Tag: South Africa

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical IndustryTags :

In-depth | Will the Latest Private Health Reforms Bring Down Prices?

On By ModernMedia
Photo by cottonbro studio

The government took its first steps towards the implementation of the recommendation of Health Market Inquiry into the private healthcare sector.

By Chris Bateman

Medical aid schemes will be given collective power to negotiate prices, according to draft regulations published last week. While some see the move as an important step toward reining in private healthcare prices, others argue that they do not go far enough and are legally unsound. We spoke to several leading experts about the proposed reforms.

Complaints about the high cost of private healthcare services in South Africa are nothing new. For the last two decades, above inflation increases to medical aid scheme premiums have been the norm. Added to this, many of the 16 or so percent of the population who are members of a scheme will have been asked to pay unexpected out-of-pocket co-payments at some point.

To understand why all this is happening, the Competition Commission launched a Health Market Inquiry (HMI) in 2014. The final HMI report, published in 2019, found that government had failed in its duty to regulate the private health sector, which it described as “neither efficient [nor] competitive”.

This failure in regulation has resulted in a private healthcare market that is “highly concentrated”, “characterised by high and rising costs of healthcare and medical scheme cover, and significant over utilisation without stakeholders being able to demonstrate associated improvements in health outcomes”, Justice Sandile Ngcobo, chairperson of the HMI panel, said at the time.

A key regulatory failure identified by the HMI  was the absence of any effective mechanisms to keep prices under control. Medical aid schemes would set a price that they would cover – but there is nothing stopping healthcare providers from charging much higher prices. This is particularly a problem for prescribed minimum benefits (PMBs) – a set of healthcare services that schemes have to cover in full.

The HMI recommended the establishment of a supply side regulatory authority (SSRA) that would be independent from both government and the private sector. Among others, the SSRA would set maximum tariffs for PMBs as well as reference tariffs for all other health services.

In September 2020, around a year after the HMI report was released, the Competition Commission published a notice that seemed to set the ball rolling on establishing a new tariff negotiating framework along the lines of the HMI recommendation. Their proposed multilateral negotiating forum would have been governed by the Council for Medical Schemes until the SSRA could be established.  But things then largely went silent, until earlier this month.

A new tariff-setting framework

On 14 February 2025, draft regulations published by the Minister of Trade Industry and Competition, Parks Tau, set out a new tariff determination framework for private healthcare in South Africa. At its core are two structures. The Tariffs Governing Body (TGB), consisting mainly of experts responsible for providing oversight in the tariff determination process, and the Multilateral Negotiating Forum (MLNF) made up of multiple stakeholders “which shall serve as the primary forum for collectively determining the maximum tariffs for prescribed and non-prescribed minimum benefits for healthcare services”.

In short, the work of negotiating and determining tariffs will be done by the MLNF, with the TGB providing some oversight and support. The TGB is also empowered to make a tariff determination when the MLNF fails to reach agreement.

The National Department of Health will have substantial control over both structures. Members of the MLNF will be appointed by the Director General of Health, and will include representatives of government, associations representing healthcare practitioners, healthcare funders, civil society, patient and consumer rights organisations, and any other regulatory body within the healthcare sector. The TGB will be located in the National Department of Health and will be chaired by an official of the department.

The regulations came in the form of a draft interim “block exemption” from certain provisions in the Competition Act. Such an exemption is required in order to enable the tariff governing body and the multilateral negotiating forum to function legally. The stated purpose of the exemption is to “contribute to the affordability of quality healthcare services…reduce costs and prevent the overutilization of healthcare services”.

In addition to the “collective determination of healthcare services tariffs”, the exemption also provides for “the collective determination of standardised diagnosis, procedure, medical device and treatment codes”, and “the collective determination of quality measurements/metrics, medicines formularies and treatment protocols/guidelines with the purpose of contributing to affordability of quality healthcare services across both PMBs and non-PMBs, contributing to reducing costs and contributing to the prevention of overutilization of healthcare services”.

The exemption doesn’t apply to everyone in the health sector. While healthcare providers like GPs and specialists are included, hospitals are not included.

Not an independent entity

While generally in favour of implementing the HMI recommendations, several experts Spotlight consulted are critical of how the government is going about it.

One line of criticism has been that the new framework is not sufficiently independent from the health department, as recommended in the HMI report.

Professor Alex van den Heever, Chair of Social Security Systems Administration and Management Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), said the regulations deviate from the requirement for independence of any price regulator from political interference – which he points out is expressly addressed by the HMI.

In a media conference on Monday, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi cited financial constraints for failing to set up an independent regulatory body. He also said that the department had a “mandate to manage healthcare systems”.

“We’re still looking at various options on an independent regulator, but National Treasury has severe constraints,” he said.

The exemption is for a period of three years and has been described as an interim measure.

Piecemeal implementation?

Another line of criticism is that only some HMI recommendations are being implemented, whereas the HMI stressed the need for an “inter-related” approach. While the tariff-determinations may bring down prices, it will not prevent doctors from, for example, sending people for medically unnecessary scans (a form of overutilisation).

Sharon Fonn, a professor in the School of Public Health at Wits and who was part of the HMI panel, said implementing aspects of the HMI piecemeal will neither foster competition nor protect the consumer.

“Controlling prices achieves little in the absence of the recommended holistic framework, which addresses the incentives of schemes to contract on cost, quality and demand,” she said.

Costs are influenced by both price and demand. The HMI did extensive work to show that supplier-induced demand was a problem – clearly indicating that price controls would achieve nothing in the absence of broader interventions, said Van den Heever.

“You’ll be hard pressed to find tariffs rising much faster than CPI (Consumer Price Index),” said Van den Heever. “Costs rise because of claims volumes, not the tariffs. This is because the frequency of patient consultations or in-patient days can rise in response to a fixing of prices. Providers are in a position to influence this demand. Annually you could have a 3% actual cost increase, with only a third of the increase (one percentage point) due to original price (tariff) changes. This is fully addressed in the HMI,” he added.

In response to criticism over the piecemeal implementation of HMI recommendations, Motsoaledi stressed that the HMI conceded that its recommendations would be implemented in phases.

Questions of scope

Elsabe Klink, an independent healthcare legal consultant and former advisor to the South African Medical Association, said government is mixing up the coding, protocols and Health Technology Assessments (HTA) which, on the HMI recommendations, are not up for negotiation in the MNLF.

“The HMI recommended that those functions be separate. How on earth can people negotiate on how a diabetic patient can be treated. That is a scientific question,” she said.

Klink said the HTA seems to be a veiled attempt at price control, directly for healthcare professionals and indirectly, to bar from the market devices and medications that did not make it onto the protocols or formularies.

“It [the draft regulations] purports to implement Health Market Inquiry recommendations but seems to stray into issues that are integral to NHI implementation as well, notably the HTA Committee,” said Dr Andy Gray, pharmaceutical sciences expert at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and Co-Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre on Pharmaceutical Policy and Evidence Based Practice.

