Tag: NHI

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

NHI Bill Threatens All Citizens’ Constitutional Rights

On By ModernMedia

HFA outlines presidential petition to prevent decimation of the SA healthcare system

The NHI Bill presented to President Cyril Ramaphosa cannot be permitted, as in its current form, it will infringe the rights of all South Africans by destroying the South African healthcare system. The Health Funders Association (HFA) has petitioned the President to withhold assent of the Bill on constitutional and procedural grounds and intends to take the matter as far as necessary and to the Constitutional Court if need be.

“We have taken a strong stand by respectfully urging the President to withhold assent of the Bill, citing constitutional and procedural concerns that pose a significant threat to the integrity of the country’s healthcare system,” remarks HFA Chairperson Craig Comrie.

“Should the need arise, the HFA is prepared to escalate the matter to the courts. Our goal is to meticulously align the legislation with the authentic objectives of Universal Health Coverage and the principles enshrined in the South African Constitution.

“Our action in opposing the NHI Bill being signed into law protects the interests of ALL South Africans who will require healthcare in future, including the people we are duty-bound to safeguard through the medical schemes and healthcare administrators we represent,” Comrie says.

While expressing unwavering support for achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in South Africa, the HFA questions Parliament’s endorsement of a bill that raises significant constitutional and procedural concerns and fundamentally cannot achieve a sustainable system of UHC.

Some of the primary concerns outlined in the letter include:

  • Constitutional concerns: The NHI Bill’s clear infringement on constitutional rights, particularly the right to access healthcare and freedom of choice for South Africans, and by implication, the right to life. The Bill is seriously flawed in that regard, undermining the rule of law.
  • Procedural concerns: Questioning the extent and effectiveness of public consultation during the drafting and review of the NHI Bill, where thousands of submissions resulted in no meaningful changes to the Bill, the HFA advocates for a more inclusive and consultative approach.

The letter implores President Ramaphosa to exercise the powers granted by the Constitution to refer the NHI Bill back to Parliament for review.

“In addition to petitioning the President directly as guardian of the Constitution, the HFA will oppose the NHI Bill in its current form through every possible avenue, including approaching the courts to set aside the Bill on constitutional and procedural grounds.

“The HFA will also seek a High Court interdict against implementation of the NHI Act until the merits of our case have been heard and ruled upon by the High Court.

Craig Comrie concludes, “It is with a heavy heart that we make this plea, urging the President to secure the rights and wellbeing of our people. We will persist to ensure that what is right triumphs in our nation. South Africa deserves leadership that prioritises the welfare of all of its citizens, above all.”

Categories : Expert OpinionTags :

The NHI Will Enforce the Use of EHRs – Resulting in a Steep Learning Curve for 60% Of SA’s GPs

On By ModernMedia
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

As the development of the National Digital Health Strategy for South Africa (2019 – 2024) progresses, and the implementation of the National Health Insurance (NHI) implementation looms closer, it is clear that digital health will be the significant driver behind transforming our health system.

To date, a Health Patient Registration System (HPRS) Project has been started as an initial requirement before developing a template for what a patient Electronic Health Record (EHR) would include. Although the diagnostic, treatment and billing modules necessary for EHR’s within the NHI still need to be developed, one thing is certain: a complete, shareable, electronic health record for each patient will be key.  

How will it work

CompuGroup Medical South Africa, (CGM SA), a leading MedTech company describes an EHR as a portable, interactive, digital set of health records for a patient that assists healthcare providers in managing their care. The wealth of information provided in each EHR – from a patient’s medical history, demographics, their laboratory test results over time, medicine prescribed, a history of medical procedures, X-rays to any medical allergies – offers endless opportunities for real time patient care.

EHRs have the potential to play a role in closing the healthcare gap in South Africa by improving affordable access to healthcare and reducing health disparities. This is particularly important for marginalised populations who may have limited access to healthcare services.

GPs must adapt

Although the adoption of EHRs in South Africa is very low, with an estimated 40%* of healthcare professionals currently using digital health records in their practice or hospital, the looming National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill will encourage the adoption of EHRs, potentially improving care coordination, enhancing population health management, increasing efficiency and cost savings.

