Medical schemes racially targeted black healthcare providers
Image: Siyabulela Duda| GCIS
A PANEL established to probe allegations of racial discrimination by medical schemes has detailed how black healthcare providers were unfairly targeted by having their claims withheld based on race and ethnicity.
Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi received the final report from the Section 59 Investigation Panel on Monday. The inquiry stems from public allegations made in May 2019 by members of the National Health Care Professionals Association (NHCPA) and Solutionist Thinkers, who alleged that medical schemes and administrators were unfairly withholding their claims based on race and ethnicity.
An independent investigation panel, known as the Section 59 Inquiry and comprising Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC (Chairperson), Advocate Adila Hassim, and Advocate Kerry Williams, probed the allegations, to identify trends and make recommendations that may require legal or policy interventions.
The main focus of the investigation was on fraud, waste and abuse (FWA) and FWA systems, which refers to the systems used by the medical aid schemes and administrators to detect, investigate and determine providers who engage in FWA.
This investigation sought to determine if there is a systemic flaw in the Schemes and Administrators FWA systems, particularly the part of the system which claws back monies for providers where the schemes have suffered loss.
According to the report, the written submissions alleged that the schemes were intimidated and bullied providers through the implementation of their FWA systems, including by refusing to reimburse providers directly. The schemes were alleged to be treating providers unfairly and in particular were alleged to be targeting black providers.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
'The Schemes' FWA systems all made use of software or algorithms that were designed to flag providers who were suspected of engaging in FWA. The FWA systems also all made use of other investigative techniques – staff within the Schemes would receive the details regarding providers who were flagged as engaging in suspicious FWA behaviour and thereafter would engage with these providers, often requesting additional information from the providers to test if they were correctly flagged. None of the Schemes relied entirely on their software or algorithms to determine if a provider was guilty of FWA.'
A statistical analysis on the data found that across the board (regardless of the Scheme or Administrator involved; and generally in relation to almost all of the health care disciplines), black providers were much more likely than non-black providers to have been found guilty of FWA by the Schemes and Administrators concerned. This greater likelihood was measured in what has become known as a 'risk ratio'.
'The FWA system produces disparate outcomes based on race – demonstrates that there are probably errors in the FWA systems which must be corrected. For GEMS, black dental therapists in 2014 experienced risk ratios of between 2.7 and 3.27 – i.e. were generally approximately three times (300% more) more likely than non-black dental therapists to be guilty of FWA. For Discovery, black psychiatrists in 2017 experienced risk ratios of between 3.44 to 3.77 – i.e. black psychiatrists were generally approximately three and a half times (350% more) more likely than non-black psychiatrists to be guilty of FWA. For Medscheme, black anaesthetists in 2018 experienced risk ratios of between 6.39 and 6.78 – i.e. black anaesthetists were generally approximately six and a half times (650% more) more likely than non-black anaesthetists to be guilty of FWA.
'Much of the evidence placed before the Panel suggested that there may be systemic unfair discrimination in the implementation of the FWA systems by the Schemes. Systemic discrimination is an issue which has not been extensively addressed by our courts or administrative bodies.'
The Panel recommended that there be full algorithmic transparency.
'We explained that the full workings of the algorithm should be visible, transparent and accessible to both the people who use algorithms but also to the people who are affected by the algorithmic systems. Specifically, it is necessary that the inputs into, and construction of, the algorithm should be known.'