Justifying the HTA measures, Motsoaledi said it was to prevent “the medical arms race” where healthcare practitioners prioritised patient volumes to enable them to beat their opponents in offering the latest technology. “This behaviour ruled by a medical arms race must end,” he said. He did not specifically explain why HTA was included in the exemption and not addressed through other regulations.

Questions of legality

Questions have also been raised over the legality of the regulations and whether or not they’d be vulnerable to litigation.

Van den Heever described the new regulations as “quite strange and extremely untidy, exposing the entire enterprise to legal challenge from the outset”. He said that the exemption bypasses normal legislative processes, that require evidence-based motivations and wide consultation.

He said the exemption went beyond competition concerns by establishing new governance structures that resembled a regulatory framework rather than a competition-related exemption.

“Furthermore, the structures and framework apply to a different minister (Health) – who has the legal authority to establish such a framework – not the Minister of Trade Industry and Competition. The Competition Act provides for exemptions, but only to facilitate competition-related objectives,” he said.

Dr Rajesh Patel, the Head of the Health System Strengthening Department at the Board of Healthcare Funders, had similar concerns. He said he finds it strange that “you need the Department of Trade Industry and Competition to tell the Department of Health to do their work”.

Could providers opt out?

Another contentious, and not entirely clear, aspect of the new framework is whether healthcare providers will be able to charge higher prices than those agreed through the MLNF.

“Perhaps one of the most problematic elements is that to protect patients, there needs to be some system to prevent opting out. It is likely that providers will opt out of this system and pass on additional costs to patients,” warned Fonn.

But, when asked about healthcare providers potentially opting out, Motsoaledi said that if that happened, “we’d be back to square one where everybody can charge whatever they want. I don’t think the HMI wanted that.” He didn’t specifically clarify how the current reforms would prevent healthcare professionals from opting out.

According to the draft regulations, the tariffs determined by the MLNF are “binding on all parties to the agreement”. It does however leave the door open for bilateral negotiations outside of the MLNF, but “only for the purpose of concluding an agreement on reductions, but not increases, on the tariffs for PMBs and non-PMBs as determined by the MLNF process”. There appears to be nothing in the regulations that would prevent healthcare providers from opting out altogether and charging what they like – although it is unclear to what extent, if at all, schemes would reimburse in such instances.

Concerns over timing

On timing, there are both concerns over how long the process has taken so far, and how long it might take going forward. This month’s draft regulations were published roughly five and a half years after the publication of the HMI report. For most of this period, Motsoaledi was not health minister.

Motsoaledi blamed the COVID-19 pandemic and the national elections that followed shortly afterward for the delay.

Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi. (Photo: Kopano Tlape/GCIS)

Patel expressed serious reservations about the ability of the health department to implement the block exemption process. “If their history is anything to go by, we will see similar delays and consequently, rising healthcare costs,” he said.

Patel said that the quickest solution to render private healthcare more affordable would be if the Competition Commission granted exemptions to allow medical schemes to collectively negotiate tariffs with willing healthcare providers. The health department, he said, need not be involved at all.

“We have serious reservations about the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition putting the power in the Department of Health’s hands to manage the block exemption process. They have actively kept private healthcare expensive and inaccessible to justify the implementation of the NHI,” he claimed.

Spotlight sent written questions to the Department of Health last week and during Monday’s media conference. Though some of our questions were addressed in the media conference, others had not been responded to by the time of publication.

– Additional reporting by Marcus Low.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations Medical Research & TechnologyTags :

It is a Time for Solutions, Says Prof Tulio de Oliveira in Face of US Funding Cuts

On By ModernMedia
Professor Tulio de Oliveira. (Photo: Supplied)

By Biénne Huisman

Cuts to United States spending on aid and medical research have caused widespread havoc and anxiety in the last month. Professor Tulio de Oliveira sat down with Spotlight’s Biénne Huisman to talk through what it might mean for health research in South Africa.

As the Trump administration moves to freeze foreign aid, halting vital humanitarian health programmes and medical research trials worldwide – leaving patients cut off from lifesaving medicines and scientists in a bind – Professor Tulio de Oliveira argues that the United States stand to lose far more from this move than its 1% government investment in foreign aid.

The non-partisan Pew Research Center recently released figures showing that of the American government’s total 2023 budget, 1.2% or about $71.9 billion was spent on foreign aid. Of this foreign aid budget, 14.7% or about $10.6 billion was earmarked for the “ongoing battle against HIV/AIDS” and 2% or about $1.5 billion for “combatting pandemic influenza and other emerging public health threats”.

Speaking to Spotlight in a boardroom at the Centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation (CERI) at Stellenbosch University, De Oliveira says: “Spending on biosecurity is an investment in the future – I think the United States benefits much more from our research and our work than what we cost them.” Biosecurity refers to measures designed to protect populations against harmful biological or biochemical substances.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, De Oliveira, a professor in bioinformatics, shot to global attention for leading the South African team credited with discovering the Beta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2. Now, in the face of a new global health upheaval, he insists that cross-border scientific collaboration is critical for combating the global spread of disease.

“Pathogens don’t need passports, they don’t care about nationality,” he says, referencing former World Health Organisation Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan, who first used the phrase at the 2007 World Health Assembly.

Professor Tulio de Oliveira. (Photo: Supplied)

De Oliveira is a native Brazilian who speaks accented English. During his interview with Spotlight, his demeanour is calm and his speech unrushed as he expands: “It’s of great interest to America to keep investing – not as a kind of donation, or because we’re entitled to it – but because of how it helps them. We just came out of a pandemic and America actually had much bigger waves of infection than many of the poor countries.”

He lists recent global population health threats: “Like with Covid, now we have influenza; and the virus is mutating, transmitting through multiple animals. We just had an outbreak of Marburg in Rwanda and another one in Kenya. We had an emergence of mpox in central Africa. We had an emergence in Sudan of a strain of Ebola. In Uganda, a growing rate of malaria drug resistance.

“And in the last year, the US saw the biggest number of TB cases ever. So it’s of critical interest that these pathogens get quickly identified, are quickly controlled, that you treat people so that it doesn’t spread to other countries. In the end, it’s the health of the global population, it doesn’t matter which country we live in or how wealthy people are.”

Major funding cuts

Scores of South African research groups (many who provide affiliated public healthcare services) have in the past received funding from United States government entities – including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USAID, and the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR).

Many of these funding flows have been paused in recent weeks by the Trump administration. As a result, several important clinical trials have been stopped. The impacts are far-reaching – around 28% of the South African Medical Research Council’s (SAMRC) 2025/2026 budget was set to be funded by US government entities. Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, President of the SAMRC, told Spotlight that it would be catastrophic if the funding is cut.

