Raising taxes to pay for NHI ‘premature’
Before the government considers raising taxes to pay for national health insurance (NHI), it should meet its own promise to allocate 15% of its budget to health.CAPE TOWN — Before the government considers raising taxes to pay for national health insurance (NHI), it should meet its own promise to allocate 15% of its budget to health in line with the Abuja target, according to University of Cape Town health economist Prof Di McIntyre.
The government also needed to improve public health facilities and win the trust of the public before increasing the tax burden, she said ahead of today’s publication of a European Union- funded study on the financial implications of alternative scenarios for health sector reform.
The study concludes that an NHI-style model was the most affordable.
“I don’t believe people should be asked to pay the tax until they see tangible benefits,” said Prof McIntyre, who is also a member of the ministerial advisory committee on the NHI, set up by Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi last year.
The Abuja target was set by African heads of state in 2001 and reaffirmed this year in August in Kampala. SA still has a considerable way to go to meet this goal, as health got just 11,5% (R104bn) of the R907bn budget for the 2011- 12 fiscal year .
Prof McIntyre’s comments follow the release last month by the African National Congress (ANC) of a discussion paper on NHI, and add to the debate about health sector reform.
The ANC is proposing the introduction of a central fund to pay for public health services, financed by increased government spending of up to 14,5% of the national budget, a mandatory NHI contribution of up to 8% (split between worker and employer), and possibly increasing value added tax. The party is proposing to phase in NHI over 14 years, starting in 2012, and projects costs will rise from R128bn to R376bn by 2025.
The Strategies for Equity in Less Developed Countries study examined health inequalities in Ghana, SA and Tanzania and investigated how these gaps could be closed by reforms.
In the South African component, Prof McIntyre and her team modelled the costs of phasing in three different scenarios over 15 years: leaving the status quo unchanged (with about 16% of the population belonging to medical schemes), introducing mandatory medical scheme membership for everyone in formal employment, and an NHI-style “universal coverage” model which would have more people relying on state- funded healthcare.
It concluded that the most affordable option for SA would be the “universal coverage” model.
This would require public spending on health of between 5% and 24% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2025, with the “best guess” being 6,4%, said Prof McIntyre. The wide cost variation was largely due to different estimates of the unit costs of services. If the “best guess” scenario was introduced today it would cost R196bn (with R102bn coming from the public purse) and rise to R394bn (with R295bn from public funds) by 2025 in current terms. In this scenario, administration costs would be tightly controlled, and unit costs for services would be lower than current private sector rates.
Under this scenario, medical schemes would continue to exist but with a smaller membership base, and so they would account for spending equivalent to 2,2% of GDP by 2025. About 40% of medical scheme members would be likely to drop out. About 8% of SA’s GDP is spent on health at present, said Prof McIntyre.
The range of services offered by the state under this scenario would have to be limited, she said. “There is going to be rationing,” she said, implying that those who could afford to would continue to buy from the private sector the services not provided by the state. “There is rationing in the (UK) National Health Service, there is rationing everywhere.”
Source - Businessday.co.za
Business Services Ads
Posts
