerns about what was then the NHI Bill. One of them was that the “financial implications are not costed”. As a result of issues such as this, the acting director-general felt “unable to support the bill in the current form submitted to cabinet”.

The BHF affidavit points out that the version of the Bill that Treasury had commented on was “not materially altered” later on. It further states that the letter from Treasury “was before the president when he assented to the NHI Bill and it is unclear at this stage the basis on which the president disagreed with the views of Treasury”.

In order to properly evaluate the rationality of Ramaphosa’s decision, the applications by BHF and SAPPF have been seeking to have the full record of his decision made public. The record refers to any information he would have had before him when signing the bill into law, as well as any minutes of correspondences he had which related to the Act.

The BHF and SAPPF have already made some progress with their case. In May, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled that it was able to review Ramaphosa’s decision to sign the NHI Bill into law, and gave the President 10 days to provide the full record of his decision to do so.

Neil Kirby, who heads the healthcare and life science practice area at Werksman’s Attorneys, which represents BHF, told Spotlight that after the ruling, “both the [health] minister and the president made application for leave to appeal that judgment which is a process that’s supposed to happen before the original judge. They also then proposed that they appeal directly to the constitutional court.”

He adds: “At this point in time the high court has taken a step back on the basis that the high court wants to wait for the constitutional court via the chief justice to see what to do about those direct applications.”

Thus, until the Chief Justice provides direction, Kirby says “everything is in limbo”.

In the meantime, the BHF has also launched a separate application at the Constitutional Court, which challenges the public participation process prior to Ramaphosa signing the NHI Act. The focus here is on the rationality and reasonability of Parliament’s consideration of the NHI Bill, which they argue failed to consider input from various parties. As with the other application, the affordability argument plays a role.

Kirby explains: “If you’re sitting in the National Assembly and you’re being asked to vote on a Bill that proposes a significant financial burden on the state in due course and you don’t have the figures in front of you to understand what that burden actually is, then you’re not in a position to say that such a thing is a good idea… It’s grounds for review based on the reasonableness and the rationality of [that] decision”.

How powerful is the affordability argument?

According to Kirby, the argument about affordability is by no means the only strong line of attack that the BHF possesses against the NHI, but it is easily one of the most powerful.

According to Dr Larisse Prinsen, a medico-legal expert at the University of the Free State, who is not involved in the litigation, the affordability argument is more likely to be successful as a line of attack against the President’s assent to the legislation (as with the BHF’s case). Though it would be unlikely to suffice on its own, she says.

Prinsen explains that if the “record shows that the President ignored massive red flags, such as the warnings by the [Davis Tax Committee] and Treasury regarding concerns about the sustainability of the NHI, unresolved costing, provincial power concerns etc., this could support the claim of irrationality in the decision-making process”.

However, she says when it comes to the legal challenges to the Act itself, the argument about affordability is less likely to be successful.

“Courts often defer where a law creates a framework with a phased roll-out and which leaves fiscal choices to later money bills,” she says. “The government might use annual appropriations or future revenue decisions or phased progressive implementation to argue the NHI scheme is in fact capable of reasonable realisation over time. This means that outright invalidation on ‘infeasibility’ alone is a harder battle to fight.”

Similarly, another attorney who is also independent of the litigation, told Spotlight that rationality reviews are typically aimed at procedural steps in the formation of an Act. Thus, the challenge to the President’s decision to sign the law, would likely carry more weight, he said.

Note: In part two of this series, we will turn to whether the implementation of NHI, as set out in the NHI Act, will lead to an unreasonable regression in health services for certain groups.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Expert Opinion HospitalsTags :

A Lament for South African Healthcare: There Is Another Way

On By ModernMedia

By Dr Dumisani Bomela, Chief Executive Officer of the Hospital Association of South Africa

There’s an old African idiom: “When elephants fight, the grass suffers.” The “elephants”, however, are two interdependent players in healthcare: the government, which is pushing for the National Health Insurance (NHI), and private healthcare providers and funders, who have long raised serious concerns about the initiative.