Adding further uncertainty, prominent vaccine sceptic Robert F. Kennedy has been confirmed as the US’s health secretary under the Trump administration. Kennedy has argued that the NIH should reduce its focus on infectious diseases and dedicate more resources to non-communicable diseases like diabetes. The US government has until now been by far the biggest funder of both HIV and TB research.

De Oliveira appears unflustered. At CERI, of which he is the founding director, he says only 7% of funding is from the NIH – “and we have reason to believe that the current NIH grants that we have will not be discontinued”. One such grant was for R40 million over five years awarded in 2023 to CERI’s Professor Frank Tanser for designing HIV prevention strategies.

In fact, De Oliveira says CERI and the KwaZulu-Natal Research Innovation and Sequencing Platform (KRISP) which he also heads, are expanding. Both centres use state-of-the-art genomics – the study of the DNA of organisms – to identify new variants of pathogens and to prevent disease.

“Yes, the opposite, we’re in an expansion phase,” says De Oliveira.

“Just last week, we advertised five post-doctoral fellowship positions. We hope that we can even absorb some of the great talent that may be lost from groups that were unfortunately more reliant on American funding.”

He stresses the importance of having a diversified funding portfolio, saying the work of CERI and KRISP is funded through 46 active grants with another 9 in the offing. “We have multiple grants from multiple funders from multiple countries. So again, I know it’s easily said, but I think it’s something that we should learn going forward, not to grow too reliant on one funder.”

Filling the gap

If the United States pulls back permanently from its leadership role in providing global aid – and medical research funding in particular – who might fill the gap?

The New Yorker quotes Clemence Landers, vice-president of the think tank Centre for Global Development, suggesting that China might come forward.

In response, De Oliveira says: “China could fill the gap. But people don’t realise the biggest foundation in the world at the moment is called the Novo Nordisk Foundation in Denmark which is linked to the company that had the massive breakthrough with Ozempic. They could easily fill the gap if they wanted. There are others as well. I would not be surprised if a completely unexpected foundation came forward to fill the gap.”

Reflecting further, he expresses hope that “people with noble causes step up”.

In 2022, TIME Magazine named De Oliveira one of the world’s 100 most influential people, and in 2024 he cracked the magazine’s top 100 health list. Has this public recognition made it easier for him to attract funding? He shrugs this off.

“We’re really committed to having a global impact that saves lives. And that commitment is not centralised in the director, but in our vision shared across principal investigators. And this is really important for the sustainability of organisations. I get offered good jobs every couple of weeks, and I mean even though I don’t intend on going anywhere, anything could happen. For example, two weeks ago I was skateboarding and cracked my ribs.”

In a moment of levity, he elaborates: “And this is the fifth time I cracked my ribs. Once was while skateboarding, another while snowboarding, surfing, once while mountain biking and another time falling from a children’s tractor.”

De Oliveira moved to South Africa in 1997, as the AIDS crisis was heading toward its peak. He says he feels “eternally grateful” for the boost PEPFAR brought to South Africa’s HIV-programme, adding that today the country might be in a “better position to absorb the loss of the funding than say five, ten years ago”.

He notes that 17% of South Africa’s HIV/AIDS spending was from PEPFAR, but that this does not include the procurement of antiretrovirals. “So yes, I think as South Africans we might be in a position to come up with solutions, as the programme is very well run.”

De Oliveira’s concern is for more vulnerable African countries – he singles out Mozambique – which are reliant on foreign aid for the procurement of medicines like antiretrovirals.

Needless to say, these recent events are a setback in the quest to develop an HIV vaccine. “When you decrease investment in research and science, you keep further away from developing the solutions,” he says. “But in terms of HIV/AIDS, luckily there are antiretroviral therapies that are very efficient.”

As we wrap up the interview, De Oliveira zooms out to the bigger picture: “Unfortunately, we are destroying the environment, there’s increased globalisation and crazy urbanisation, and this is making it easier for infectious diseases to spread.

“This is a challenging time for scientific and medical research. A time to develop solutions.”

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations HIVTags :

US Funding Remains Frozen for Many Life-saving Services

On By ModernMedia

Despite waivers, court judgments and assurances from the embassy, USAID funding for projects that provide HIV medication has not resumed

The Ivan Toms Centre for Health building in Green Point, Cape Town. Photo: Jesse Copelyn

By Jesse Copelyn

Numerous South African health projects funded by the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) remain closed. This is despite a federal court judgment which ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to lift the blanket freeze on global aid.

A waiver on life-saving humanitarian services appears to have had little effect. Funding remains frozen for many projects that provided services explicitly covered by the waiver, such as antiretroviral (ARV) medicines for people with HIV.

A spokesperson for one of these projects said that the United States Agency for International Development Aid (USAID) had not provided any communication regarding the waiver, despite requests for information.

A second organisation said USAID instructed it to provide an adapted budget that only covers services included in the waiver. The organisation submitted it, but it has not yet been approved. The organisation supports orphaned children living with HIV.

CDC funding

PEPFAR is a US initiative that provides billions of dollars a year toward combating HIV in different parts of the world. These funds are primarily distributed through two agencies: USAID and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In late January USAID issued stop-work orders to the organisations which it funds. A few days later, the CDC did the same. This was after an executive order by Trump which paused foreign development funding for 90 days pending a review. As a result, US-funded health organisations across South Africa were forced to close their doors. In some cases, HIV patients were left without ARVs.

Last week the CDC issued notifications to its recipient organisations rescinding the stop-work orders. The CDC stated that this was because of a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge in Rhode Island that halted the Trump administration’s ability to freeze congressional funds. Since then, many South African organisations that get money from the CDC have reopened.

See also: How USAid freeze sent shockwaves through Ethiopia published in The Guardian

But USAID did not send out similar notifications. PEPFAR funds from this agency largely remain frozen.

In a separate judgment on 13 February, a federal judge in Washington DC blocked the implementation of Trump’s executive order to freeze foreign aid. The administration’s lawyers have argued that the US government can continue to freeze aid via other channels unrelated to the executive order.

Dangerous disruption

GroundUp and Spotlight visited three health centres in South Africa funded by USAID, and found all three remained closed. Representatives from a fourth USAID-funded organisation confirmed that its funding has not been restored, and that its partner organisation was in the same boat.

The first centre that we visited is a clinic in Rosebank, Johannesburg, run by OUT LGBT Wellbeing. It provided free HIV testing, ARVs, and the daily HIV-prevention pill (this is referred to as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP). It’s one of several US-funded clinics that OUT operates around the country.

Its services are geared toward men who have sex with men. The reason is that rates of HIV are high among this group, and stigma may prevent some from seeking help in general healthcare settings.

When we visited the centre in Rosebank, a note was tied to the gate, stating: “Regrettably our clinic is temporarily closed and consequently no health services are available”. It encouraged patients to go to their nearest health facility.

According to OUT spokesperson Luiz De Barros, the clinics were forced to halt immediately after stop-work orders were issued. This prevented them from making alternative plans, leaving many people without ARVs or PrEP.

