Board of Healthcare Funders hails recent court ruling on NHI Act as a victory
CAPE TOWN - The Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) has hailed Tuesday's court ruling on the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act as a victory and a first step towards exposing what it believes are unconstitutional aspects of the legislation.
The Gauteng High Court has ordered President Cyril Ramaphosa to provide it with his record of decision to sign the bill into law in May 2024, despite the concerns and objections raised by the private health sector.
ALSO READ: BHF, SAPPF given green light to challenge NHI Act
His ten-calendar day deadline to meet the court order will run out next Friday.
The BHF, which represents several private healthcare schemes, said the court ruling marks an important milestone in its ongoing legal challenge against the NHI Act.
While the board insisted it supports universal health coverage, it said this must be pursued through a practical, inclusive multi-payer model that will preserve the strengths of both the public and private healthcare sectors.
The board said the court's finding that it does have the jurisdiction to review this matter reaffirms the constitutional principle that all public power is subject to the rule of law and the president, too, is not above judicial scrutiny.
The BHF launched the review application just two weeks after he signed the bill into law, despite having received numerous submissions on concerns and an appeal to return the bill to Parliament for further scrutiny.
The board said that in so doing, Ramaphosa assented to legislation that it contends is vague, unaffordable, and unworkable.
The BHF believes the president's record of his decision-making process will demonstrate that he ignored compelling legal and policy objections from civil society, business, and the health sector.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
a day ago
- The Citizen
Wordplay won't save patients' lives
Surgical waiting lists in Gauteng are called dynamic, but cancer patients can't wait months for life-saving treatment. It is extraordinary that Gauteng department of health spokesperson Motalatale Modiba concedes there are 34 528 patients on surgical waiting lists across public hospitals in the province, but denies that's a backlog. He says 'it is important to differentiate between surgical backlogs and waiting lists' because the waitlist 'is a dynamic figure as it fluctuates when new patients are registered on the waiting list and when surgeries are performed'. That's bound to be of some comfort to the people with life-threatening conditions – such as cancer patients – who have been told they will have to wait up to eight months to go to theatre. One man we spoke to doesn't have that time… he will probably be dead before getting to the front of the queue. ALSO READ: Over 34 000 patients waiting for surgeries in Gauteng's public hospitals The clever wordplay does not disguise the fact that our government hospitals – especially in Gauteng – are a sluggish, overburdened mess. No doubt the ANC will prescribe a stiff dose of National Health Insurance to cure these ills. But all we can see is the massive amounts of money squeezed out of salary earners for the scheme will be squandered or stolen. Whistle-blower Babita Deokaran discovered that at Tembisa Hospital – and paid for her bravery with her life. NOW READ: Getting help with Botox
TimesLIVE
a day ago
- TimesLIVE
Electronic death registration is a win-win: let's make it happen
A recent study found extensive underreporting of HIV as a cause of death. Only 28% of deaths that occurred in a national sample of public sector hospitals where the medical record had clear clinical indications of HIV, had HIV specified on their death notification form. Aside from ensuring that medical certification of the cause of death is part of the medical training curriculum, and that additional training is provided during internship periods, another key issue to address is that many doctors are reluctant to record HIV/Aids as a cause of death due to concerns about maintaining patient confidentiality. In 2014 a self-sealing section was added to protect information about cause of death on the death notification form, but this has clearly not had the desired effect. Following the deaths of at least 22 children from contaminated food last year, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that the department of health would develop an electronic system for recording causes of death as one of several responses to the emergency. The move to an electronic system offers a strategic opportunity to address the challenge around confidentiality and promises far more. It allows for secure, institution-based data management that protects confidentiality, encourages accurate reporting, and strengthens the integrity of vital statistics. Benefits of this digital transition will include: Improved data quality and confidentiality, encouraging accurate reporting of sensitive conditions such as HIV/Aids; Automated validation checks, reducing certification errors at the point of data entry; Real-time access to mortality data, enabling rapid public health responses; and A platform for quality assurance and feedback, currently not possible under the paper-based system. Ultimately, moving away from a paper-based process of death registration will reduce the administrative burden and improve efficiency across the system. This presents a timely and valuable opportunity to collaborate across departments, including health, home affairs and Statistics South Africa to modernise the country's civil registration and vital statistics system. We are at a pivotal moment for such co-ordinated policy action. Investing in a robust electronic system for cause-of-death certification will strengthen South Africa's public health planning, improve disease surveillance, and increase accountability. The long-term returns — through faster, more reliable data — are substantial for both governance and health outcomes. It is a win-win situation all round. • Groenewald and Bradshaw are both with the South African Medical Research Council's Burden of Disease Research Unit.
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
Ramaphosa asks Constitutional Court to overturn NHI judgment
President Cyril Ramaphosa has appealed to the Constitutional Court in a bid to overturn a recent Gauteng High Court ruling that challenged the legality of his decision to sign the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill into law. The controversial bill, signed by Ramaphosa in May 2024, is a cornerstone of the government's proposed overhaul of South Africa's healthcare system, aiming to establish universal health coverage for all citizens. However, the High Court in Pretoria ruled shortly afterwards that Ramaphosa's assent to the bill could be subject to judicial review — a finding that raised constitutional and procedural concerns. The court also ordered the president to provide a full record of all documentation and deliberations that informed his decision to approve the legislation. This move sparked criticism from legal and political commentators who viewed it as a significant intrusion into executive authority. Now, Ramaphosa is asking the Constitutional Court — South Africa's highest legal authority on constitutional matters — to review and set aside the High Court's judgment. In his application, the president contends that the lower court may have overstepped its bounds, arguing that it infringed on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. According to court papers filed by Ramaphosa, the High Court ruling 'undermines the functioning of the executive' and grants the judiciary undue influence over matters that, by design, fall within the president's discretion. He maintains that while all actions of public office bear scrutiny, the power to sign legislation into law lies squarely with the executive and must be exercised without judicial interference unless a direct constitutional violation is evident. The legal dispute unfolds amid intense national debate over the NHI, which has drawn sharp reactions from across the political spectrum. Supporters argue that the legislation is necessary to address systemic inequality in access to healthcare, while critics — including major stakeholders in the private healthcare industry — warn that the bill is vague, fiscally unsustainable, and potentially unconstitutional. The High Court's ruling added a new layer of complexity to the NHI saga, as it suggested the president's role in enacting legislation is not immune from legal challenge if the process appears flawed. Some constitutional scholars noted that the court's directive to produce the 'record of decision' implies that judicial oversight could extend into executive reasoning, a move with far-reaching implications. Legal experts say the outcome of Ramaphosa's appeal could set an important precedent for the limits of presidential authority and the role of the judiciary in legislative processes. If the Constitutional Court agrees to hear the matter, its judgment will have significant consequences not only for the future of the NHI but also for the balance of power between branches of government.