At the heart of the dispute is whether a single-fund NHI is constitutional, viable, and sustainable. The legal conflict is shaping up to be unlike anything we have seen in this country.

Dr Dumisani Bomela, CEO of HASA

Some legislators argue that the private healthcare sector opposes reform because it is driven by profit and harbours anti-poor sentiments. But no one in the private healthcare sector is opposed to the objectives of the National Health Insurance. We are in favour of healthcare reform that works. There is a crucial difference.

It is a difference dismissed by those determined that only their view matters. The result is that not only has the country spent nearly two decades in a fruitless debate about the NHI, but it appears that those in charge of the healthcare system have prioritised stagnation over progress. When alternatives could have been explored, expert advice considered, research examined, and insights heard, none were.

Instead, constructive dialogue leading to a positive compromise benefiting patients is perceived as a weakness to be denied and overcome. Perspectives have become so entrenched that mutual understanding seems out of reach. Consequently, energy, effort, and resources will be spent in courts rather than on designing solutions.

Meanwhile, the country’s healthcare users are not getting the attention they deserve. South Africans continue to suffer in under-resourced facilities or struggle to afford medical coverage.

Current legislation and regulation already allow for immediate reforms that could lower healthcare costs and ease pressure on the system and public hospitals. We could complete the reform pathway that would support the affordability of medical aid for millions more South Africans, a move that experts and the Health Market Inquiry have recommended.

Through public–private collaboration and innovation, we can upgrade healthcare infrastructure and develop a stronger base of critical healthcare skills, particularly in nursing, ultimately creating jobs and strengthening the national fiscus. These are realistic and achievable solutions that would deliver real progress in the short term and better position us to move more confidently towards universal healthcare coverage.

Our greatest achievement as a nation has been our ability to unite in times of crisis. We can do it again, but only if all role players are meaningfully involved in healthcare reform – including the private sector – and are willing to listen, consider, and compromise with each other to meet the needs of all healthcare users. To begin with, the government must view private healthcare as a strategic partner, a national asset that can offer significant ideas to resolve the national health delivery crisis. Private healthcare, on the other hand, faces challenges, some of which were identified in the Health Market Inquiry, and others that will undoubtedly be raised in the roundtable debates accompanying the collaborative initiatives crucial to strengthening the system.

If we don’t change course, patients waiting in overcrowded facilities will continue to suffer, and families will continue to struggle to afford care. Dedicated doctors and nurses already working under increasingly difficult conditions will face a darkening future, and the entire system will creak more ominously.

The path to reform does not have to be adversarial. We can redesign healthcare together, combining the strengths of both public and private sectors in the spirit of recognising our shared humanity and interdependence. We can still choose collaboration over confrontation, practical solutions over political battles, and progress over passivity.

But we must act now. Time is running out, and every day spent fighting in courtrooms rather than sitting eye to eye and exchanging ideas is another day that South Africans suffer without the healthcare they deserve. The choice is ours: Will we fight each other, or will we fight together for a healthcare system that serves everyone?

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Warnings of ‘Fiscally Impossible’ Tax Hikes, Slashed Healthcare Under NHI

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash

The Health Funders Association (HFA) has launched a legal challenge against the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act. The organisation filed its application on the 4th of June in the Pretoria High Court, challenging the Act on constitutional grounds. This marks the sixth legal challenge against the Bill, with others being brought by professional medical associations and other healthcare funding associations.

“South Africa needs a healthcare system that delivers equitable, quality care to all. We fully support that vision,” said Thoneshan Naidoo, the HFA’s chief executive. “However, in its current form, and without private sector collaboration, the NHI Act is fiscally impossible and operationally unworkable, and threatens the stability of the economy and health system, impacting everyone in South Africa.”