He said the centres had a total of 84 staff, who are now “at home without pay”, and about 5000 clients. Without their ARVs, De Barros worries that many clients are at risk of falling ill or developing drug-resistant HIV. Stopping HIV prevention services like PrEP will also “heighten the spread of HIV within communities,” he noted.

De Barros said they had not yet received any communication from USAID about the limited waiver, despite asking for information.

A clause in the waiver says it does not apply to “gender or DEI [diversity, equality and inclusion] ideology programs”. The Trump administration has not spelled out exactly what these terms mean, but it appears that DEI includes any health project which targets particular groups, like LGBTQ people.

GroundUp and Spotlight visited a second health centre in Hillbrow run by the WITS Reproductive Health Institute (RHI). A sign on the gate stated: “USAID has served the WITS RHI Key Populations Programme a notice to pause programme implementation. As of Tuesday, 28 January, we are unable to provide services until further notice.”

WITS RHI’s annual reports suggest that USAID has previously sponsored its projects to treat and prevent HIV, including among high-risk groups like sex workers and transgender people.

The third health facility that we visited is the Ivan Toms Centre for Health, based in Green Point, Cape Town. A temporary closure notification hung from the door. The centre provided HIV and TB testing, ARVs, PrEP, and counselling services – all focused on men who have sex with men.

Representatives from a fourth organisation, NACOSA, told GroundUp and Spotlight that it had been forced to halt all of its USAID-funded services. Subsequently, USAID instructed the organisation to provide a revised budget which only includes activities listed under the waiver. As part of this limited budget, NACOSA proposed retaining a project which helps orphaned and vulnerable children living with HIV in the Western Cape.

Dr Ntlotleng Mabena, a technical specialist at NACOSA, said the project provides these children with psychological support and connects them to health providers. Clinical workers linked to the ANOVA health institute (which is also US-funded) provide the children with ARV treatment, she said.

NACOSA submitted the revised budget with the hope of restarting this service, but they are still awaiting approval. Mabena stated that ANOVA was also waiting for permission to continue. In the meantime, the service remains closed.

The US embassy in South Africa maintains that Trump’s funding cuts do not affect PEPFAR initiatives that provide life-saving services as defined in the limited waiver.

Yet all of the life-saving PEPFAR services that we investigated on Thursday are closed. The only services which have reopened are those funded by the CDC, which is unrelated to the waiver.

Sign outside a Wits RHI clinic in Johannesburg. Photo: Ihsaan Haffejee

Published by GroundUp and Spotlight

Correction on 2025-02-21 12:29

Three paragraphs were removed from the article after publication because of confusion that arose as to whether they were on the record or not.

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

Read the original article.

Categories : Expert OpinionTags :

Unpacking the State of Our Nation’s Health

On By ModernMedia

Harnessing the power of preventative care and incentivised wellness to lessen the burden and cost of disease in South Africa.

By Damian McHugh, Chief Marketing Officer, Momentum Health.

South Africa is at a critical juncture in its healthcare landscape. The burden of disease -primarily driven by non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes, hypertension, and mental health disorders – has escalated alarmingly. Over the past two years, NCDs have increased from 51% in 2022 to 55% in 2024, with diabetes rising by 12% and hypertension increasing from 8% to 10%1. Not only straining our healthcare system but also substantially hampering economic productivity and growth.

Current State of our Nation’s Health

It’s estimated that poor health-related absenteeism costs the South African economy up to R19.1 billion annually2. Beyond these direct financial implications, this hidden drain stifles business growth, reduces workforce efficiency, and hinders overall economic progress. Lifestyle-related diseases contribute significantly to rising healthcare costs – with an estimated R270 billion in healthcare claims projected to be linked to preventable conditions in 20253.

However, we have an opportunity to reverse this trend by embracing preventative care and incentivised wellness- two powerful levers that can help shift our healthcare paradigm from sick care to proactive disease prevention.

Why Prevention Is the Key to a Healthier, Wealthier Nation

I’ve always believed in the notion that your health is your wealth. Preventative healthcare is no doubt one of the most effective ways to reduce the burden and cost of disease. Simple lifestyle changes, such as regular exercise, balanced nutrition, deeper connections with loved ones, routine screenings to know one’s numbers, and effective stress management – have all been proven to dramatically lower the risk of chronic conditions. Yet, despite these clear benefits, many South Africans struggle to prioritise their health due to financial constraints, limited access to wellness education, and the ever-evolving demands of daily life.

This is where the private healthcare sector, in collaboration with policymakers and employers, can make a significant impact. By incentivising wellness behaviours, we can empower citizens to take control of their health while alleviating the financial burden on our healthcare system.

The Power of Incentivised Wellness

At Momentum Health, we have witnessed firsthand the positive outcomes driven by wellness rewards programmes. By rewarding members for engaging in preventative health activities—such as completing health screenings, maintaining an active lifestyle, or adopting healthier eating habits, we foster sustainable behaviour change through our wellness rewards programme, Momentum Multiply.

When effectively designed, these programmes offer tangible benefits such as lower healthcare costs through a rewards system and encourage healthier lives that rely less on medical intervention in the first place. There is sound evidence that ahealthier population results in fewer medical claims and lower insurance premiums, benefiting both individuals and employers.

It can also be linked to increased productivity as healthy bodies host healthy minds. We have seen that employees who proactively manage their health take fewer sick days, leading to enhanced workplace performance and reduced absenteeism. As a result, these factors contribute immensely to stronger economic growth asa healthier workforce contributes to improved business efficiency and a more resilient economy. However, to fully realise the potential of preventative care and incentivised wellness, we cannot do it alone. It’s pivotal that we adopt a multi-stakeholder approach.

Stronger and healthier together

A collaborative approach where healthcare insurers & providers expand access to preventative screenings, personalised health coaching, and digital health solutions that track and reward healthy habits and behaviour. Where employers adopt and implement workplace wellness programs that encourage employees to prioritise their health through corporate wellness incentives and adequate mental health support.

Where we, the private sector, work alongside Government & Policymakers strengthen the current system, build capacity for future skills andimplement national awareness campaigns to showcase the importance of preventative care.

As it stands, in 2024 the Gauteng Department of Health (GDoH) set aside R38.1 million in 2024/25 financial year and R119.7 million over the MTEF allocated for health and wellness campaigns, as well as physical activity programmes in prioritised areas such as Townships, Informal Settlement and Hostels and more recently, the GDoH announced a budget of R474.6 million in 2024/25 and R1.4 billion over the MTEF allocated for strengthening mental healthcare services. But ever more importantly, we also need every day South Africans to take proactive steps to manage their health by making better choices in the lives they live.

