Insights of private general practitioners in group practice on the introduction of National Health Insurance in South Africa

Background: The South African government intends to contract with ‘accredited provider groups’ for capitated primary care under National Health Insurance (NHI). South African solo general practitioners (GPs) are unhappy with group practice. There is no clarity on the views of GPs in group practice on contracting to the NHI. Objectives: To describe the demographic and practice profile of GPs in group practice in South Africa, and evaluate their views on NHI, compared to solo GPs. Methods: This was a descriptive survey. The population of 8721 private GPs in South Africa with emails available were emailed an online questionnaire. Descriptive statistical analyses and thematic content analysis were conducted. Results: In all, 819 GPs responded (568 solo GPs and 251 GPs in groups). The results are focused on group GPs. GPs in groups have a different demographic practice profile compared to solo GPs. GPs in groups expected R4.86 million ($0.41 million) for a hypothetical NHI proposal of comprehensive primary healthcare (excluding medicines and investigations) to a practice population of 10 000 people. GPs planned a clinical team of 8 to 12 (including nurses) and 4 to 6 administrative staff. GPs in group practices saw three major risks: patient, organisational and government, with three related risk management strategies. Conclusions: GPs can competitively contract with NHI, although there are concerns. NHI contracting should not be limited to groups. All GPs embraced strong teamwork, including using nurses more effectively. This aligns well with the emergence of family medicine in Africa

Financing equitable access to antiretroviral treatment in South Africa

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While South Africa spends approximately 7.4% of GDP on healthcare, only 43% of these funds are spent in the public system, which is tasked with the provision of care to the majority of the population including a large proportion of those in need of antiretroviral treatment (ART). South Africa is currently debating the introduction of a National Health Insurance (NHI) system. Because such a universal health system could mean increased public healthcare funding and improved access to human resources, it could improve the sustainability of ART provision. This paper considers the minimum resources that would be required to achieve the proposed universal health system and contrasts these with the costs of scaled up access to ART between 2010 and 2020.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The costs of ART and universal coverage (UC) are assessed through multiplying unit costs, utilization and estimates of the population in need during each year of the planning cycle. Costs are from the provider’s perspective reflected in real 2007 prices.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The annual costs of providing ART increase from US$1 billion in 2010 to US$3.6 billion in 2020. If increases in funding to public healthcare only keep pace with projected real GDP growth, then close to 30% of these resources would be required for ART by 2020. However, an increase in the public healthcare resource envelope from 3.2% to 5%-6% of GDP would be sufficient to finance both ART and other services under a universal system (if based on a largely public sector model) and the annual costs of ART would not exceed 15% of the universal health system budget.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Responding to the HIV-epidemic is one of the many challenges currently facing South Africa. Whether this response becomes a “resource for democracy” or whether it undermines social cohesiveness within poor communities and between rich and poor communities will be partially determined by the steps that are taken during the next ten years. While the introduction of a universal system will be complex, it could generate a health system responsive to the needs of all South Africans.</p

A retrospective view on the viability of water fluoridation in South Africa to prevent dental caries

OBJECTIVES: Despite a Commission of Inquiry into water fluoridation recommending the fluoridation of public water supplies to the optimal fluoride concentration of 0.7 ppm, as well as regulations for the introduction of water fluoridation which compel water providers to fluoridate public water supplies, no artificially fluoridated water scheme exists in South Africa. In view of concerns expressed by South African local authorities about cost and reports urging further investigation into the effectiveness of water fluoridation, the aim of this study was to determine whether water fluoridation is still a viable option to reduce dental caries in South Africa. METHODS: A model based on a cost evaluation of 44 communities in Florida, United States, and applied to South Africa was used as the basis for this study. Twenty-three input variables were used to create a computerized model which was populated with 2006 and 2011 data. Per capita cost, cost-effectiveness ratio and cost-benefit ratio were calculated as economic outputs to facilitate decision making for projected caries reductions of 15%, 30% and 50%. RESULTS: The average per capita cost of water fluoridation for all category water providers combined is US$0.28 in 2006 and US$0.35 in 2011, an increase of 23.2% over this period. The average costeffectiveness for all water providers combined varies from US$3.32 for a 50$11.08 for a 15% caries reduction. Despite higher cost-effective values for some cities and towns, the cost per person per year to save one Decayed, Missing or Filled Tooth (DMFT) at a projected caries reduction of at least 15% as a result of the introduction of water fluoridation, is at least 48.4% less than the cost of a two surface restoration. The average cost-benefit for all water providers combined varies from 0.1 at a 50% to 0.34 at a 15% caries reduction. For both cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio better results are achieved when the projected caries reduction increases. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that water fluoridation is still a viable option to prevent dental caries in communities in South Africa along with the reduction in the prevalence of dental caries and increases in economically driven variables.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1600-052