Prior to this, the Board of Health Funders had launched its own legal effort to have President Cyril Ramaphosa make public his decision-making process for approving the NHI Bill. So far, he has refused, arguing that opponents would lead to a courtroom “fishing expedition” in search of flawed reasoning.

HFA pointed to research that it had commissioned from economic consultancy Genesis Analytics. The Genesis report showed that unsustainable tax increases were necessary to fund NHI, while also reducing healthcare access for members of medical schemes.

NHI unaffordable even with generous assumptions

Assuming a cost efficiency of 45.5% from state-centralised healthcare funding, R15 432 per capita expenditure would be required, which works out to R941 billion for South Africa’s 61 million. (For comparison, the 2024 budget for US space agency NASA was R440 bn.) This is a 77% increase over SA’s total of R532.2bn for public and private healthcare expenditure in 2022, making healthcare 33% of the budget. Personal income tax rates would rise to over 40% for even the lowest income bracket – more than doubling from 18.5%. The highest income bracket would increase from 45% to 68.4%. Those earning R92 000 a year would have R10 000 less income – if they were already paying for medical aid. If not, that would be R21 000. [One wonders how South Africa can afford this when we cannot easily replace the US$500 million worth of US aid for HIV and other healthcare programmes under PEPFAR. – Ed.]

“Such tax increases are fiscally impossible, particularly given South Africa’s narrow personal income tax base of 7.4 million taxpayers,” the HFA said.

The HFA also argued that the NHI is not a reasonable solution to the constitutional requirement for progressive realisation of the right to healthcare. By making private healthcare only valid for conditions not covered by the NHI, its much-maligned Section 33 infringes on individuals’ healthcare access. Legislative authority is delegated to the Minister of Health, violating the constitutional separation of legislature and executive power. It is fertile ground for tenderpreneurs, as discussed by Jeff Wicks in a News24 article (paywalled). The HFA also notes that the government has admitted in legislation brought by Solidarity that no thorough NHI costing was performed.

Healthcare quality impacted

Even if South Africa were to find the money for NHI between the couch cushions, there have to be skilled people who can provide the services. Nearly 300 000 healthcare professionals would be required, and given the time needed to train new ones, there would be a huge strain.

Worse, analysis shows that the NHI will make things even worse than they currently are. According to Naidoo, “what NHI will do actually is worse than healthcare for the uninsured because combining your medical scheme population, who are older, within a single risk pool, will actually usurp more funds and actually disadvantage the vulnerable.”

But the country is not without options and inherent advantages, Naidoo says, citing the strengths of its private healthcare system. “We can bring to the table the skills, the knowledge and experience on how to build a sustainable funding solution for the entire country. So that’s what we can bring, and we want to make sure we build this country for everyone.”

Categories : General Interest HospitalsTags :

My Five-hour Wait for Treatment at Mamelodi Hospital

On By ModernMedia

Gauteng Health MEC has said Mamelodi Regional Hospital meets National Health Insurance standards, but my experience was not good

The writer waited five hours for treatment for a broken wrist and head injuries at Mamelodi Regional Hospital in Tshwane. Photo: Warren Mabona.

By Warren Mabona

I waited five hours to get medical treatment at Mamelodi Regional Hospital in Tshwane, with a broken wrist and an injured head.

On 19 February 2025 at about 4pm I was walking in Mamelodi West. I was on a journalism assignment, heading to informal settlements that are prone to flooding.

The street was quiet, but I felt safe because I had walked there before. Suddenly, a car stopped in front of me, and two men got out of it and tried to rob me. I ran away and jumped into the stormwater passage, but slipped and fell, hitting my face against the concrete.

When I managed to stand up, I was dizzy and my vision was blurred. I was drenched in dirty water and my belongings — my cell phone, my wallet and my camera bag — were wet.

The men who attacked me were no longer on the street. My right wrist was swollen and painful, an injury above my eye was bleeding profusely, and my head was aching. But I was relieved that I was still alive and I still had all my belongings.

