Committee hears of NHI Bill pitfalls

THE majority of opposition parties on Parliament’s portfolio committee on health have signalled their opposition to the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill for fear that if it is passed as it is, it will be the target of constitutional court challenges.

During a meeting at which committee chairperson Dr Kenneth Jacobs (ANC) gave members a chance to deliberate on the legal opinion presented by the state law advisers and parliamentary legal services, only the ANC and the IFP spoke in support of the bill.

DA health spokesperson Michele Clarke said her party rejected the bill and said, as it stands, it presents a host of constitutional issues, which will be tested in the Constitutional Court when it is inevitably passed using the ANC’s parliamentary majority.

Clarke said the bill had been thrown together haphazardly without proper and due consideration of all material facts and circumstances in which South Africa finds itself and would be a target for tender corruption and the looting of funds.

“Should the bill pass, it will do exactly the opposite of what it’s trying to achieve, bringing a total collapse of the healthcare sector and the ushering in of another form of state capture, which is the state being the sole provider of the service to the public.”

Philip van Staden (Freedom Front Plus) said his party had obtained a legal opinion on the NHI Bill in the quest to discover whether the bill passed constitutional muster.

He said his party would not support the bill and said the fact that the bill excludes asylum seekers and undocumented foreigners from healthcare service coverage could lead to a constitutional challenge.

Committee member Naledi Chirwa (EFF) said her party did not support the bill as it maintained the current twotier system, which did not reflect the EFF’s aspirations of a socialist country.

Chirwa said the EFF viewed the NHI Bill as outsourcing healthcare to the private sector following the ANC government’s failure to build a public healthcare sector.

In March, Parliament’s legal adviser, Sueanne Isaac, told the committee that while the bill mentions provision for medical schemes, it was unclear how current medical aid users would access healthcare services during the phased-in implementation of the NHI, and this created legal uncertainty.