Globally, EHRs are responsible for improving efficiency by reducing duplicates within patient records, reducing unnecessary interventions such as repeat prescriptions and duplicate referrals. Of those using any form of healthcare technologies daily, 69% have found an improvement in the quality of care and 59% have seen a positive impact on patient outcomes.

Looking at the usage of technology by patients in South Africa, the statistics show that we lag behind the world average, with less than a third of our population using digital health technologies to track their health. It appears this is partially due to a distrust for the security of their health data and an affordability consideration.  

“One of the major challenges from a general practitioner perspective is that there is currently a lack of government policy and guidelines for patient data security, which in turn, affects their willingness to adopt EHRs as a standard,” says Dillip Naran, Vice President for Product Architecture at CGM SA.  

“If these hurdles can be overcome, the adoption of EHRs by GPs is predicted to have a positive impact on healthcare outcomes, and improve efficiency in the long run. The successful implementation and utilisation of EHRs will require careful planning, investment, and collaboration across the proposed NHI healthcare system, “ he goes on to mention.

Here are the seven main ways EHRs will contribute to the success of a National Health Insurance (NHI) programme in South Africa:

  • Improved patient safety: Reducing adverse effects related to medication prescription errors, dispensing errors, labelling errors and even, wrong site surgery.
  • Improved care coordination: Helping healthcare providers share patient information easily and more accurately, improving the coordination of care across different providers and settings, and eliminating the duplication of services.
  • Enhanced population health management: Providing data on health outcomes and trends to identify and address public health issues, such as disease outbreaks or health disparities, potentially informing policy decisions and resource allocation within the NHI.
  • Increased efficiency and cost savings: Reducing the administrative burden and streamlining processes, which can improve efficiency and reduce costs within the healthcare system.
  • Enhanced decision-making: Providing healthcare professionals with immediate access to relevant patient data, including medical history, allergies, medications, and test results. This information empowers clinicians to make well-informed decisions about patient care, leading to better diagnosis and treatment options.
  • Efficient claims processing: Streamlining the claims process, in the context of the NHI model, with the electronic submission of medical information leading to faster claims processing and reducing the chances of errors or fraud.
  • Early detection and management of chronic conditions: Flagging individuals who may be at a higher risk for chronic conditions, and monitoring the management of their care. 

It is important to realise that the implementation of EHRs can’t be expected to be solely responsible for closing the gap in healthcare. Other factors such as access to healthcare services, poverty and education need to be addressed, along with solving challenges such as data privacy, security concerns and improving digital literacy within certain previously disadvantaged population groups.

By Andrea Desfarges on behalf of CompuGroup Medical SA.

*. *Statistics taken from “Adapt as you adopt: Adjusting to digital health tech to drive access to care” by Jasper Westerlink, Dec 2019.  

Categories : General Interest Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Universal Healthcare is Possible in Our Lifetime

On By ModernMedia

Universal Health Coverage Day calls on us to reflect on the progress that we have achieved in providing healthcare for all. As the health and pharmaceutical industries, it is time to question if our strides in achieving healthcare for all are successful and identify areas for improvement. The theme “A Time for Action”, speaks to the urgency of healthcare access regardless of socioeconomic status, age, race or demographic. It is not an ambitious dream and can be attained in our lifetime, writes Bada Pharasi, CEO of the Innovative Pharmaceutical Association of South Africa (IPASA). 

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) means access to primary healthcare for everyone. In South Africa, this is referred to as  National Health Insurance (NHI). Regardless of its name, the objective remains the same – to ensure that all citizens, regardless of where they live or their socioeconomic status, have access to healthcare.

A 2021 report released at the Africa Health Agenda International Conference (AHAIC) revealed that 615 million, or 52%, of the people in Africa, did not have access to the healthcare that they needed¹. It was also estimated that 97 million Africans face catastrophic healthcare costs, which push 15 million people into poverty every year¹. 