I decided not to call an ambulance, but to walk about 800 metres to Mamelodi Regional Hospital.

I went to the casualty unit, expecting that I would receive treatment quickly. At the front desk, a clerk took more than 20 minutes to fill in my file. He said the hospital’s computer system was offline and he had to fill in the file with a pen. I then went to sit at the reception area. My head was aching and I repeatedly requested headache tablets from the nurses, who gave me two tablets after 30 minutes. But my pain lingered.

The wound on my face was still bleeding and my wrist was swollen and bent. About 40 minutes after my arrival, a nurse cleaned my wound and wrapped it with a bandage, stopping the bleeding.

At about 8pm, a man sitting next to me said he had arrived at the hospital at 2pm after falling from scaffolding at a construction site. He was still waiting for his X-ray results.

I went for X-rays and long afterwards, at about 10pm, I had a cast put on my wrist. I was given injections which helped with the pain. I was discharged at 11pm and went home.

In September last year, the Gauteng MEC for Health Nomantu Nkomo-Ralehoko said that Mamelodi Regional Hospital was the first hospital in Gauteng ready to meet National Health Insurance (NHI) standards.

In response to GroundUp’s questions, Gauteng Department of Health spokesperson Motalatale Modiba said a triage priority system is followed at the hospital, meaning that four patients with critical wounds that required life-saving emergencies were attended to first. He said this affected my waiting time for wound care and the application of a cast.

“You were classified as Orange P2, that is a person who is in a stable condition and is not in any immediate danger, but requires observation,” said Modiba.

“At the time of your arrival, the casualty unit had 31 other patients to be seen. These include four critical cases in the resuscitation unit, ten trauma cases, 16 medical cases and four pediatric cases,” he said.

Modiba confirmed that the hospital’s computer system was offline when I arrived.

I asked Modiba whether the Gauteng Department of Health can still confidently regard this hospital as NHI-ready despite the slow delivery of medical services I experienced. Modiba said: “Mamelodi Regional Hospital remains committed to provide best healthcare services.”

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

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical IndustryTags : 1 Comment

ANC and its Ministers Reject Reports of NHI ‘Concessions’

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Hush Naidoo Jade Photography on Unsplash

By Chris Bateman

Recent media reports over the future of NHI have been contradictory and hard to make sense of. Spotlight chased up those in a position to know where things stand – it seems the ANC has not in fact made any major concessions on NHI. There is however agreement that medical schemes won’t be phased out in the next few years, something that likely wouldn’t have happened in any case given the poor state of the economy and the long timeline for NHI implementation. 

The ANC is holding firm on the NHI Act with Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi and the National Health Department “unaware of any compromise deals”, and the President’s office saying engagement with Business Unity SA (BUSA) is “ongoing”.

In spite of recent media reports to the contrary, neither President Cyril Ramaphosa nor Motsoaledi have conceded to any BUSA proposals on amending sections of the NHI Act. BUSA is the country’s apex business association and represents the banking, mining, and retail sectors, including the Health Funders Association, the Hospital Association of South Africa, and the Innovative Pharmaceuticals Association of South Africa.

BUSA, and several other critics of the Act, have argued that provisions should be removed that prohibit medical schemes from covering any health services covered by the NHI fund. The NHI Act has not yet been promulgated. If promulgated in its current form, the role of medical schemes will be dramatically reduced.

The DA’s spokesperson on health, Michele Clarke, told Spotlight that at the establishment of the recent GNU-convened Medium Term Development Plan (MTDP), agreement was reached that the health department would “not de-establish medical aids during the current government’s term of office”.

Spotlight understands that this amounts to a commitment not to promulgate the relevant sections of the Act in the next few years – it does not amount to a commitment to remove those sections from the act.

This is a pyrrhic victory, given that the implementation of NHI was always going to be a long-term project and that even in the most pro-NHI scenarios, the effective phasing out of medical schemes in the next few years was highly unlikely. There are also four legal challenges being brought on procedural and constitutional grounds that may further delay things.

