Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Director, Neil Kirby comments on NHI and Medical Schemes Amendment Bill post the briefing by Health Minister, Aaron Motsoaledi
“The Minister of Health has described the advent of national health insurance or NHI as the land issue in the healthcare sector. Today, the Minister announced the introduction of two Bills to herald the introduction, into law, of the NHI. The two Bills, one dealing with amendments to the existing Medical Schemes Act of 1998 and the other setting out the structuring of the NHI, were published for public comment.
The Bills are understandably twinned as the NHI materially affects the provisions of healthcare services to persons contracted with medical schemes for purposes of achieving access to healthcare services in South Africa. The impact of the proposed NHI on medical schemes is predicted, in the Bills, to be dramatic. The primary impact of the NHI Bill is to create a basket of benefits, or “health goods”, that are to be available to all South Africans, whether a member of a medical scheme or not. The actual elements of the basket of services remain unclear as the services are to be set out in regulations following the introduction of the NHI Bill into law. This leaves medical schemes in a position where they will have to decide either to redesign their benefits so as to take into account the services offered by NHI or not. This decision-making process will also be informed by the proposed abolition of co-payments proposed in the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill. The consequences for medical schemes is that they will not, in all likelihood, be able to charge premiums at current levels as the possible range and cost of services available to be purchased may be reduced. Medical schemes may end up performing a supplementary role in the provision of healthcare services to South Africans – primarily, as a top-up device or ancillary provider of services not offered by NHI. This brings into focus the viability of certain medical schemes that may not be able to withstand reducing benefits and premiums. Further consolidation in the medical schemes sector is thus likely to occur.
The NHI Bill proposes the introduction of a national health insurance scheme and fund. This is a controversial step in the current context of the healthcare services debate in South Africa, more particularly, in the wake of the Life Esidemeni findings and statements concerning the ability of the public healthcare sector actually to provide access to healthcare services at all in certain settings. Whilst the proposed NHI may, at first blush, satisfy the requirements of government’s obligations to progressively realise access to healthcare services, further examination of the structure reveals a paper-based set of aspirations largely divorced from the realities of public sector infrastructural problems and endemic capacity constraints notwithstanding the activities of the Office of Health Standards Compliance and the Health Ombudsperson to date. It’s a bit like building a house with no land on which to put it.
The NHI Bill requires compulsory membership of the NHI for all South Africans. The funding of the NHI will be drawn from participants and certain other mechanisms that will only become apparent in regulations to the eventual Act. Healthcare providers will be required to be selected, “certified and accredited”, to provide NHI benefits in identified health districts through a process of, presumably, qualification and selection. The qualification process, within and of itself, means that certain providers may be excluded from providing NHI benefits and, in turn, from receiving payment for the provision of certain healthcare services. The prudence of excluding healthcare providers, in an already strained system starving from a lack of available expertise, is highly questionable if not irrational.
The current task is to digest the Bills as published and provided within the three months afforded to the public to do so.”
Latest News
The Introduction of a Dedicated Insolvency Court in Pretoria
by Eric Levenstein - Director and Head of Insolvency & Business Rescue and Amy Mackechnie - Senior Associate Following the [...]
Regulatory Snapshot: Financial Services and AML
by Hilah Laskov, Director In this article, we lay out the main regulatory and legal developments in 2025 that [...]
The Need to Plead Properly – Patel vs South African Securitisation Programme (RF) LTD & Others (790/2024) [2025] SASCA 186
by Jennifer Smit, Director On 8 December 2025, the SCA handed down a decision in the above matter which [...]
The union doth protest too much: NUMSA v BMW and the limits of court intervention in disciplinary proceedings
by Bradley Workman-Davies, Director The Labour Court’s judgment in NUMSA on behalf of Members v BMW (SA) (Pty) Ltd [...]
Evaluating the public interest effects of a merger: The Competition Appeal Court charts the course
by Paul Coetser, Director and Head of Competition and Kwanele Diniso, Associate When evaluating a merger, the Competition Act 89 [...]
What makes the “Best” mobile network? A South African perspective
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Director and Head of Regulatory Choosing the “best” mobile network depends on multiple factors. In practice, it [...]