A Shared Responsibility for a Healthier Future

The numbers are clear. If we don’t act now, the cost of preventable diseases will only continue to rise – jeopardising both the sustainability of our healthcare system and economic stability. By harnessing the power of preventative care and incentivised wellness, we can significantly reduce the burden of disease, improve quality of life, and foster a healthier, more productive South Africa.

We remain committed to leading this change by innovating healthcare solutions that empower South Africans to take charge of their health and provide more health to more South Africans for less when they need it. Together, through collective action and a preventative mindset, we can and must build a healthier nation – one choice at a time.

Categories : Healthcare Politics and Regulations HIVTags :

SA Health Research Facing Catastrophic Financing Cuts

On By ModernMedia
Professor Ntobeko Ntusi is the president and CEO of the South African Medical Research Council. (Photo: SAMRC)

By Catherine Tomlinson

Cuts to United States funding of health research could have “catastrophic” consequences, says Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, who is at the helm of the country’s primary health research funder. He says the South African Medical Research Council is “heavily exposed” to the cuts, with around 28% of its budget coming from US federal agencies.

After an unprecedented two weeks of aid cuts by the United States government that left HIV programmes and research efforts across the world reeling, the Trump administration took the drastic step of freezing aid to South Africa in an executive order on 7 February.

The order – which is a directive to the executive branch of the US government and holds the weight of law – was issued to respond to what the White House called “egregious actions” by South Africa. It specifically points to the Expropriation Act and the country’s accusation of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice as the primary reasons for the funding freeze.

While there are some limited wavers and exceptions to the cuts, Spotlight understands that these have so far been poorly communicated and many HIV services remain in limbo.

The funding cuts, following an earlier executive order issued on 20 January,  are interrupting critical health research underway across South Africa and will ultimately undermine global efforts to stop HIV and TB.

The US is a major source of financing for health research in South Africa. Many of the country’s research institutes, groups, and universities receive funding from the US through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USAID, and the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR).

Over the past few weeks, these funding sources have come under siege by the Trump administration resulting in a gaping, and most likely insurmountable financing gap, for many health research endeavors in the country.

US spending accounts for just over half (55%) of all spending on global health research around the world. In 2022, the super power spent $5.4 billion on global health research, according to Impact Global Health –  an NPO that tracks health research spending.

While the US gives money to global health research through several different government departments and programmes, the largest source of funding for global health research is the NIH. The NIH contributed 65% of global financing for HIV research between 2007 and 2022, according to Impact Global Health and 34% of tuberculosis research financing in 2023, according to New York-based policy think tank, the Treatment Action Group.

South Africa has the biggest HIV epidemic in the world in absolute terms and is among the top 10 countries in terms of TB cases per capita.

Catastrophic consequences

“South Africa is the biggest recipient of NIH funding outside of the US”, Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, president and CEO of the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), told Spotlight. “[T]he consequences will be catastrophic if [funding] is stopped… for science that is important for the whole world,” he said.

South Africa plays a critical role in advancing HIV science, said Ntusi, adding that “many of the major trials that have advanced our understanding of both the effective strategies for HIV management, as well as understanding the mechanisms of disease emanated from South Africa”.

People in the US, for example, are now able to access long-acting HIV prevention shots, largely because of research that was conducted in South Africa and Uganda. Research conducted in South Africa has also been critical to validating new tuberculosis treatments that are currently the standard of care across the world.

Heavily exposed

Stop work orders were sent to research groups receiving USAID funding at the end of January. These stop work orders coupled with the halting of funding have already interrupted critical HIV research efforts, including efforts to develop new vaccines against HIV.

Ntusi said that the SAMRC is currently “heavily exposed” to the halting of grants from USAID and the CDC, with research programmes supported by USAID and the CDC already being stopped.

The SAMRC’s research on infectious diseases, gender-based violence, health systems strengthening, as well as disease burden monitoring are also affected by the funding cuts.

“In addition to support for HIV research, we have significant CDC grant funding in our burden of disease research unit, the research unit that publishes weekly statistics on morbidity and mortality in South Africa,” said Ntusi. “Our health systems research unit has a number of CDC grants which have been stopped [and] in our gender and health research unit we had a portfolio of CDC funding which also has been stopped.”

Along with programmes being impacted by the halting of USAID and CDC funding, Ntusi said there will also be major staffing ramifications at the SAMRC as well as at universities.

He said that if funding from the NIH is stopped “there would be huge fallout, we just wouldn’t be able to cover the hundreds of staff that are employed through the NIH granting process”.

The SAMRC’s combined annual income from US grants (NIH, CDC and USAID) is 28% of its total earnings (including both the disbursement from the SA government as well as all external contracts) for the 2025/2026 financial year, according to Ntusi. “So, this is substantial – effectively a third of our income is from US federal agencies,” he said.

Pivot away from infectious disease?

In addition to the executive order freezing funding to South Africa, it is unknown whether the NIH will remain a dominant funder of global health. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the US health secretary nominee, has called for cutting to the NIH’s infectious disease research spending to focus more on chronic diseases.

Looking beyond health, Ntusi said the executive order halting aid to South Africa will be felt across a range of different development initiatives such as water and sanitation, and climate change.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.

Categories : Diet and Nutrition VaccinesTags :

Study in SA Children Finds Undernutrition may Weaken Measles Vaccination

On By ModernMedia
Photo by National Cancer Institute

Amid a global surge in measles cases, new research suggests that undernutrition may be exacerbating outbreaks in areas suffering from food insecurity. A study involving over 600 fully vaccinated children in South Africa found those who were undernourished had substantially lower levels of antibodies against measles.

Researchers from McGill University, UC Berkeley School of Public Health and the University of Pretoria tracked the children’s growth over time as an indicator of undernutrition and measured their antibody levels through blood tests. Children who were stunted around age three had an average of 24-per-cent-lower measles antibody levels by age five compared to their typical-sized peers.

The findings, published in Vaccine, suggest that undernutrition may affect the duration of vaccine protection.

This indicates that addressing child hunger could be a key piece of the puzzle in preventing viral outbreaks, said senior author Jonathan Chevrier, an Associate Professor at McGill.

A growing threat worldwide

Measles is a highly contagious viral infection that causes symptoms such as a rash, fever and cough, and can lead to severe complications, especially in young children. The disease is a threat in regions where it was once under control, including Canada, which in 2024 reported its highest number of cases in nearly a decade.

“Global measles cases declined from 2000 to 2016, but the trend reversed in 2018, driven in part by under-vaccination and the impact of the pandemic. Measles is now making a strong comeback in many parts of the world despite being preventable with vaccination and adequate immunity,” said co-author Brian Ward, Professor at McGill’s.

“We need to vaccinate children against infectious diseases that are preventable and ensure they are protected,” said first author Brenda Eskenazi, Professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “This is especially important now, given that many known diseases are expected to spread with climate change.”

About 22% of children under age five worldwide – approximately 148 million – were stunted in 2022, Chevrier added, with the highest rates in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

The team plans to monitor the children in the study as they grow older to understand whether the effects of early-life undernutrition persist.