Mist of confusion

Last week’s mist of confusion lifted when both the Presidency and Dr Stavros Nicolaou, speaking to Spotlight on behalf of BUSA, said no concessions have been made on NHI. Motsoaledi’s office also flatly denied reports that there had been any ANC or GNU compromise to remove parts of the NHI legislation that would render medical aids almost obsolete. The Spokesperson for the National Department of Health, Foster Mohale, added that he was unaware of any MTDP agreement on medical aids.

Vincent Magwenya, a spokesperson for the president, told Spotlight he was “unaware of any process leading to the amendment of the NHI Act”, claiming that Maropene Ramokgopa, Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, was misquoted last week.

She was quoted in news reports as saying the ANC and the DA had reached an “unofficial understanding on the NHI” following an ANC compromise to remove parts of the NHI legislation that would collapse medical aids. “Ms Ramokgopa tells me she was misreported,” said Magwenya.

Chris Laubscher, the DA’s communications head, told Spotlight: “There was never confirmation by [DA leader who is also Minister of Agriculture] John Steenhuisen that the NHI in its entirety had been excluded from the government’s Medium Term Development Plan.”

The new MTDP has not yet been made public.

Charity Ophelia McCord, the spokesperson for Steenhuisen, said the MTDP had yet to be completed and passed, but was on the Cabinet agenda for Wednesday, February 12. Spotlight was not able to verify if this was discussed.

Meanwhile, Mohale said both the health department and the minister were unaware of any compromise deal, “thus the implementation of the NHI Act continues as per the plans”.

Cannot be changed over night

If at some point the NHI Act is to be amended, the process is likely to take several years, according to Professor Olive Shisana, Social Policy Special Advisor to Ramaphosa on the NHI and health systems strengthening.

“Any process for changing an enacted law normally goes through Parliament, including an amendment from the executive,” Shisana explained. “There would first have to be consultation with the public before it even got to Parliament. Then, when it gets to Parliament there’s more consultation, this time in each of the provincial legislatures, after which it goes to the Portfolio Committee on Health which also takes written submissions. The committee then decides whether to submit it to the National Assembly. If the National Assembly passes it, it goes to the National Council of Provinces which considers each province’s input. Government took five years to get this NHI Act in place, so you can imagine it might take about as long to get parts of it excised or reversed. That’s the normal route it would have to take, I’m afraid.”

However, both the DA and BUSA are adamant that the Act needs to be changed.

Clarke said the DA remained of the view that “multiple parts of the [Act] remain problematic and dangerous for the future of healthcare in South Africa”.

She added: “The DA wants the model underpinning the NHI to be completely reworked and multiple problematic clauses amended by Parliament to ensure that the healthcare model is protected and strengthened.”

BUSA met with Ramaphosa in September last year and tabled a proposal which included striking Section 33 – which effectively collapses private medical aids as they now exist, creating a single national fund – from the NHI Act. It also calls for the implementation of mandatory health insurance which it is argued will take pressure off the public health system and bolster existing medical aids. The president has since passed it on to Motsoaledi’s office.

Neither BUSA nor the responding government parties have given any indication of when they might next meet or pronounce on the proposal.

Rejection of NHI

Meanwhile, the United Healthcare Access Coalition (UHAC), a grouping claiming to represent 80% of all private healthcare stakeholders, lodged a detailed alternative proposal with the president’s office. This entirely rejects the NHI and focuses on rehabilitating the healthcare system based on a synthesis of far-reaching recommendations which various commissions and experts have made over several decades, including the Taylor Commission and the more recent Health Market Inquiry (HMI).

In January this year, Motsoaledi promised to pronounce on the implementation of the HMI recommendations from 2019 “within weeks”. As reported by Business Day, there indeed seems to now finally be some movement on the HMI recommendations with Minister of Trade Industry and Competition Parks Tau having gazetted an exemption that newly opens the door for tariff setting in the private health sector – a move that may help rein in runaway healthcare costs.