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
Health Department doesn't track foreign nationals using public facilities
Treatment is still provided to those who cannot produce documents to verify their identity. Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi says his department does not track the number of foreign nationals using public healthcare facilities. Motsoaledi revealed this in a recent written parliamentary reply to ActionSA MP Tebogo Letlape, who had asked for the total number of documented and undocumented foreign nationals recorded as accessing public healthcare in the past five years. Letlape also wanted to know how many illegal immigrants had been reported to the Department of Home Affairs by healthcare facilities, as required by law. Motsoaledi on foreign nationals using public healthcare facilities In his response, Motsoaledi explained that provincial health departments keep no such records – and that the same applies to undocumented South Africans. 'In accordance with Section 27 of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa, everyone has the right to access healthcare services, including reproductive healthcare, and no one may be refused emergency medical treatment. 'Health care is provided based on clinical need, not on nationality or documentation status,' he said. Addressing the question about reporting to Home Affairs, the minister said while patients are requested to provide identification to verify their identity, treatment is still provided to those who cannot produce such documents. 'The patient administration and records systems utilised in public health facilities across the country do not classify or record individuals as South African or foreign and are therefore unable to provide a total number of undocumented people who accessed healthcare services over the past five years.' ALSO READ: 'We've not broken any laws': Operation Dudula to press on with ID checks after members freed on warning Motsoaledi also highlighted that many South African citizens also access healthcare without identification, often because they have no ID issued by Home Affairs or any other official authority. 'This makes it impossible to determine whether such undocumented patients are foreign nationals or not.' He added that civil registration systems across Africa remain underdeveloped and are 'lagging behind'. Egypt leads the continent with a civil registration rate of 98%, followed by South Africa at 89%, according to the minister. 'This means that 11% of South Africans are also undocumented, but cannot said to be illegal in their own country. Some countries on this continent are still between 1% and 5% registered.' Practitioners employed in public health sector A separate parliamentary reply highlighted significant shifts in the number of health practitioners employed in South Africa's public health sector over the past five years, with certain provinces recording growth while others seeing declines. Motsoaledi provided a breakdown from the Persal system detailing the total number of active health professionals by province and category – namely nursing professionals, medical practitioners, and other health professionals – between April 2020 and March 2025. The figures for the 2024/2025 financial year showed KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) employed the highest number of nursing professionals at 32 151, followed closely by Gauteng with 30 456. Gauteng also leads in medical practitioners (7 268) and 'other health professionals' (5 748). READ MORE: Motsoaledi announces 1 650 new healthcare jobs and R1.3bn to be spent on hospital equipment Moreover, KZN saw sustained growth in nursing staff since 2020, though numbers for medical practitioners dropped slightly from a peak of 5 938 in 2021/2022 to 4 868 in the most recent year. Free State experienced a steady decline in nursing staff from 8 264 in 2021/2022 to 7 283 in 2024/2025, while Limpopo saw a drop from 16 625 in 2021/2022 to 14 807 in 2024/2025. Mpumalanga's nursing workforce also decreased slightly after peaking in 2021/2022. The Northern Cape consistently has the smallest personnel, with only 2 544 nursing professionals, 521 medical practitioners, and 667 other health professionals in 2024/2025.
Eyewitness News
2 days ago
- Eyewitness News
Inside SA's multi-million rand plan to fill US funding void
Health minister Aaron Motsoaledi recently announced that National Treasury had released roughly R753-million to help plug the gap left by US funding cuts to South Africa's health system. Another R268-million is also being released in the following two years for researchers that lost their US grants. But this may only constitute the first round of emergency funds from government, according to sources we spoke to. The health department is planning to submit a bid for an additional allocation later on, which will be considered by Treasury. But this will likely only be approved if the first tranche of funding is appropriately used. So how is the money supposed to be used? To find out, we spoke with officials from the National Treasury, the National Department of Health and the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC). MONEY FOR PROVINCES IS FOR SAVING JOBS AT GOVERNMENT CLINICS The current tranche of money comes from Treasury's contingency reserve, which exists partially to deal with unforeseen funding shortfalls. It was released in terms of Section 16 of the Public Finance Management Act. Of the R753-million that's been announced for this year, Motsoaledi stated that R590-million would be going to provincial health departments via the District Health Programme Grant - a conditional grant for funding the country's public health efforts, particularly HIV, TB, and other communicable diseases. Such conditional grants typically give the National Health Department more say over how provincial departments spend money than is the case with most other health funding in provinces.. To explain how government officials arrived at this figure, it's worth recapping what services the US previously supported within provinces. Prior to Donald Trump becoming US president on 20 January, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) had financed health programmes