WC the only province to raise objections to NHI Fund draft regulations
THE ANC in the province says the Western Cape Government's rejection of the draft National Health Insurance (NHI) regulations reflects a political choice to defend privilege rather than fix inequality.
The province is the only in the country to have raised objections to the draft governance regulations relating to the implementation of the NHI Fund.
Health MEC, Mireille Wenger said the Western Cape Cabinet had approved comments from the provincial department of Health and Wellness expressing 'strong objections to the draft governance regulations'.
The NHI is a centralised, national insurance fund designed to provide universal health coverage. It aims to ensure all South Africans have access to quality and affordable healthcare services, regardless of their socio-economic status.
The draft regulations seek to provide for the establishment of structures and processes for the governance of the fund.
It represents the first formal step towards establishing the NHI Fund, to centralise all healthcare funding under the national government, said Wenger.
'While the Western Cape Government supports the constitutional imperative to realise the provision of universal healthcare, it remains concerned that the NHI model in its current form - will weaken existing healthcare systems and reduce the ability of provinces to deliver responsive and accountable services to residents. The draft governance regulations provide for detailed matters pertaining to, amongst other things, the appointment of a board and CEO for the NHI fund.
'In terms of Section 55(1) of the NHI Act, the National Minister may only make regulations after consulting both the National Health Council - which includes all nine provincial health departments and the national department - and the NHI Fund. Should the Minister make regulations without consulting the fund, the regulations will be invalid. Should the Minister wish to proceed to issue the draft regulations without consulting the fund, it will first be necessary to amend the Act to remove the requirement for consultation with the fund.
'The Act specifies the matters on which the Minister is empowered to make regulations, however these do not specifically include 'governance' and hence could be ultra vires to the Act and invalid,' she said.
According to Wenger they were also concerned about the minister's powers to appoint and remove role players, 'without sufficient checks and balances to prevent maladministration'.
ANC leader of the opposition in the provincial legislature, Khalid Sayed said they supported the NHI and its full implementation.
"The ANC fully supports the implementation of the National Health Insurance as a bold step towards ensuring that no South African is denied access to quality healthcare due to their income or location.
'The Western Cape Government's rejection of the draft regulations reflects a political choice to defend privilege rather than fix inequality. Instead of fearmongering about governance, we should be working together to build a just and inclusive health system for all—rural or urban, rich or poor. The people of this province deserve better than two-tier healthcare. The ANC remains committed to making universal healthcare a reality," said Sayed.
National health department spokesperson Foster Mohale said the Western Cape was the only provincial government that had raised objections.
'Only Western Cape has raised objections. How does the Minister consult a Fund that does not exist on regulations that will allow for processes to bring it into existence? The regulations do not mandate any power for the Minister that is not already provided for in the Act. What they do is to require absolute transparency in that process. We hope that the Western Cape government has actually commented on the contents of the draft regulations so that their comments can be accessible to the public,' Mohale said.
Wenger said the Western Cape Government will submit its formal written comments on the draft regulations in due course.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Polluted SA air killed 42,000 in 2023, study finds — yet loopholes persist
Air pollution cost South Africa more than R960bn and 42,000 lives in 2023, a new report finds, but the government keeps extending emissions exemptions. In 2023 alone, 42,000 South Africans died from exposure to fine particle pollution (PM2.5), including more than 1,300 children under five, according to a new report released on 3 June by Greenpeace Africa and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). The report, Unmasking the Toll of Fine Particle Pollution in South Africa, estimates that PM2.5 pollution cost the country more than R960-billion in 2023 – equivalent to 14% of GDP – through premature deaths, illness, lost productivity and overburdened health systems. PM2.5 refers to airborne particles smaller than 2.5 micrometres, mainly formed by burning coal and fuel. These particles, as CREA analyst Lauri Myllyvirta previously explained to Daily Maverick, are 'small enough to pass from lungs to the bloodstream and wreak havoc on all our internal organs'. Communities in the Highveld region and Gauteng and Mpumalanga provinces, which are home to the country's largest coal-fired power plants and industrial zones, are hardest hit. Professor Rajen Naidoo, head of Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said that the report adds to reports over the years which have emphasised the serious health risks faced by South Africans due to air pollution and its inadequate regulation. 