Union outraged by NHI study
by
2010-02-16 17:12
THE National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union (Nehawu)
today slammed the research by consultancy firm Econex into the proposed National
Health Insurance (NHI) scheme.
The research was “yet another guesstimate exercise” purporting to
be a credible study on the costs of the NHI, the union said in a
statement.
Nehawu said the research had been commissioned by private hospitals
– “hardly a reassuring indication of objectivity”.
“Wild and unfounded claims on the supposed costs of the NHI are
made in the report, including the usual claims about the possible tax
implications, a ploy intended to scare off the taxpayers for ulterior motives of
those who currently take the largest share of our country’s health budget to
service their selfish interests as opposed to improving health care to a large
majority of our people.”
According to Econex study, the government will have to provide an
extra R244?billion a year, in addition to the money it already spends on
health.
“The proposed NHI in its current form, promising universal
coverage, no co-payments, comprehensive cover and provider of choice, will be
massively expensive,” Econex said in its research note.
However, the union said Econex economist Marine Erasmus had
allegedly confirmed in a radio interview that the estimate of an extra
R244?billion a year was based on only two leaked documents and one public
document from ANC Today, the governing party’s official newsletter.
“She (Erasmus) has in the same interview confessed that she has
absolutely no idea of what the detail is. However, the report acknowledges that
the researchers based their costing of the comprehensive cover on the current
private healthcare costs believing that there would be a greater shift towards
the use of private healthcare,” ANC Today reported.
Nehawu said it rejected this assumption as private healthcare was
not available to people living in remote areas “and in any case the NHI is not
going to be based on the current private health costs which are distorted by
profiteering and inefficiencies”.
The union said Econex had indicated the additional revenue needed
for the NHI would amount to a 33% to 37% increase on total tax revenues.
“However, in (the) interview, Erasmus stated that it would be
difficult to say how much additional income tax would be required given the
little detail we have at the moment,” the union said.
Nehawu further rejected Econex’s suggestion that social health
insurance, where only employed people would be covered, might be the best option
as an interim step towards a full NHI, adding that the idea would once again
“remove the focus of health delivery from workers and the poor”.
And this was
not in line with the constitutional injunction which expected government to
ensure access to healthcare to all.
“Distortions and misrepresentations about a people’s health are not
only unethical and irresponsible but they are also a health hazard as their
poisonous effects can penetrate the minds of the policymakers and implementers,”
Nehawu said.
The workers’ movement went further to challenge Econex to clarify
the basis of its calculations and to inform the public as to who sponsored the
research.
“Until the final policy document has been confirmed by Cabinet and
released for public comment by the minister of health, the assertions from
Econex and similar institutes remain guesswork,” it said.
While Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan may mention the NHI in his
first budget speech tomorrow, he was not expected to announce the launch of the
scheme.
The plan is still regarded by most economists as being in its
infancy.