Source: McGill University

Categories : Diet and Nutrition Metabolic DisordersTags :

Millions of Diabetes and Heart Disease Cases Linked to Sugary Drinks, New Study Finds

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Breakingpic on Pexels

A new study from researchers at Tufts University, which appears in Nature Medicine, estimates that 2.2 million new cases of type 2 diabetes and 1.2 million new cases of cardiovascular disease occur each year globally due to consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.

In developing countries, the case count is particularly sobering. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the study found that sugar-sweetened beverages contributed to more than 21% of all new diabetes cases. In Latin America and the Caribbean, they contributed to nearly 24% of new diabetes cases and more than 11% of new cases of cardiovascular disease.

Colombia, Mexico, and South Africa are countries that have been particularly hard hit.  More than 48% of all new diabetes cases in Colombia were attributable to consumption of sugary drinks. Nearly one third of all new diabetes cases in Mexico were linked to sugary drink consumption. In South Africa, 27.6% of new diabetes cases and 14.6% of cardiovascular disease cases were attributable to sugary drink consumption.

Sugary beverages are rapidly digested, causing a spike in blood sugar levels with little nutritional value. Regular consumption over time leads to weight gain, insulin resistance, and a host of metabolic issues tied to type 2 diabetes and heart disease, two of the world’s leading causes of death.

“Sugar-sweetened beverages are heavily marketed and sold in low- and middle-income nations. Not only are these communities consuming harmful products, but they are also often less well equipped to deal with the long-term health consequences,” says Dariush Mozaffarian, senior author on the paper and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at the Friedman School.

As countries develop and incomes rise, sugary drinks become more accessible and desirable, the authors say. Men are more likely than women to suffer the consequences of sugary drink consumption, as are younger adults compared to their older counterparts, the researchers say.

“We need urgent, evidence-based interventions to curb consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages globally, before even more lives are shortened by their effects on diabetes and heart disease,” says Laura Lara-Castor, NG24, first author on the paper who earned her PhD at the Friedman School and is now at the University of Washington.

The study’s authors call for a multi-pronged approach, including public health campaigns, regulation of sugary drink advertising, and taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.  Some countries have already taken steps in this direction. Mexico, which has one of the highest per capita rates of sugary drink consumption in the world, introduced a tax on the beverages in 2014. Early evidence suggests that the tax has been effective in reducing consumption, particularly among lower-income individuals. 

“Much more needs to be done, especially in countries in Latin America and Africa where consumption is high and the health consequence severe,” says Mozaffarian. “As a species, we need to address sugar-sweetened beverage consumption.”

Source: Tufts University

Categories : General Interest Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

Health in 2024: The Year in Fewer than 1000 Words

On By ModernMedia

By Marcus Low and Adiel Ismail

From the NHI Act to major advances in HIV prevention, it has been another busy year in the world of healthcare. Spotlight editors Marcus Low and Adiel Ismail recap the year’s health developments and identify some key trends in fewer than 1000 words. 

For a few weeks in June, it seemed that the surprising outcome of South Africa’s national and provincial elections would usher in far-reaching political and governance changes in the country. As it turns out, some significant changes did come, but not in the health sector. 

Rather than a new broom, it was déjà vu as Dr Aaron Motsoaledi returned as Minister of Health – he was previously in the position from 2009 to 2019. In both Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal – the country’s most populous provinces – ANC MECs for health from before the elections kept their jobs. The ANC garnered well under 50% of the votes in both of those provinces and nationally and accordingly had little choice but to form national and provincial coalitions. 

To be fair, five of the nine MECs appointed after the elections were new, but these changes were mainly in the less populous provinces. 

Policy-wise, the trajectory also remains much as it was a year ago. Two weeks before the elections, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law (though most of it has not yet been promulgated). While Ramaphosa has since then asked Business Unity South Africa (BUSA), the country’s largest employer association, for new input on NHI and while talk of mandatory medical scheme cover had a moment in the headlines, there is no solid evidence that the ANC is open to changing course – if anything, Motsoaledi has doubled-down in the face of criticism. The Act is being challenged in various court cases. 

The sense of discord in healthcare circles was further deepened in August when several organisations distanced themselves from Ramaphosa’s updated Presidential Health Compact. The South African Medical Association, the South African Health Professionals Collaboration—comprising nine associations representing over 25 000 public and private healthcare workers—and BUSA all declined to sign the accord. BUSA accused government of “unilaterally” amending the compact “transforming its original intent and objectives into an explicit pledge of support for the NHI Act”.  

Away from these reforms, a trend of health budgets shrinking year-on-year in real terms continued this year. This funding crunch, together with well-documented shortages of healthcare workers, has meant that even well-run provincial health departments are having to make impossible trade-offs – that while governance in several provincial health departments remains chronically dysfunctional. This was underlined by a landmark report published in July that, among others, highlighted leadership instability, lack of transparency, insufficient accountability mechanisms, and pervasive corruption. New reports from the Auditor General also didn’t paint a pretty picture. 

Gauteng health has again been in the headlines for the wrong reasons. The provision of cancer services in the province remains mired in controversy as the year comes to an end, with plans to outsource some radiation services to the private sector apparently having stalled, despite the health department having the money for it. A deal between the department and Wits University was also inexplicably derailed. With high vacancy rates, serious questions over senior appointments, reports of corruption at Thembisa Hospital, and much more, it seems that, if anything, governance in the province has gotten even worse this year. 

In a precedent-setting inquest ruling in July, Judge Mmonoa Teffo found that the deaths of nine people moved from Life Esidimeni facilities to understaffed and under-equipped NGOs “were negligently caused by the conduct of” former Health MEC Qedani Mahlangu and former head of the provincial health department’s mental health directorate Dr Makgabo Manamela. 

Outside our borders, Donald Trump’s election victory in the United States is set to have far-reaching consequences. A return of the Global Gag Rule seems likely, as does major changes to the Food and Drug Administration, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and the National Institutes of Health – the latter funds much HIV and TB research in South Africa. 

Away from politics and governance, the biggest HIV news of the year came in late June when it was announced that an injection administered every six months was extremely effective at preventing HIV infection. It will likely be several years before the jab becomes widely available in South Africa.

Another jab that provides two months of protection per shot is already available here, but only to a small number of people participating in implementation studies. 

It is estimated that around 50 000 people died of HIV related causes in South Africa in 2023 and roughly 150 000 were newly infected with the virus (reliable estimates for 2024 will only be available in 2025). A worrying one in four people living with HIV were not on treatment in 2023. There was an estimated 56 000 TB deaths and around 270 000 people fell ill with the disease. While these HIV and TB numbers have come down dramatically over the last decade, they remain very high compared to most other countries. 

There are some concerns that a new TB prevention policy published in 2023 is not being universally implemented. We have however been doing more TB tests, even while TB cases are declining – as we have argued, this is as it should be. Also positive, is that a massive trial of an TB vaccine kicked off in South Africa this year. 