UHAC spokesperson Dr Aslam Dasoo described their report as “everything that the NHI is not”.

“Our health pathway requires easy legislative changes and is within current fiscal constraints. We can start the process immediately. It requires a change in governance structure of the provincial health systems where politicians relinquish all direct authority over health care institutions and instead focus on strategic policy,” he previously told Spotlight.

In an online briefing launching the UHAC on Wednesday, February 12, Dasoo warned all parties in the GNU to “consider their options” as they would be “held jointly responsible” should the NHI be implemented to the detriment of South Africa.

Another UHAC executive member and CEO of the SA Private Practitioners Forum, Dr Simon Strachan, said the focus of their universal healthcare plan was on providing equitable, implementable, and sustainable healthcare.

“We need to ensure that those who can look after themselves, do (financially), while subsidising those who cannot afford to. It’s one hundred percent dependent on improving health service delivery within the public sector and creating a competitive market for people to decide where and how they access healthcare,” he said.

The UHAC coalition includes NGO’s, patient advocacy groups, the SA Medical Association, the South African Private Practitioners Forum, and the Progressive Healthcare Forum.

Asked what UHAC’s “Plan B” was if they “hit a brick wall” on their detailed proposals, Dasoo said the GNU was obliged to respond to such a widely representative proposal “otherwise they’re not fit to govern”.

Referring to the ANC, he said the party “neglected the two major healthcare systems, allowing real degradation of the public sector and an unregulated private sector with no market growth, resulting in prices going up”. He added: “If there’s any brick wall, it’s the one they’ve built.”

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Ethics and Law HospitalsTags :

HASA Launches NHI Legal Challenge

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

The Hospital Association of South Africa (HASA) remains unequivocally committed to working with all stakeholders to build a healthcare system that sustainably benefits all citizens of South Africa and urges all involved parties to engage in a solution-oriented approach.

HASA believes the National Health Insurance is neither sustainable nor affordable and that dialogue and collaboration between all stakeholders is critical to finding and developing solutions to achieve universal health coverage. 

HASA has thus far deferred filing a legal challenge to the NHI Act as it firmly believes that sustainable and affordable solutions, to achieve universal health coverage for all South Africans, are within reach. However, the government’s lack of response to several constructive and practical proposals, including those of Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), and the Minister of Health’s recent public statements concerning the NHI, including regarding the imminent publication of NHI regulations, have necessitated that HASA move forward with its legal challenge to the NHI legislation. 

Even though HASA has decided to proceed with legal action, it remains hopeful that the Presidency will respond positively to the constructive proposals that have been made. 

HASA remains open to engaging with the Government on the way forward in parallel to the legal process. Reiterating the time-critical nature of the matter, Melanie Da Costa, Chairperson of HASA, today said, “We remain firmly committed to participating constructively while the legal process unfolds. As an organisation, we have always preferred to resolve matters through dialogue, and we believe that effective healthcare solutions are urgently needed and achievable through a reasonable and collaborative approach.” 

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Pressure Grows for NHI Compromise Ahead of Cabinet Lekgotla

On By ModernMedia

By Chris Bateman

Whether or not the ANC and DA can find common ground on the future of medical schemes is set to be a major test of South Africa’s Government of National Unity. Ahead of a Cabinet lekgotla where the issue is expected to be on the agenda, momentum has been gathering behind a compromise option. 

Little more than a month after President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law in May last year, the ANC entered into a government of national unity (GNU) following a large drop in their share of the vote in South Africa’s 2024 elections. This raised questions over the future of NHI, given that the second largest party in the GNU, the DA, is vehemently opposed to NHI.

The NHI Act has not yet been promulgated and could be amended if the ANC and DA agree to do so. But whether the parties can agree to a compromise remains unclear, especially since there appears to be a hardline faction in the ANC that is committed to NHI as currently encapsulated in the NHI Act. As it stands, the Act foresees a dramatically reduced role for medical schemes whereby they will not be allowed to cover services that are already covered by the NHI fund.