in specific districts with high rates of HIV. These districts were scattered across all South Africa's provinces, save for the Northern Cape. The funds were typically channelled by USAID to non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which used the money to assist the districts in two ways. The first is that NGOs would hire and deploy health workers at government clinics. The second is that the NGOs would run independent mobile clinics and drop-in centres, which assisted so-called key populations, such as men who have sex with men, sex workers, transgender people, and people who inject drugs. Following the US funding cuts, thousands of NGO-funded health workers lost their jobs at government clinics, while many of the health centres catering to key populations were forced to close. In response, the health department began negotiations with Treasury to get emergency funding to restore some of these services. As part of its application, the health department submitted proposals for each province, which specified how much money was needed and how it would be used. (Though this only took place after significant delay and confusion). Since Treasury couldn't afford to plug the entire gap left by the US funding cuts, the provincial-level proposals only requested money for some of the services that had been terminated. For instance, funding was not requested for the key populations health centres. Instead, the priority was to secure the jobs that had been lost at government health facilities. As such, the total amount that was requested from Treasury for each province was largely calculated by taking the total number of health workers that NGOs had hired at clinics and working out how much it would cost to rehire them for 12 months. Rather than paying the NGOs a grant to deploy these workers as was done by USAID, the health department proposed hiring them directly. This meant that they calculated their wages according to standard government pay scales which is less than what these workers would have earned from the NGOs. The total came to just under R1.2 billion for all the provinces combined. Treasury awarded roughly half of this on the basis that the money would be used to finance these wages for six months, rather than 12. This amounts to the R590-million for provinces that was announced by Motsoaledi. If all goes smoothly and this money is used effectively to hire these staff over the next six months, then a new tranche of Section 16 funding could be released in order to continue hiring them. Funds might also be released to fund the key populations health sites. A concern, however, is that the money may just be used by provinces to augment their ordinary budgets. If the funds aren't actually earmarked to respond to the US cuts, then it is much less likely that more emergency funding will be released. At this stage, it is too early to tell how provinces will use the money, particularly given that it appears that at least some of them haven't gotten it yet. Spotlight and GroundUp sent questions to several provincial health departments. Only the Western Cape responded. The province's MEC for Health and Wellness, Mireille Wenger, said that the funds have not yet been received by her department, but that once they were, they would be directed to several key priority areas, including digitisation of health records, and the strengthening of the primary healthcare system. It's thus not clear whether the province will be earmarking any of the funds to employ health staff axed by US-funded NGOs. In response to a question about this, Wenger stated that 'further clarity is still required from the National Department of Health and National Treasury regarding the precise provincial allocations and conditions tied to the additional funding'. WHAT ABOUT RESEARCH? Of the R753-million that's been released for this year, R132-million has been allocated to mitigate the funding cuts for research by US federal institutions, primarily the National Institutes for Health (NIH). Unlike USAID, the NIH is not an aid body. It provides grants to researchers who are testing new treatments and medical interventions that ultimately benefit everyone. These grants can be awarded to researchers in the US or abroad as part of a highly competitive application process. Researchers in South Africa are awarded a few billion rands worth of grants from the NIH each year, largely due to their expertise in HIV and TB. But over the last few months, much of this funding has been terminated or left in limbo. (See a detailed explanation of the situation here). The R132-million issued by Treasury is supposed to assist some of these researchers. It will be followed by another R268-million over the following two years. The Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust are chipping in an additional R100-million each – though in their case, the funds are being provided upfront. All of this money – R600 million in total – is being channelled to the SAMRC, which will release it to researchers via a competitive grant allocation system. According to SAMRC spokesperson Tendani Tsedu, they have already received the R132-million from Treasury, though they are still 'finalizing the processes with the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust for receipt of [their donations]'. The SAMRC is also in negotiation with a French research body about securing more funds, though these talks are ongoing. In the meantime, the SAMRC has sent out a request for grant applications from researchers who have lost their US money. The memo states: 'Applicants may apply for funding support for up to 12 months to continue, wind down or complete critical research activities and sustain the projects until U.S. funding is resumed or alternative funds are sourced.' 'The plan,' Tsedu said, 'is to award these grants as soon as possible this year.' Professor Linda-Gail Bekker, CEO of the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation, told us that the hope is that the grants could fill some of the gaps. 