'While the headlines are likely to be grabbed by the number of deaths (rightly so), it must be borne in mind that for every death, there are those with disabling chronic conditions caused by air pollution,' said Naidoo. He highlighted that the report captured this through the measure called years lived with disability (YLD). According to the report, in 2023, exposure to PM2.5 particles led to more than 100,000 years lived with disability in South Africa, due to chronic diseases like lung and heart conditions, strokes, and diabetes: 'Exposure to PM2.5 also contributes significantly to chronic diseases and disabilities of the overall population. Annual exposure to PM2.5 is associated with 26,000 years lived with disability (YLDs) due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; 20,000 YLDs due to stroke; 64,000 YLDs due to diabetes; and 19,000 due to Alzheimer's and other dementias.' 'The real burden lies in the most disadvantaged communities near coal-fired power stations, already marginalised and now also carrying the health burden,' said Naidoo. He said children in these areas were affected even before birth, with pollution and poverty combining to weaken immune systems, stunt development and trap families in cycles of poor health. A call to end exemptions 'Science is unequivocal,' said Cynthia Moyo, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Africa. 'The air South Africans breathe is toxic, and the corporations driving this crisis must no longer be protected by silence or inaction.' Greenpeace Africa is calling for: An immediate end to air pollution exemptions for major emitters; Full enforcement of national air quality standards; A just transition to renewable energy that centres affected communities; and Public access to real-time pollution data. The report also shows that if South Africa were to follow the World Health Organization (WHO) air quality standards guidelines for PM2.5, it could prevent up to 33,000 deaths a year. The WHO's guideline for PM2.5 is five micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m³) as an annual average. South Africa's existing national standards for PM2.5 are pretty weak at 20 µg/m³ annual average, but it isn't even meeting those. The report found that South Africans were breathing air with 26 µg/m³ PM2.5 on average. The report points out that if South Africa were to meet existing national standards (20 µg/m³ annual average), it could save more than 9,000 lives annually. Why do we emit more than the law allows? The National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act sets both Minimum Emission Standards (MES), which industries are allowed to emit, and Ambient Air Quality Standards, the pollution limits for outdoor air. In 2020, the MES for total particulate matter was updated to 50 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/Nm³), down from 100 mg/Nm³. Even with a decreased limit, this remains far higher than global benchmarks. Even so, Eskom could not comply. Instead, it applied for and received exemptions. As Daily Maverick has reported, Eskom has repeatedly secured postponements and exemptions from complying with MES. In March 2025, the government granted further exemptions for several power stations, citing the need to avert deepening the country's electricity crisis. While the exemptions come with 'strict conditions' – including pollution controls, air quality monitoring and emissions reporting – critics say these are seldom enforced with rigour or transparency. The 2022 high court ruling in the 'Deadly Air' case found that the government's failure to enforce air quality standards in the Highveld Priority Area violated residents' constitutional rights. Yet, the latest exemptions suggest energy security continues to trump environmental and health concerns. The CREA/Greenpeace report argues that these exemptions have enabled major polluters, particularly Eskom, to delay emissions reductions, prolonging dangerously high pollution levels. The report urges the government to end exemptions, tighten enforcement and align air quality standards with the WHO's latest guidelines. 'South Africa's Constitution guarantees the right to a healthy environment, but that right is being violated every day by polluters,' added Dr Jamie Kelly, health impact assessment team lead at CREA. 'Communities deserve clean air, not corporate impunity.' How do we know PM2.5 kills? The report's estimates are based on globally recognised models that link PM2.5 exposure to premature deaths from heart disease, stroke, respiratory illness and more. Dr Rosa Gierens, data scientist and co-author of the report, explained that these integrated exposure-response functions, endorsed by the WHO, use decades of large epidemiological studies to estimate 'excess deaths' – lives lost due to unsafe air. Research consistently shows that when PM2.5 levels fall, mortality also decreases. The report combined PM2.5 concentrations (sourced from satellite data, ground monitoring and atmospheric models) with population and health data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database to calculate health impacts. This approach, used in peer-reviewed global health research, allows researchers to estimate disease risk across age groups and conditions while adjusting for factors such as smoking and income. Profits over people 'Behind these deaths lies a simple truth: polluters are poisoning our air and putting profits above people,' said Greenpeace Africa. As Jesse Burton from the Energy Systems Research Group at UCT p reviously told Daily Maverick, 'Air pollution control might seem like a 'nice to have', but pollution has very real impacts on people's lives and livelihoods, including sickness, premature deaths and work days lost.' Naidoo also questioned who truly benefited from 'cheap' coal power. 'Coal provides cheap electricity for the major industrial enterprises with their tax privileges, while the state then has to take care of those who suffer the health consequences of air pollution.' DM
Mail & Guardian
3 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Health association takes legal action against NHI Act