With both TB and HIV, South Africa is making progress too slowly, but we are at least trending in the right direction. With non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, there are unfortunately signs that things are getting worse. As we explained in one of our special briefings this year, our diabetes data in South Africa isn’t great, but the little we have painted a worrying picture. As expected, access to breakthrough new diabetes and weight loss medicines remained severely constrained this year, largely due to high prices and limited supply. 

Ultimately then, at the end of 2024, South Africa is still faced with chronic healthcare worker shortages, severe governance problems in several provinces, and major uncertainties over NHI – all while HIV and TB remains major public health challenges, though a shift toward non-communicable diseases is clearly underway. 

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : General Interest Medical IndustryTags :

The High Cost of Having Too Few Pharmacists in SA

On By ModernMedia
Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

By Chris Bateman

It’s acknowledged in key policy documents, well known at the coalface and much ventilated in the media: South Africa’s public healthcare system has too few healthcare workers, especially medical doctors, certain specialists, and theatre nurses. Less recognised however is the shortage of public sector pharmacists. We lift the lid on this until now largely hidden problem – and its impact.

There are too few public sector pharmacy posts across South Africa to deliver a comprehensive service, with no clear staffing norms, and an uneven distribution of pharmacists, especially in rural districts. This contributes in part to medicine stockouts and the emergence of deadly hospital-acquired drug-resistant infections.

This is according to Dr Andy Gray, a senior lecturer in the Division of Pharmacology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s School of Health Sciences and co-head of the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Evidence Based Practice. His views are echoed by at least two other key local stakeholder organisations.

Flagging the alarming rise in resistance to antimicrobials – an urgent global public health threat – driven by the misuse of antibiotics in hospitals and ambulatory care, Gray told Spotlight that there are not enough pharmacists to intervene if they see inappropriate use of medicines.

“This just continues without any effort to fix it. Inadequately trained and understaffed prescribers are working under immense stress, so they are prone to use the wrong medicines at the wrong time with the wrong doses,” he said. “There are also very few microbiologists and certainly not enough pharmacists at the bedside. They’re not doing what’s necessary to ensure the proper use of medicines – for example, better control over antimicrobials.”

The excessive dependence on antibiotics has resulted in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, commonly known as superbugs. This is called bacterial resistance or antibiotic resistance. Some bacteria are now resistant to even the most powerful antibiotics available.

South Africa has been ranked 67th out of 204 countries for deaths – adjusted by age per 100 000 people – linked to antimicrobial resistance. It has been estimated that around 9 500 deaths in the country in 2019 were directly caused by antimicrobial resistance, while 39 000 deaths were possibly related to resistant infections.

The National Department of Health warned in a background document that rising antimicrobial resistance and the slow-down of new antibiotics could make it impossible to treat common infections effectively. This could also lead to an increase in the cost of healthcare because of the need for more expensive 2nd or 3rd line antimicrobial agents, as well as a reduced quality of life.

Low numbers

Gray said that while not matching the paucity of public sector doctors and nurses, pharmacists stand at 24% of the staffing levels calculated as necessary to deliver a comprehensive service.

“We need just over 50 pharmacists per 100 000 uninsured population as a target, but we’re sitting at around 12,” he said.

Gray said the SA Pharmacy Council (SAPC) has no data on the total number of pharmacists actually working in the country, or the number working in particular settings. A SAPC spokesperson said they had only provincial statistics, but could not track pharmacist movements.

“You can’t use their database to find out how many pharmacists are working where. The Health Systems Trust SA Health Review Indicator chapter has figures of public sector pharmacists per province and per 100 000 uninsured population,” Gray pointed out.

As at February 2024, there were 16 856 pharmacists registered in South Africa, (working and not working), excluding the 971 community service pharmacists.

The 5 958 pharmacists employed in the public sector represents the full complement of funded posts, but it is well below the number needed – and varies dramatically between provinces. While almost all funded posts are filled, Gray said the number of posts is less than needed to deliver a comprehensive, quality service.

Taken across South Africa’s population of around 62 million, there are around 28 registered pharmacists (working or not working), per 100 000 people (insured and uninsured). According to data from 2016, the mean global ratio stands at 73 per 100 000.

“We’re better than many other African countries, but that’s cold comfort,” said Gray.

Increases spread unevenly

There are some positives. The number of pharmacists in the public sector has grown since 2009, rising from five to 12 per 100 000 uninsured people by 2023. However, the ratio varies markedly by district – for example: from 15 in the best-served Western Cape district to a mere three in the poorest served Northern Cape district.

Gray said the more rural districts suffer the most when it comes to understaffing of pharmacists and this contributes to medicine stockouts. While the causes of medicine stockouts are complex, one of the major contributors is the refusal of suppliers to deliver any more stock until accounts are paid.

Understaffing of pharmacists often results in nurses managing patients without any pharmaceutical oversight, Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa Executive Director, Refiloe Mogale, told Spotlight. She associates such task-shifting with medicine misuse and inappropriate prescribing, noting that while it’s a vital strategy in budget-tight environments, medication errors are on the rise. This, she argues, could be solved by ensuring appropriate pharmaceutical personnel are placed to support primary healthcare facilities – such as pharmacist assistants.

“A Primary Care Drug Therapy (PCDT) trained pharmacist can diagnose, treat, and dispense medications. So, this is not as much about task-shifting as about the pharmacist providing comprehensive care. These PCDT pharmacists can do family planning, screening for diabetes, hypertension, and other clinical tasks that take the burden off doctors. We need more of them,” she said.

‘No clear staffing norm’

Addressing the human resources quandary, Gray said the core problem had always been that the number of pharmacist posts per hospital or clinic were not evenly distributed. “There’s been no clear staffing norm. The old ‘homeland’ hospitals are likely to be under resourced with pharmacists and pharmacists’ assistants. Posts are poorly distributed and by global standards, we’re nowhere near where we should be,” he said.

The National Department of Health’s most senior pharmacy official Khadija Jamaloodien agreed that pharmacy posts should be distributed better. But she said work protocols dictate that state pharmacists must visit each clinic in their district at least once per month. She said there are 3 000 primary healthcare facilities in the country and 6 000 (albeit maldistributed) public sector pharmacists.

Nhlanhla Mafarafara, President of the SA Association of Hospital and Institutional Pharmacists, told Spotlight too many of the almost 6 000 pharmacists in the public sector are doing stock management, dispensing, administration and management work in hospitals and pharmaceutical depots. He says the numbers do not necessarily reflect pharmacists in clinical or patient facing areas.

“The reality is that pharmacists are restricted to trying to get drug stock in and out,” Gray observed.

However, the lack of pharmacists and pharmacist assistants at clinics and hospitals means timely and/or knowledgeable ordering often results in shortages of essential medicines, something all experts interviewed for this article agreed on.