The effective implementation of UHC would mean that no person would have to go without appropriate healthcare. It would also mean that no person would have to undergo financial strain to receive treatment for ill health.

UHC covers a spectrum of health needs from health promotion to prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care across the life course². In 2015, 193 United Nations (UN) member states agreed on the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). These goals are aimed at seeing an end to poverty and a sustainable future by 2030², and ensuring health coverage for all is an integral part of reaching these goals. 

The World Health Organization (WHO) believes that UHC can be achieved by using the primary healthcare approach as it remains the most accessible, inclusive and cost-effective method to reach the majority of the population². 

Globally, as many as 72 countries have included UHC in their national healthcare systems. The countries where UHC has been the most successful include Canada, Australia, and several European countries, such as Switzerland and Sweden. It is from these countries that we can glean valuable lessons on the importance of strong healthcare systems, well-trained healthcare professionals and a cohesive relationship between governments and the private sector³. 

Ensuring a healthier nation may seem like an exorbitant mission. However, when we consider that a healthier population will be beneficial to the economy, it makes for a worthwhile investment. The World Bank adds that UHC allows countries to make the most of their strongest asset: human capital. A nation in good health is one where children can go to school and adults can go to work⁴. 

There is a common perspective that for a country’s overall health to improve, its economy must improve first. This idea fuels the understanding of why low- to middle-income countries have such poor healthcare infrastructure. The World Bank offers an alternative perspective, suggesting that when a country’s overall health improves, so will its economy. This as more citizens will be able to contribute to its economic growth and the workplace⁵.  

Some of the reasons why the adoption of UHC in African countries has seemed to stall include inadequate financial and technology support, limited pharma manufacturing companies, and unclear policies and regulatory frameworks⁶. 

In South Africa, the greatest hindrance to people receiving the healthcare they require boils down to numbers. With a population of more than 60 million people, there is a greater need for healthcare than there is capacity to meet the demand⁷. 

At IPASA, we believe that healthcare is a basic right and that citizens in any given country should be given the necessary access to healthcare. We understand that working with key stakeholders, such as the government, is critical to the success of universal healthcare. Our ongoing work with patient advocacy groups ensures we understand what patients need from a treatment perspective.

We recently attended the Access Dialogue conference with patient advocacy groups including Rare Diseases South Africa and Campaigning for Cancer to gain an understanding of some of the concerns faced by patients and share insights on the proposed NHI Bill. 

IPASA believes that an adequate supply of medicines is a critical pillar of any healthcare scheme, and the NHI is no different. For the NHI to succeed, it must be backed by a sustainable healthcare sector to ensure the security of healthcare provision and medicine supply.

To this end, the NHI must allow for a flexible, responsive pricing model that includes alternative/innovative reimbursement models to cover the cost of medicines and health products. This allows responsiveness to the needs of geographical areas, quality and levels of care, and negotiations directly with healthcare providers.

Healthcare for all can only be achieved by the joint commitment of the health and pharmaceutical industries, government stakeholders and patient advocacy groups for the benefit of patients. No person should be faced with the obstacle of finance at a time when they need healthcare: providing healthcare for all results in a healthier society and healthier world for us all. 

References:

  1. https://healthpolicy-watch.news/only-half-of-africans-have-access-to-health-care/ 
  2. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/universal-health-coverage-(uhc) 
  3. https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/countries-with-universal-healthcare/#:~:text=The%20countries%20with%20the%20highest,comprehensive%20coverage%20of%20healthcare%20services.
  4. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/universalhealthcoverage 
  5. https://widgets.weforum.org/outlook15/10.html 
  6. https://www.iqvia.com/locations/middle-east-and-africa/blogs/2023/01/getting-quality-medicines-to-patients-faster-in-africa-how-to-solve-for-access-issues 
  7. https://www.wits.ac.za/covid19/covid19-news/latest/healthcare-in-south-africa-how-inequity-is-contributing-to-inefficiency.html
Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

BHF Responds to the Imminent Approval of the NHI Bill

On By ModernMedia

The National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill was approved by the National Council of Provinces today and is due to be signed into law by the president shortly after. The Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) is deeply disappointed. We are not happy with the various sections of the Bill. Despite submissions to government in this regard, the recommendations of the BHF and other stakeholders have largely been ignored and the bill is being passed virtually unchanged from its originally drafted form.

