NHI gets its first blow from the Court
The Gauteng High Court said that doctors don't have to register for a "certificate of need" under the National Health Act. This ruling is a setback for the National Health Insurance (NHI). The court found this requirement to be unconstitutional.
Solidarity chief executive, Dirk Hermann, and groups representing private practitioners took the case to court. On Wednesday (24 July), Judge A Millar ruled that sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act are invalid.
The segments pertain to the fiercely debated "Certificate of Need", a measure the National Department of Health is keen on implementing to gain greater authority over the locations where doctors and healthcare professionals can operate within the nation.
Werksmans' legal specialists earlier clarified that the NHA's stipulations for a need certification would imply that no individual can run a current health facility, augment the bed count in such a facility, or build or inaugurate a new health facility without owning one of these certificates.
A health establishment is a place where health services are available, like pharmacies, doctor's offices, and hospitals. The definition is broad and includes many different types of places.
The certificate rules of the NHA apply to all places in the country where you can get health services.
In December 2021, Solidarity questioned the legality of the certificate. In June 2022, a ruling declared the sections invalid and unconstitutional, siding with Solidarity.
The judgment was later overturned. The department argued that they were not informed about the case. They did not participate in any of the court proceedings.
In December 2022, the Constitutional Court stated that the issue should be resolved by the lower courts, leading to the case being returned to court—now accompanied by the department's response. The most recent hearing of the case took place in March 2024.
Solidarity argued that the certificate of need requirement unfairly limits health practitioners' ability to practice their profession.
Solidarity said that implementing these sections would take away health practitioners' businesses and property. This would impact both the practitioners and their patients.
These sections would have given the government control over medical practices. Doctors would not have been able to run practices as they see fit.
We cannot merely wish that the government will consistently use its broad powers responsibly. Such authorities should not be in the hands of the government in the first place.
The High Court has once again arrived at the same decision, reasserting that sections 36-40 are invalid and violate the constitution.
The certificate of need system was considered irrational and gave the health director general too much power. It could result in essential healthcare services being taken away from those who need them.
The judge stated that the ruling must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court. After that, it needs to be filed with the Registrar of the Constitutional Court.
If the Constitutional Court agrees with the decision, lawmakers will have two years to make changes to the country's laws. This is to address any problems that were identified.
The Impact of NHI
The recent court ruling may not be directly related to the National Health Insurance Act. However, the certificate of need is an important tool for the government. It helps regulate healthcare providers in both public and private sectors.
Dr Nicholas Crisp, a key designer of the NHI, has previously defended the certificate as being essential for planning and to reestablish equilibrium in a landscape dominated by supply-side, where healthcare facilities are disproportionately located in areas with excessive services.
He stated that the certificate would guarantee that healthcare facilities don't emerge in a haphazard or disorganized manner.
The NHI in South Africa wants to give the same healthcare to everyone. The government will be the only one paying for healthcare services. Private funding and medical aids will no longer be used.
Medical and healthcare providers need to join the scheme in order to provide services. There will be a cap on the fees they can charge for their services. The certificate of need would restrict them in where they could practice.
Even practitioners who choose to sideline the NHI would still face restrictions in where they can practice.
The government wants to make healthcare a national system. They want healthcare providers to be employed by the state. This is to centralize control of healthcare services. This triumph foils those catastrophic schemes.
The coalition asserted that a verdict in their favor regarding the certificate of need could set a precedent for future legal disputes against the entire NHI Act.
Do you need a Quote for our Tax and Accounting Services?
Contact our team via any of the following channels to get a proposal for your accounting and tax services:
Subscribe to our newsletters.
Disclaimer:
The views or opinions expressed on this site are solely those of the original authors and other contributors.
The material and information contained on this website is for general information purposes only.
This information is for general purposes only. Don't use this information for making business, legal and tax decisions without consulting a professional.
We do not make any express or implied representation, as to the completeness or accuracy of the information published.
Tax law regularly changes, so any tax information on this site could become outdated.
We are not responsible for any other websites that you may access through links on our website.
ZPA accepts no liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of any material on this site.