File photo by James Oatway The Health Funders Association this week launched a legal challenge against the President Cyril Ramaphosa The ANC, which governed the country solely until being forced into a national coalition after the polls, says the NHI is intended to provide universal and comprehensive health coverage to all South Africans. But it has faced fierce criticism from the private healthcare sector and parties such as the Health Funders Association chief executive Thoneshan Naidoo acknowledged this week that 'South Africa needs a healthcare system that delivers equitable, quality care to all [and] we fully support that vision.' But he added: 'In its current form, and without private sector collaboration, the NHI Act is fiscally impossible and operationally unworkable, and threatens the stability of the economy and health system, impacting everyone in South Africa.' The association filed its application at the Pretoria high court, joining five other medical entities that are fighting the law. The It argued that the framework in its current form was not fiscally feasible and would also have adverse effects on South Africa's healthcare and economic outcomes. 'The steep tax increases required to fund the NHI will reduce disposable income, curb consumer spending across all sectors of the economy and may well trigger an exodus of high-income taxpayers,' it said. 'At the same time, destabilising the private healthcare sector will deter investment, put jobs at risk, and slow The association's position is premised on a report by Genesis Analytics, published this week, which showed that the 'NHI Act requires unsustainable tax increases while reducing healthcare access for medical scheme members'. It said the analysis also revealed South Africa's racially diverse medical scheme membership, in which more than 68% of members are black, Indian or coloured, and up to 83% earn less than R37 500 a month. 'The proposed NHI would, therefore, disproportionately impact working-class households who currently rely on medical schemes for quality care.' Modelling by Genesis Analysis showed that it would be impossible to raise the funds required for NHI, 'even under the most optimistic assumptions'. 'For NHI to fund a level of care equivalent to what medical scheme members currently receive, as government has indicated is the intention, the Genesis model shows that personal income tax would need to increase by 2.2 times (a 115% increase in tax) from the current average rate of 21% to an average of 46% of income.' This, it said, would push marginal tax rates in the lowest income bracket from 18% to 41%, and in the highest bracket from 45% to 68%. Building its case, the association said the Genesis model projected that more than 286 000 additional healthcare professionals would be required to fulfil the NHI vision. This is more than twice the number of general practitioners, nurses and pharmacists and three times the number of specialists. 'NHI will therefore place significant pressure on healthcare workers and addressing these capacity gaps will require significant time and investment,' the association said. Naidoo added that South Africa does not have enough skilled workers to deliver the NHI's mandate. 'By driving down service tariffs, the NHI risks accelerating the emigration or exit of healthcare professionals from the sector altogether.' The country is already facing a medical professional 'brain drain'. A survey conducted last year by the South Africa Medical Association, which represents approximately 17 000 doctors across South Africa, showed that as many as 38% of its members intended to leave the country in response to the implementation of the NHI scheme. Last month, Ramaphosa defended the Act after the Board of Healthcare Funders, which represents most private medical schemes, said he flouted his constitutional duty by failing to scrutinise its constitutionality when he signed the NHI into law. It added that the president ignored submissions that pointed to the patent constitutional defects in the legislation. The Pretoria High Court ruled in favour of the board. Ramaphosa launched an appeal, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction in the matter and erred in finding that his decision to sign the new law was reviewable. The court found no merit in his argument on the separation of powers and said the step of assenting to a Bill was but part of a lawmaking process that was a reviewable exercise in public power.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Health Funders Association launches latest legal challenge to NHI Act, calling legislation ‘unworkable'
The Health Funders Association is the sixth organisation to launch a legal challenge to the NHI Act, describing it as 'unaffordable, unworkable and unconstitutional'. The Health Funders Association (HFA), a nonprofit representing 20 medical schemes and three administrators in South Africa's private healthcare funding sector, has become the latest organisation to launch a legal challenge to the National Health Insurance Act. On Thursday, 5 June the HFA announced the challenge, which has been lodged in the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria. The organisation has said that while it supports the 'goal of universal health coverage', it considers the NHI Act to be 'unaffordable, unworkable and unconstitutional'. 