While the BHF fully supports the concept of universal health coverage (UHC) as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and believes that it must be a strategic imperative for all those directly or indirectly involved in healthcare, it does not support the NHI Bill in its current form. The bill restricts medical schemes to the provision of complementary cover potentially rendering them unsustainable, further to which the enormous economic value that medical schemes currently add to the health sector would be lost to South Africa if the bill goes ahead unchanged, BHF strongly believes this section should be removed as well as all references to complementary cover contained in the bill.

Additionally, a number of the Bill’s provisions are unconstitutional. These were detailed in the BHF’s submission to government. South Africa needs a strong, vibrant private health sector because government resources will never be unlimited. . The incredibly wide powers it bestows on the Minister of Health grossly undermine the board of the NHI fund and its accountability. The power of the Benefit Advisory Committee to determine health benefits under NHI similarly undermines this accountability. In addition, the BHF is perturbed by the demonstrated inability of the state to adequately operate national public entities and state-owned enterprises, as well as the endless levels of relentless corruption in the public sector.

Other concerns

The Bill allows the Minister of Health and the NHI fund to issue directives that override all other legislation, except the PFMA and the Constitution, including legislation specifically mandated by the Constitution.

There are proposed amendments to the Medical Schemes Act that unfairly discriminate against pregnant women. 

In many instances, the language of the bill creates significant legal uncertainty, which is itself unconstitutional due to the principle of the rule of law upheld by the Constitution. The BHF provided specific examples of this in the body of its submission.

The NHI Bill allows the national sphere of government to encroach on the geographical, functional and institutional integrity of provincial governments. This is not permitted by Section 41 of the Constitution.

The bill tries to dictate to the President in Cabinet (the National Executive) what new legislation must be made or how to amend existing legislation. This is also unconstitutional, as the Constitution itself grants the National Executive its powers. Nothing can change this except an amendment to the Constitution.

The registration system proposed by the bill creates unconstitutional barriers to access to health care that do not currently exist. The certification, accreditation and contracting system proposed by the bill is unwieldy, and it too will create unconstitutional barriers to access to health care that currently do not exist. Both these points are explained further in the body of the BHF’s submission.

Dr Katlego Mothudi, BHF CEO, underscores these serious implications of the bill’s being passed unchanged. “We have consistently given input into this proposed law and are disappointed that our concerns and those of other stakeholders appear not to have been considered or even tested. The bill in its current form will have a negative impact on healthcare access for everyone. There are many areas of uncertainty that have not been clarified, not least with regard to funding and affordability. We are also concerned specifically that the bill may prejudice the rights of women,” he says. “The proposed amendments to the Medical Schemes Act exclude access to pregnancy-related healthcare services for women who are medical scheme members. This means that these women would have to access reproductive health care from the public sector at their own cost, which is in conflict with the provisions of the National Health Act.

“The bill also has the potential for a wider negative economic impact. There is still uncertainty around how the NHI will be funded, but it will very likely be through additional taxation, something that will unavoidably have a detrimental effect on the economy at large – companies, individual employees and the general public – in the form of job losses. This phenomenon has already been discussed in various papers, including one published by the World Bank in 2001. It cited Colombia’s experience in this regard. A 10% increase in payroll taxes resulted in a 4.9% reduction in employment. Those who remained employed experienced a reduction in their disposable income, while the decrease in the overall number of employees saw a reduction in revenue from personal tax. Should the bill pass in its current form, South Africa will almost certainly experience something very similar.

“More specifically, this phenomenon will also impact the health sector. With medical schemes reduced to providing only complementary cover, not only will the schemes industry itself shrink, but all the other private entities it does business with, including hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and health practitioners,” he concludes.