'This is a bridge and it is certainly going to save some people's jobs, and some research,' she said, but 'it isn't going to completely fill the gap'. Indeed, the SAMRC has made clear that its grants aren't intended to replace the US funding awards entirely. This is unsurprising given that the money that's being made available is a tiny fraction of the total grant funding awarded by the NIH. It's unlikely that research projects will continue to operate as before, and will instead be pared down, said Bekker. 'It's going to be about getting the absolute minimum done so you either save the outcome, or get an outcome rather than no outcome,' she said. In other cases, the funds may simply 'allow you to more ethically close [the research project] down,' Bekker added. For some, this funding may also have come too late. Many researchers have already had to lay off staff. Additionally, patients who had been on experimental treatments may have already been transitioned back into routine care. It's unclear how such projects could be resumed months later. In response, Tsedu stated: 'For projects that have already closed as a result of the funding cuts, the principal investigator will need to motivate whether the study can be appropriately resurrected if new funds are secured.' The SAMRC has established a steering committee which will adjudicate bids. They will be considering a range of criteria, Tsedu said, including how beneficial the research might be for the South African health system, and how heavily the project was impacted by the US funding cuts. They will also consider how an SAMRC grant could 'be leveraged for future sustainability of the project, personnel or unit,' he said. AN ENDLESS BACK AND FORTH The job of the SAMRC steering committee will likely be made a lot more complicated by the erratic policy changes within the NIH. On 25 March, the body sent a memo to staff, – leaked to Nature and Bhekisisa – instructing them to hold all funding awards to researchers in South Africa. After this, numerous researchers in the country said they couldn't renew their grants. However, last month, Science reported that a new memo had been sent to NIH staff which said that while South African researchers still couldn't get new grants, active awards could be resumed. Since then, some funds appear to be trickling back into the country, but certainly not all. For instance, Spotlight and GroundUp spoke to one researcher who had two active NIH awards before the cuts. He stated that one of these was resumed last month, while the other is still paused. Bekker also told us that she had heard of one or two research grants being resumed in the last week, though she said the bulk of active awards to South Africa are still pending. 'Where people are the prime recipients [of an NIH grant] without a subawardee, there seems to be a queue and backlog but some [of those awards] are coming through,' said Bekker. 'But how long this is going to take and when it might come through we're waiting to hear.' She said a strategy might be to apply for the SAMRC bridging funding and 'if by some miracle the [NIH funding is resumed]' then researchers could then presumably retract their SAMRC application. In the meantime, health researchers will have to continue spending their time working out how to respond to the abrupt and increasingly confusing changes to funding guidelines that have dogged them since Trump assumed office. 'It's such a dreadful waste of energy,' said Bekker. 'If we were just getting on with the research, it would be so much better.' Co-published by Spotlight and GroundUp
SowetanLIVE
3 days ago
- SowetanLIVE
'Be very careful': Here's what Motsoaledi told Operation Dudula
Health minister Aaron Motsoaledi has revealed the outcome of his meeting with the anti-migrant group Operation Dudula. The meeting on Tuesday aimed to address the issue of foreign nationals' access to health services. Operation Dudula has been blocking undocumented foreigners from receiving medical care in public clinics and hospitals, claiming they are adding pressure to the already overburdened healthcare system. In an interview with the SABC, Motsoaledi said he explained how the process of immigration works, emphasising that no-one should be denied healthcare, regardless of their documentation status. 'I told them they might be solving what looks like a legitimate problem but using the wrong means,' he said. 'In health, we treat everybody who enters who is sick, and they can't expect us to chase people away, regardless of their nationality. It is just not allowed in healthcare.' He said the group suggested that clinic and hospital clerks should be the ones turning away illegal foreigners from receiving medical care if they can't prove their identity as they did not sign an oath like doctors and nurses. 'If we instruct the clerks not to give anybody a file and they go out and die, we are going to be sued. Imagine a pregnant woman who enters a hospital, is refused care, and goes out to deliver a baby in the street.' Motsoaledi said patients can't be denied medical care even if they can't provide proof of identity. He highlighted the issue of many African countries that have not been able to register all their citizens. 'On the issue of civil registration and vital statistics, it is a problem across the entire African continent. Many African countries have not been able to register all their citizens. In fact, according to the statistics we have, the country that is farthest ahead in registering its citizens is Egypt. 'In South Africa, we have 89% documentation, which means 11% of South Africans are not documented. If you look at our population, 11% would be about 6-million people. They don't have any form of documentation but they are not illegal because they are in their country; they are South Africans.' He warned that many South Africans without IDs would suffer if all patients were required to produce proof of identification when visiting health facilities. 'If you continue to do it the way you are doing it, you are going to turn away many South Africans who are legitimate but do not have documents. Having worked in home affairs, I have met such people. I have met people who are 64 or 65 who are South Africans but never had documents, so [I am saying] be very careful.' Motsoaledi said there was no proper conclusion to the meeting. 'I advised them that problems are solved through the law. We can't have the law of the jungle.'