'Litigation is not our preferred route but it is, under these circumstances, the responsible one to protect our economy and the future of healthcare in our country,' said NFA chief executive Thoneshan Naidoo. Unconstitutional and invalid In its legal challenge, the HFA argues that the NHI Act is procedurally and substantively flawed and will cause irreparable harm to the health system economy. It also seeks to show that: Section 33 of the NHI Act, which limits the role of medical schemes to providing complementary cover, infringes on section 27 of the Constitution regarding the right to access healthcare; The Act is not a 'reasonable measure' under section 27(2) of the Constitution, which stipulates that the government must take progressive, reasonable steps to realise access to care; and The Act unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the minister of health. Naidoo said that the relief sought by the HFA in the high court was for 'certain sections of the NHI Act be declared unconstitutional and invalid. Alternatively, the Act, in its entirety, to be declared unconstitutional and invalid.' There are already five legal challenges to the Act playing out in South Africa's courts, led by the South African Medical Association, the Board of Healthcare Funders, the Hospital Association of South Africa, the South African Private Practitioners Forum and the trade union Solidarity. 'With our knowledge, skills and experience of the funding industry… we bring an understanding of what the flaws are [in the NHI Act], what path we're on and alternative solutions. We don't view ourselves in opposition, but as part of completing the solution,' Naidoo told Daily Maverick. He noted that the HFA had engaged with the NHI through public participation processes before it was signed into law, in an attempt to work collaboratively with stakeholders. 'We are a part of Busa [Business Unity South Africa]… and while we go ahead with this legal challenge, we are hoping that through Busa… and that ongoing engagement with the president, it can lead to some amicable solution,' Naidoo said. Health Department spokesperson Foster Mohale said the department would study the HFA's application once it had received it and 'respond accordingly through the legal channels'. Independent study Part of the reason the HFA's legal challenge was launched more than a year after the NHI Act was signed into law was to allow time to research the potential impact of the legislation, said Naidoo. The organisation commissioned an independent economic analysis by consultancy firm Genesis Analytics. 'The Genesis analysis assesses various potential efficiency savings under NHI compared to the current system. For modelling purposes, savings are assumed to be as high as 45% of private sector cost levels. The report demonstrates that even under the most optimistic assumptions, it is not possible to raise the funds required for NHI,' the HFA said. 'For NHI to fund a level of care equivalent to what medical scheme members currently receive, as government has indicated is the intention, the Genesis model shows that personal income tax would need to increase by 2.2 times (a 115% increase in tax) from the current average rate of 21% to an average of 46% of income.' The Genensis model considered a scenario of pooling existing healthcare expenditure in the private and public sectors to support NHI. Its finding was that to enable this, personal income tax would need to increase by 1.5 times its current rate (a 47% increase in tax), from its average of 21% to 31%, according to the HFA. The report stated that medical scheme members would face a 43% reduction in the level of healthcare services relative to what they currently receive. When breaking down who would be affected by the potential decline in services under the NHI, Naidoo said the Genesis analysis showed that more than 68% of medical scheme members were black, Indian or coloured, with up to 83% earning less than R37,500 per month. 'There's often a misconception that medical schemes are for the wealthy and the elite. But if 83% are earning less than R40,000, it means this is actually your economic engine of South Africa. This is your workforce,' Naidoo said. Another finding of the study was that an additional 282,000 healthcare professionals would be needed to achieve the same level of care and access under the NHI than is currently experienced through medical schemes. 'Every year, we only get about 3,600 new medical graduates. Qualifications take between nine to 13 years… so the targets are decades away,' Naidoo said. Pursuing meaningful reform Naidoo said the HFA was not seeking to preserve the status quo, since it believed meaningful reform was essential to improve affordability, quality and access in healthcare. 'We remain committed to working with government and stakeholders to design a more inclusive, financially viable and constitutionally sound [system],' he said. 'Almost all successful [universal healthcare coverage] models, whether it's in high-income, middle-income or even low-income countries, involve strong public-private sector collaboration… Rather than sidelining the private sector, these systems leverage its capacity, innovation and infrastructure to expand access, improve efficiency and enhance quality of care.' The HFA has proposed a 'hybrid funding model' that involves the NHI fund and medical schemes operating 'in tandem'. It argues that this system would preserve individuals' 'freedom to choose supplementary private cover'. 'Public resources are focused on those most in need, while regulated competition supports innovation, efficiency and cost control,' it said. 'The proposed model offers a common benefit package with built-in cross-subsidisation to ensure equitable access for vulnerable populations. Grounded in a strong primary healthcare foundation, the model reflects international best practice and is especially relevant for middle-income countries like South Africa.' Other organisations have proposed alternative models to the NHI fund, including the Universal Healthcare Access Coalition, made up of the South African Medical Association, the Progressive Health Forum and the South African Private Practitioners Forum. Naidoo noted that a 'common thread' in many of these healthcare reform proposals was the emphasis placed on 'multifund, multipayer systems' rather than a single-fund monopoly. DM