Provided by the Board of Healthcare Funders

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Glaring Voids Threaten SA’s Path to Equitable Healthcare

On By ModernMedia

A coherent, achievable path to universal health coverage now imperative

Glaring voids highlighted in submissions on the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill threaten South Africa’s path to equitable healthcare access for all, cautions the Health Funders Association (HFA). The organisation has voiced its profound concern, emphasising the disconcerting sway of politics over the bedrock mission of prioritising the well-being of our nation within this critical healthcare deliberation.

“The practical barriers to successfully executing NHI as it is laid out in the Bill are hard to ignore, and yet the numerous concerns and suggestions raised in the consultation process have not been considered or implemented,” says Craig Comrie, chairperson of the National Health Funders Association (HFA).

“The clear shortcomings of the NHI Bill in terms of practical funding mechanisms and lack of collaboration with experienced health funders, among other aspects, have been overlooked for the most part, with only the Western Cape so far rejecting the Bill in its current form.”

The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) Committee on Health’s approval of the NHI Bill with insignificant edits does not address the numerous concerns raised in submissions made by the public and informed stakeholders, including the HFA, on behalf of its members.

The HFA is a professional body representing medical schemes and half of South Africa’s medical aid membership.

“There are constructive solutions to address the problems identified in the NHI Bill effectively, and it is not too late to fix the legislation. While the Bill is rushing towards the President’s pen to be enacted, the HFA respectfully appeals to the President to reconsider the wisdom of signing into law a Bill that has no workable funding mechanism while disregarding solutions proposed by private health funders, leading organisations, businesses and other key constituents,” Comrie says.

“We anticipate considerable resistance to the NHI Bill on Constitutional grounds, and as the HFA, we will continue to advocate for a more achievable approach to fulfilling universal health coverage aims.

“The timing of the recent flurry of activity in moving the Bill through the necessary hoops ahead of next year’s election invites the notion of a blunt instrument, an unrealistic election promise rather than a pragmatic solution for the highly complex health challenges South Africa faces,” he says.

Health Funders Association members, including leading lights in the industry such as Bankmed, CAMAF Medical Scheme, Discovery Health Medical Scheme, Fedhealth, Glencore Medical Scheme, Momentum Medical Scheme, Profmed and PPS Healthcare Administrators, to mention but a few, are ready to work with government to develop evidence-based solutions that will help secure access to quality healthcare for all South Africans.

“There is so much opportunity to make the NHI work. Private public partnerships and collaboration have achieved so much good for the benefit of South Africans in other sectors, and there is much our industry can contribute to help make quality healthcare more accessible and sustainable for all,” Comrie concludes.

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Op:Ed – How Collaboration can Help South Africa to Build a Better Healthcare System

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Sora Shimazaki: https://www.pexels.com/photo/diverse-anonymous-colleagues-shaking-hands-at-table-with-coffee-and-folders-5673475/

As various players in South Africa’s health arena give input into the National Health Insurance, and the form it should take, they are agreed on one thing: its goal to achieve quality universal healthcare for all South Africans.

The recent COVID-19 vaccine rollout is a good foretaste of what is possible for South Africa’s healthcare system through the power of cross-sectoral collaboration – and a great case study for health systems strengthening in other countries too.

The rollout saw the public and private sectors, trade unions and community organisations pooling their resources and expertise to get the vaccines to South Africans as fast as possible, and the campaign showed that the country has the resources and expertise to provide a better, more equitable healthcare service.

The question is how we take these lessons and embed them in a healthcare system that serves all of a country’s citizens, and does so in a sustainable way, while adhering to best practice standards.

The clear answer is through the power of partnership – which has been demonstrated to work both here and in the rest of the developing world. Promoting public-private partnerships (PPPs), can accelerate access and distribution of innovative medications. By working together, government, originator companies, and funders can ensure that patients benefit from the latest advancements in healthcare.

Rwanda, for instance, has made significant progress in managing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) through community-based health insurance schemes. Brazil has successfully implemented a comprehensive primary healthcare approach. These countries have prioritised prevention, early detection, and treatment of NCDs, which can be adapted to the South African context.