Also in play are at least four High Court challenges to NHI legislation – by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) challenging Ramaphosa’s assent to the NHI Bill just before the elections last year, Solidarity, and the SA Private Practitioners Forum, both claiming government overreach which impacts on people’s right to choose their own health cover and run their own businesses. The South African Medical Association (SAMA) is also preparing a legal challenge.

Two proposals

Meanwhile, momentum has been growing with two compromise proposals: one from Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), the country’s apex business organisation broadly representing the banking, mining and retail sectors, but more pertinently here, the Health Funders Association, the Hospital Association of South Africa, and the Innovative Pharmaceuticals Association of SA. The other is from the United Healthcare Access Coalition (UHAC), a large coalition of healthcare worker groups including, among others, SAMA, the South African Private Practitioners Forum, and the Progressive Healthcare Forum.

BUSA last year met with Ramaphosa and, on his request, provided a detailed yet currently “confidential” proposal, wanting key sections of the NHI Act amended and/or thrown out to enable medical schemes to remain in play by punting mandatory health insurance.

“The BUSA proposal is being processed by the Department of Health and National Treasury. Once processed, a response to BUSA will be formulated accordingly,” presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Spotlight this week.

The fundamental difference between the two objecting groups is that the UHAC thinks the NHI Act should be thrown out completely and replaced with their detailed blueprint, while BUSA wants the existing Act amended to accommodate private funders. In its proposal, the UHAC urges implementation of long delayed fundamental systemic reform in both healthcare sectors to enable what they say would be efficient, pragmatic and more politically neutral, consultation-driven universal healthcare measures.

We understand that in a meeting between the two groups, shortly before BUSA lodged its proposal with the Presidency, not enough common ground could be found to join forces.

But there are significant overlaps in their proposals. Both groupings embrace mandatory health insurance and dismiss a single central fund as envisaged under NHI as dangerous and financially unfeasible.

Related Posts

DA spokesperson for health, Michelle Clarke, said her party backs mandatory insurance. She also said the party agrees with the UHAC proposals – and would not hesitate to mount a legal challenge should the NHI go ahead without substantial amendments.

Mandatory health insurance was part of government’s longer term health reform plans until the pendulum swung in favour of NHI at the ANC’s national conference in Polokwane in 2007 when Jacob Zuma became president of the party. The idea was placed back in the spotlight last September when Dr Richard Friedland, immediate past CEO of the Netcare Hospital Group and a key member of BUSA’s health delegation, made the case for it at the HASA conference.

Under mandatory health insurance, everyone who is in formal employment, or who earns above a certain threshold, would be forced by law to be a member of a medical scheme. This, it is argued, would result in medical scheme membership swelling substantially and pressure being taken off the public healthcare system. It is also expected to result in medical scheme premiums being reduced because more healthy, younger people will join the schemes. People who are unemployed or who cannot afford health insurance will still be taken care of by the public healthcare system, which would also take paying medical aid members.

Friedland said at the time that mandatory healthcare insurance would triple the medical scheme market from 9.2 million to potentially 27.5 million beneficiaries over time and reduce those dependent on the state from 53.8 million to 35.5 million.

This week Friedland declined to reveal the contents of the BUSA proposal, saying it was with Ramaphosa and thus confidential.

Meanwhile, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi last week rubbished media reports that the cabinet lekgotla scheduled for month end would be taking on board the BUSA proposal. He did however confirm that he will shortly announce which of the far-ranging and long-outstanding recommendations of the Competition Commission’s Health Market Inquiry (HMI) into the private healthcare sector will be implemented, something many have been calling for in recent years.

Far-reaching reforms

Adjunct Professor Alex van den Heever, Chair of Social Security Systems Administration and Management Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand, who with Dr Aslam Dasoo, founder and chair of the Progressive Health Forum, forms part of the UHAC, said their fundamental point of departure is that the status quo is unacceptable.