Mafarafara said that by defining what services a pharmacist should render and what’s needed to enable a quality service, more realistic staffing numbers could be reached. Pharmacies are central points in all hospitals, with closure for even an hour crippling a hospital. Thus, adequate staffing is critical to ensure uninterrupted access to good quality pharmaceutical care.

South Africa, Mafarafara added, was far behind many other countries in the effective use of pharmacists’ clinical expertise in leading evidence-based care in hospitals. “I’d even go so far as to say doctors should be stopped from dispensing in favour of pharmacists to improve quality of patient care,” he said.

‘If you don’t have a pharmacist, nothing gets done properly’

Jamaloodien said the cost of having too few pharmacists is more far-reaching than just antimicrobial resistance. “You can have stock outs because there’s nobody to manage the supply chain. In my experience, if you don’t have a pharmacist, nothing gets done properly,” she said.

Her solutions? Compliance with the “comprehensive and robust” evidence-based standard treatment guidelines, access to an updated and well-maintained cell phone-based application that gives everybody access to the latest information and medicine changes – and more attendance by all healthcare professionals of webinars held after every medicine’s committee meeting, plus clinicians regularly reading drug update bulletins to keep up with new medicines.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article

Categories : Expert OpinionTags :

Navigating the Road to Universal Health Coverage in South Africa

On By ModernMedia

By Dr Reno Morar, Director: Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Nelson Mandela University

Dr Reno Morar

Johannesburg, 20 November: As Director of the newly established Medical School in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Nelson Mandela University, I am honoured to lead South Africa’s tenth and youngest medical school. Our medical students exude an infectious spirit of hope and enthusiasm as we progress toward graduating our first cohort of Mandela Doctors in 2026.

As we navigate our journey at the medical school and within the Faculty, our goal is to successfully graduate composite health professionals who are equipped to serve our communities.

This journey is inextricably linked to a larger national goal: achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) for South Africa.

With the signing of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act into law, South Africa stands at a pivotal moment in its healthcare journey. Achieving UHC promises equitable access to quality healthcare for all South Africans, regardless of income or location. But transforming this vision of UHC into reality requires much more than policy reflected in the NHI, it calls for robust planning, thoughtful resource allocation, and, above all, collaboration across sectors.

Our nation’s medical schools and higher education and training institutions are essential to the UHC journey in their support of South African’s human resources for health strategy. This strategy provides a foundation for advancing universal health coverage by ensuring healthcare professionals are appropriately trained to meet the demands of a redefined healthcare system.

These institutions play an instrumental role in building a workforce ready to support the NHI system. Lessons from our response to the recent COVID-19 pandemic have already shown us the power of unity; as we move forward, this spirit of collaboration between the public and private sectors will be crucial in shaping a resilient and inclusive healthcare system that can achieve UHC.

The NHI Act sets out to provide universal access to quality healthcare services, bridging disparities and delivering equitable access to essential services for all South Africans. However, the path to UHC is about more than access, it requires quality, efficiency, and sustainability across a restructured healthcare landscape.

Photo by Hush Naidoo Jade Photography on Unsplash

The government’s role here is pivotal – responsible leadership, resource allocation, and effective oversight are critical to building public confidence. This transition poses complex governance and constitutional challenges.

Implementing the NHI Act requires establishing new accountability mechanisms, redefining roles, and reassessing funding streams. Addressing these structural challenges – especially in under-resourced and underserved regions – demands both strategic mindset and practical capacity to adapt quickly to evolving needs.

Many of South Africa’s rural and township communities face significant shortages in healthcare resources and access to quality services. For NHI to succeed in these settings, dedicated efforts in providing adequate healthcare infrastructure and equipment, staffing, and strong governance and leadership are essential.

Achieving the ambitious goals of NHI without a solid foundation in governance and accountability would be a costly misstep. The success of NHI demands careful, evidence-based planning with clear goals and accountability.

This approach will require decades of commitment, with the understanding that universal healthcare frameworks often take generations to mature fully. NHI will not be a quick fix, but with meticulous preparation, it has the potential to become a sustainable, far-reaching health system intervention.  

Government planning must also account for the rapidly changing landscape of healthcare needs and technology. South Africa’s healthcare system must prepare not only for current demands but also for future challenges, including digital healthcare infrastructure and data security.

Protecting patient information and ensuring uninterrupted services is paramount in a digital age where data breaches are a constant risk. Recent experiences with cybersecurity issues in the National Health Laboratory Services underscore the importance of proactive measures in this domain.

The pandemic has taught us the power of unity in times of crisis. During COVID-19, South Africa’s public and private healthcare sectors demonstrated resilience, adaptability, and a shared commitment to public health. This partnership was instrumental in resource-sharing, patient care, and vaccine distribution.

It serves as a powerful reminder that as the NHI system is implemented over the next 10 to15 years, the system will benefit from a collaborative model where the expertise and resources of the private and public sectors complement each other in the public interest and wider community access.  

Collaboration between the public and private sectors must focus on expanding healthcare infrastructure, enhancing service delivery in underserved areas, and integrating innovative technologies for more efficient patient care. By working together, public and private sectors can foster a healthcare environment that maximises strengths and mitigates gaps in service. 

To sustain the implementation of the NHI system, South Africa needs healthcare professionals equipped to handle both the scope and scale of this vision. Medical and health professions education must adapt and evolve to meet these challenges, training future healthcare providers not only in clinical skills but also in adaptability, empathy, and resilience.

At Nelson Mandela University’s Faculty of Health Sciences, we prioritise these qualities, embedding community-based learning and problem-solving into our curriculum to prepare graduates for a diverse and demanding healthcare landscape.

Students experience firsthand the disparities within South Africa’s healthcare system, and this allows our students to develop the necessary understanding of the realities their future patients face.

Our programme equips them to work in a wide array of settings – from rural clinics with limited resources to state-of-the-art urban facilities. This holistic training ensures our graduates are capable of addressing the multifaceted healthcare challenges with the empathy and innovation necessary to serve our communities across South Africa.

The journey toward UHC and the implementation of NHI system is both inspiring and challenging. It is a bold declaration of South Africa’s commitment to affordable universal access to quality health care services, healthcare equity – and must be approached with open eyes and a steady hand.

Our success will depend on a combination of strategic planning, effective governance, and a commitment to collaboration across sectors.

South Africa has a unique opportunity to build a healthcare system that is equitable and resilient. By prioritising these foundational steps, we can pave the way for a healthcare system that genuinely serves all South Africans, one that fulfils the promise of our constitution and reflects the spirit of our democracy. The future of our healthcare system is within our hands, but only if we approach it with responsibility, collaboration, and a deep commitment to the well-being of all our people.

It will be an intensely proud South African moment when we graduate our first 45 Mandela Doctors from our medical school in 2026! As South Africans, we also want to be proudly South African about the health system we build for and with our people.