Locally implemented initiatives under the global Making More Health (MMH) programme include training community health workers to provide primary care services, supporting local entrepreneurs in developing innovative healthcare solutions, and partnering with NGOs to improve access to healthcare in rural areas. These initiatives have helped address complex healthcare issues by empowering local communities and leveraging local resources.

MMH is a social initiative from Boehringer Ingelheim in collaboration with Ashoka, which combines business and social values to unleash innovation and achieve economic and social progress in healthcare. The objective of this long-term initiative is to source social innovation around the world, to explore unconventional partnerships and business models, and to encourage Boehringer Ingelheim employees.

We must also turn our attention to NCDs, which are a major health threat. The WHO estimates that globally, they are responsible for 74% of all deaths. Research into South Africa’s NCD states can play a crucial role in health systems strengthening by identifying the most prevalent diseases, understanding their risk factors, and informing evidence-based policies and interventions. This would help target resources more effectively and improve health outcomes.

This requires robust health data, hosted on a digital infrastructure, which would promote data-sharing among healthcare providers, and encourage the use of standardised data collection methods. This would help create a more accurate picture of the population’s health needs and enable better decision-making across the entire health ecosystem.

We also need to make sure we retain our world-class doctors, and address our critical nursing shortage – it’s estimated we need about 26 000 additional nurses to fill the gap. Without sufficient personnel to deliver healthcare, all the best intentions in the world will not deliver universal health coverage.

We must invest in improving the working conditions and incentives for healthcare professionals in the public sector, strengthen primary healthcare services, and promote collaboration between public and private providers. This would help to ensure that the expertise and experience of these professionals is effectively employed to benefit the broader population.

Moreover, increased collaboration with innovator companies in the private sector, many of whom are already involved in initiatives to strengthen the health system, would ensure patients receive the right treatment while expanding reach across the entire population. This would help tackle inefficiencies, streamline processes, and enable better resource allocation.

The fundamentals of health system strengthening in South Africa include adequate financing, a well-trained and motivated healthcare workforce, efficient supply chain management, and strong governance and leadership. Addressing these gaps – through partnership and collaboration – would help build a more resilient and responsive healthcare system and ensure that South African citizens have access to better healthcare.

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Frank Dialogue on NHI: Medical Schemes are a Government Asset

On By ModernMedia

As the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill makes its way through the approval process in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), many actors in various sectors have called on the South African government to carefully consider the concerns raised regarding the proposed bill.

Stressing this point as one of the panellists in the Kwa-Zulu Natal leg of the Frank Dialogue on NHI hosted by media anchor and Leadership magazine editor, Prof JJ Tabane, and his team, recently in Umhlanga, Dr Katlego Mothudi, Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) MD, acknowledged that both the public and the private sectors were not perfect, but cited that destroying the private sector was not going to accelerate the attainment of the global agenda of Universal Health Coverage. Strengthening a health system requires reform of six pillars; and the National Health Insurance formed part of the finance pillar only. He further noted that the private sector was a national asset to contribute to the success of health reform.

Other participants in the dialogue were the Minister of Health, Dr Joe Phaahla, Dr Kgosi Letlape (former Health Professions Council of SA and SA Medical Association chair), Zwelinzima Vavi (SA Federation of Trade Unions chair), Dr Nicholas Crisp (Department of Health Deputy-Director: NHI), and Nozibele Tshobeni (Sizwe Hosmed Acting PO).

The primary aim of these events has been to facilitate a constructive and inclusive discourse among various professionals in the sector, with the Minister of Health, regarding the proposed NHI Bill. 

Emphasising the importance of overcoming several issues before the Bill could be successfully rolled out, Prof Tabane acknowledged that the health crisis in South Africa was of significant concern, rendering the implementation of universal health coverage (UHC) a necessity.

Asked about the future role of medical schemes under NHI, Crisp reiterated that NHI was not about scrapping medical aids, but about the right of all South Africans to access affordable healthcare: “The bill does not abolish or repeal the National Health Act. It merely goes about a different way of financing – a single fund to care for the majority of the health benefits that we need as a nation to strive.