According to the UHAC report, irregular provincial health expenditure levels provide a proxy indicator for corruption. The combined irregular expenditure for eight of the nine provinces from 2017/18 to 2022/23 consistently averages around 12.3% (around R9 billion per annum) of non-personnel expenditure compared to 0.1% for the DA-run Western Cape.

“The difference in performance between the Western Cape and the other eight provinces is reasonably attributable to governance differences,” the report reads.

Observes Van den Heever: “We’re losing an enormous amount of performance in the public sector because of political appointments into the system. It compromises leadership and results in a massive waste of resources. The Western Cape shows you the difference governance can make.”

He said that in the “dismally” regulated private sector, funding the pooling system was identified as a problem even before 1994, “but you don’t now disrupt the system to amalgamate into a monopoly fund to solve this (i.e. NHI). Risk equalisation would force medical schemes to compete on the value of what they cover, and nobody would be discriminated against in accessing healthcare.”

Van den Heever says the NHI intention to increase taxes and move funding money from the private to the public sector is “unworkable”.

He added: “The way to address pooling problems is to separate pooling from purchasing. The NHI process has pooling and purchasing in the same organisation, centralising everything – which is highly inefficient, unworkable and with negative consequences all the way through.

“The UHAC proposal separates them out with the provinces and medical schemes remaining as purchasers while strategic pooling or resource allocation is a national function. So, risk equalisation and taxation form part of strategic national pooling functions, while the purchasing and provision of health services are protected from political appointments – including national ministers and provincial MECs.”

Dasoo, who is also a founder member of trade union NEHAWU, said the UHAC collaborative proposal draws on all the research developed over several decades including the Taylor Commission, which made recommendations on an effective social security system for South Africa, the HMI, and numerous other official inquiries.

Dasoo described the UHAC report as “everything that the NHI is not. This health pathway requires easy legislative changes and is within current fiscal constraints. We can start the process immediately. It requires a change in governance structure of the provincial health systems where politicians relinquish all direct authority they have over health care institutions and instead focus on strategic policy.”

BHF hearing in March

A spokesperson for the BHF, Zola Mtshiya, confirmed their NHI legal challenge, set for hearing in March, but said the BHF was only invited to sign up to the UHAC proposal after it was made public. The BHF represents most medical aid schemes – except for the largest, Discovery Health.

BHF Managing Director, Dr Katlego Mothudi, said his organisation is “engaging the association [UHAC] on the document”. he added: “We welcome the willingness to collaborate as an industry as strengthening health systems is everybody’s business.”

Cabinet lekgotla next week

Despite all these developments, whether the ANC is open to a potential compromise on NHI remains unclear. On the one hand, the presidency says they have asked Treasury and the Department of Health to consider the BUSA proposal, on the other, Motsoaledi has rubbished suggestions that the ANC’s position on NHI has shifted and appears committed to an NHI system that dramatically limits the role of medical schemes. His position is thus incompatible with that of the DA.

According to media reports, things got very heated between Motsoaledi and DA ministers when NHI and the future role of medical schemes were discussed at a Cabinet meeting last October.

The matter is likely to again be on the agenda at the Cabinet lekgotla set to take place next week.

Asked about how the GNU might eventually influence universal healthcare, Clarke said: “ANC arrogancy has tapered down a lot compared to what I’m used to. There’s a lot more transparency – but we cannot allow for a very badly written law with huge implications for people’s lives and the economy to go ahead.”

Foster Mohale, spokesperson for the national health department, declined to provide comment for this article, referring Spotlight to the Presidency and Motsoaledi. “What I can say is we’re still working on the Health Market Inquiry recommendations and will let you know when there’s an announcement,” he said.

Magwenya did not provide responses to most of Spotlight’s questions, other than saying that both Treasury and the health department are considering the BUSA proposal and confirming that the President had met with BUSA.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.