Welcome to the Doctors' Portal
00:00 Sunday
Mediclinic News : Collaborating with the private sector will assist in building a better public sector

Title

Collaborating with the private sector will assist in building a better public sector

Date

2016-06-01

Link

News Description

CARDIOLOGY NEWS In his budget vote speech, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi repeats a he when he states, ".., how do we continue to justify a healthcare system where 16% of the population which in essence is the cream of the Nation, have pooled their funds together in their own corner away from the masses...". But as professors Heather McLeod and Servaas van der Berg demonstrate, "Although the 16% of the population belonging to medical and bargaining council schemes receive good health services, public health-care quality is so inadequate that 30% of people without medical scheme cover pay for private treatment out of pocket." South Africans have access to healthcare through either self-provision or the public healthcare system. There are many people, such as government ministers, members of Parliament, senior government officials, and a host of others who are supported by taxpayers that make up the "privileged few having disproportionate access to health care". These same people are also among the privileged few having disproportionate access" to superior transport, housing, food, clothing, entertainment, and many other benefits. Is it at all realistic to now declare that "this system is neither rational nor fair and try and work out a scheme for all of these privileges to be shared with the people who do not have access to them? Or do we recognise that people are entitled to work for, and secure for themselves, better health care, transport, housing, food, clothing, entertainment and other privileges, especially when they pay for these privileges entirely out of their own resources? There is no evidence that proves voluntary expenditure by private individuals on medical scheme membership disadvantages the poor. More likely, the opposite is true. When more people take responsibility for their own healthcare requirements, it relieves the burden on the state so that it has more to spend on the poor. To establish a routine for regular, small, fixed payments to be made to a medical scheme makes intuitive sense, as opposed to people having to bear devastating, high out-of-pocket payments whenever illness strikes. This may be a justification to extend private health insurance to all individuals, but is does not justify the proposed National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme. The minister is trying to bamboozle us when he suggests that a tax credit for medical scheme contributions is the same as a subsidy. A tax credit is government refraining from taking as much of your money in tax as it would under ordinary conditions. Tax credits linked to medical aid contributions were introduced to encourage individuals to pay more towards their own medical expenses and generally not rely on publicly provided medical care. Tax exemptions benefit the intended beneficiary directly by lowering their tax liability. A subsidy is money paid to you by government for doing something they want you to do. They are prone to political manipulation and, usually, are channelled to special interest groups — after government has taken its cut for acting as intermediary. Taking one person's money in order to pay for another person's medical care is a subsidy. Proposing to scrap tax exemptions is government's ploy to get more money out of taxpayers at the expense of the private medical care sector. Eliminating tax credits related to medical care will drive up the cost of medical scheme contributions and make them too expensive for new members to join and for those at the margin to drop out — fewer people on private medical schemes will swell the already unmanageable burden faced by the public sector. According to the minister, medical aid reserves are another possible source of funds for the proposed, unfeasible and unworkable NHI scheme. Ironically, medical aid reserves or statutory solvency requirements were introduced by government to prevent a scheme from going insolvent should it experience an unusual-ly high number of claims and record an operating loss in a particular period. The money in the reserve belongs to the members of the scheme and certainly not government. Any intimation that it can be expropriated {read stolen) will not pass constitutional muster. Rather than assuming responsibility for all medical care, which is not necessary or desirable, government should allow the private sector to operate more freely. If government enlisted the support and help of the private sector, removed barriers that prevent the market from functioning efficiently, and contracted out those services that can be provided more efficient-ly and at lower cost by private providers, it would be able to concentrate its efforts and taxpayer resources on those who truly cannot afford medical care. Jasson Urbach, Director: Health Policy Unit, Free Market Foundation
Created at 2016/06/13 11:19 AM by Mediclinic
Last modified at 2016/06/13 11:19 AM by Mediclinic