However, Dr Mothudi disagreed with Crisp and highlighting that a multi-payer system was a better model given the south African context that has load of fraud and corruption.  “Why not a multi-payer system, as originally proposed in the first NHI Green Paper?” he asked.

“Between now and that point,” Crisp explained, “we need the medical schemes to continue what they are doing but to do it more effectively than they are doing at present. They criticised us in the Health Market Inquiry, saying we did not provide leadership. Now we are providing leadership – we want to have a multilateral negotiating forum, we want to set prices, want to introduce other related measures:

A moot point made by Sizwe Hosmed’s Ms Tshobeni in her concluding remarks was that while she agreed that NHI was “overall, a good idea”, pushing the Bill through was putting the cart before the horse: “How we are going about it is really the problem.

“We are not that far apart in our discussions on this, but where we are drifting apart can be answered by the question ‘why are we here?’” asked Dr Mothudi.

“Going on blaming apartheid etc is not good. The Medical Schemes Act, for example, was promulgated in 1998 – post-apartheid. So, we must take responsibility for these challenges. Secondly, Government must provide stewardship, being responsible for the lives and healthcare of every citizen. Right now, we only have one Department of Health, not one for the public and one for the private sector.”

Also noted was that the private sector “does not run itself”. The National Health Act is there to guide practitioners and establishments how they should behave, while the Medical Schemes Act is enforced by the Council for Medical Schemes under stewardship of Department of Health.

While many views were expressed about the pros and cons of NHI, among the most common once again were, as already mentioned, the wisdom of a single payer system. Contributing his views on this, the BHF’s Dr Mothudi revived the originally drafted concept of a multipayer system for the fund: “A multipayer system was proposed in the first NHI Green Paper but was thrown out! A multipayer system would work in the same way as it did during the COVID vaccination campaign. When standing in the vaccination queue you wouldn’t know who was paying for the service for the person in front of you – employer, medical aid, or government?

“The pricing and service for the vaccine and procedure,” he said, “was set the same for all and for everyone.”

To watch the Frank Dialogue Click Here

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

AfriForum Report Exposes Dangers of National Health Insurance

On By ModernMedia

The National Health Insurance (NHI) will further widen the inequality gap, put even more pressure on the already overburdened taxpayer and lead to an outflow of medical expertise should it be implemented. AfriForum has detailed these and other consequences of the NHI in a new research report.

In its report, the organisation details, among other things, the ideological basis of the NHI, the place it occupies in the ANC’s National Democratic Revolution (NDR), the economic consequences of the centralisation of health financing and the vagueness in the bill itself. Furthermore, the report provides an overview of centralised health systems in a number of other countries and how they compare or contrast with the economic and policy environment in South Africa.

One of the biggest issues with the NHI Bill is its funding. According to the report, four possible sources of income are currently being investigated that will have a negative impact on taxpayers – including payroll tax. This option entails that the government will require employers to recover a portion of their employees’ salaries which will then be remitted to the government – this on top of the deductions that are already recovered from employees’ salaries. South Africa’s marginal income tax is already higher than that of most other countries such as Canada, the USA and Namibia. Although this is the same as Australia, Switzerland and South Korea’s marginal income tax, South Africa has little in terms of service delivery to show for it.

The research finds in almost all the areas of investigation that NHI will be harmful to the economy and negative for the well-being of most South Africans and concludes that the bill should be rejected by parliament and opposed by the health sector.

According to Louis Boshoff, Campaign Officer at AfriForum, this report appears at a critical time where the parliamentary battle over the NHI Bill rages on and many misconceptions about it are circulating. “NHI is easily summarized incorrectly with slogans such as ‘free health care for all’, but the report takes a step back to obtain a more sober and objective picture, namely that the policy is expensive, unmotivated and unworkable,” says Boshoff.

The full report is available at www.jougesondheid.co.za, where the latest information on NHI is posted.

Categories : Expert Opinion Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

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

On By ModernMedia

By Marcus Low, Spotlight Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Low is the editor of Spotlight.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons Licence.

Source: Spotlight

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical IndustryTags :

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

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Hush Naidoo Jade Photography on Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Hospitals Association of South Africa