DCT Nhi 2017

REPORT ON
FINANCING A NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

FOR SOUTH AFRICA
FOR THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Intended use of this document:
The Davis Tax Committee is advisory in nature and makes recommendations to

the Minister of Finance. The Minister will take into account the report and
recommendations and will make any appropriate announcements as part of the
normal budget and legislative processes.
As with all tax policy proposals, these proposals will be subject to the normal
consultative processes and Parliamentary oversight once announced by the
Minister.
THE DAVIS TAX COMMITTEE

March 2017
Financing a national health insurance for South Africa
FINANCING A NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (NHI)

FOR SOUTH AFRICA
GLOSSARY
ACA (USA) Affordable Care Act
AUGE (Chile) Universal Access and Explicit Guarantees
BBP Basic Benefits Package
BRIICS Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South Africa
CPMF (Brazil) Contribuição Provisória Sobre Movimentação Financeira
DTC Davis Tax Committee
FTE Full time equivalent
GNI Gross National Income
GP General Practitioner
GST (Australia) Goods and Services Tax
HPI Health Provider Index
HPRS Health Patient Registration System
HTA Health Technology Assessment
IMSS Mexican Social Security Institute
ISSTE (Mexico) Institute for Social Security and Services
NHC National Health Commission
NHI National Health Insurance
NHIS (Ghana) National Health Insurance Scheme
NHS (UK) National Health Service
NRCMS (China) New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OHSC Office of Health Standards Compliance
OOP(E) Out Of Pocket (Expenditure)
PHC Primary Health Care
PIT Personal Income Tax
PMB Prescribed Minimum Benefits
PPACA (USA) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
SAPPF South African Private Practitioners’ Forum
SHI Social Health Insurance
SIS (Peru) Seguro Integral de Salud
SUS (Brazil) Sistema Unica de Saude
UCS (Thailand) Universal Coverage Scheme
UEBMI (China) Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance
UHC Universal Health Coverage
UK United Kingdom
URBMI (China) Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance
USA United States of America
VAT Value Added Tax
WHO World Health Organisation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 THE DAVIS TAX COMMITTEE AND ITS MANDATE ..................................................... 1

2 DEFINITION OF THE NHI ............................................................................................. 2
3 RATIONALE FOR THE NHI ........................................................................................... 2
4 PRINCIPLES AND FEATURES OF THE NHI ................................................................ 4
5 NHI INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION .............................................. 6
6 INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN UHC FINANCING ....................................................... 11
6.1 Selected countries’ experience ............................................................................. 17
6.2 Cost pressures: international experience .............................................................. 20
6.3 Fiscal sustainability of benefit packages ............................................................... 21
6.4 Earmarking of revenues ........................................................................................ 23
7 EXISTING FINANCING SOURCES OF HEALTH CARE IN SOUTH AFRICA .............. 25
8 NHI EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES .................................. 26
9 MACROECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NHI ...................................................................... 30
10 PRINCIPLES OF GOOD TAX DESIGN .................................................................... 32
11 SUMMARY OF NHI FINANCING OPTIONS PROPOSED BY THE WHITE PAPER
ON NHI ............................................................................................................................... 33
11.1 Potential sources of revenue identified by the White Paper................................... 33
11.2 Tax rate scenarios ................................................................................................ 35
12 DISCUSSION OF FINANCING OPTIONS ................................................................ 38
13 TAX CREDITS.......................................................................................................... 41
14 CONCLUDING REMARKS ....................................................................................... 42
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 45
1 THE DAVIS TAX COMMITTEE AND ITS MANDATE

The Davis Tax Committee (DTC) was established in 2013 by the Minister of Finance to inquire into
the role of the tax system in promoting inclusive economic growth, employment creation,
development and fiscal sustainability. In so doing, the DTC has had to take recent domestic and
international developments into account and, particularly, the long term objectives of the National
Development Plan.
As part of its mandate outlined by the Minister, the DTC is required to evaluate proposals to fund,
for example, the proposed National Health Insurance (NHI) and long term infrastructure projects to
boost the growth potential of [the] economy.
The DTC is advisory in nature, and makes recommendations to the Minister of Finance. The
Minister, taking into account the DTC’s reports and recommendations, will make any appropriate
announcements as part of the normal budget and legislative processes. As with all tax policy
proposals, these will be subject to the normal consultative processes and Parliamentary oversight
once announced by the Minister.
On 15 December 2015, the Department of Health released a White Paper: Health Insurance for
South Africa: Towards Universal Coverage (henceforth “the NHI White Paper”). Chapter 7 of the
White Paper discusses various financing proposals for the proposed NHI. The DTC takes these
policy objectives, proposed institutional arrangements and cost projections as its point of
departure. The NHI implementation is likely to be a long term enterprise, spanning at least 14
years, during which many of the implementation and costing details will be refined.
The financing reforms proposed in the White Paper would be supported by a complete overhaul of
health care management, including measures to improve the quality of public health care,
revitalisation of health facilities and infrastructure, increased investment in the education and
training of health professionals, a review of the medical drugs policy, strengthening research and
development and re-engineering PHC, hospital and specialised services. These health policy
issues are critical to successful implementation of the NHI but fall outside of the purview of the
DTC.
Accordingly, this DTC report concentrates on identifying long term financing principles – the
specific operationalisation which will be informed by more detailed implementation and costing
plans in order to manage the transition from the status quo to the financing regime envisaged in
the NHI.
In October 2015, the DTC called for public submissions on Chapter 7 of the White Paper, which
deals with financing and revenue raising issues and received written and oral submissions from a
wide range of stakeholders. The DTC process is independent of parallel consultation processes of
the Department of Health, the National Treasury and the Financial and Fiscal Commission, which
have a much broader remit. It is the hope of the DTC that its independent assessment will enrich
the evolving dialogue around the progressive realisation of the right to health care in South Africa.
The next four sections of this report examine the definition, rationale and design of the proposed
NHI. Section 6 exploress international experience in financing universal health coverage, with a
focus on middle income developing countries. Existing sources of health financing in South Africa
are analysed in Section 7. Cost estimates and potential macroeconomic impacts are discussed in
Sections 8 and 9. The report concludes with an evaluation of options for NHI financing.
1
2 DEFINITION OF THE NHI

The White Paper defined the NHI as “a health financing system that is designed to pool funds to
provide universal access to quality, affordable personal health services for all South Africans based
on their health needs, irrespective of their socio-economic status” (p1). The Department of Health
envisages that the NHI would be implemented through the creation of a single fund that is publicly
financed and publicly administered to provide a uniform package of personal health services. The
term “personal health services” refers to individual health care services such as preventive,
promotive, curative and rehabilitative services. By contrast, non‐personal PHC services include
environmental health services (e.g., water and air pollution).
The NHI Fund will not directly manage hospitals, clinics or the practices of general practitioners
(GPs), dentists, specialists and other health professionals. Instead, it is anticipated that this Fund
would enter into contracts with both public and private hospitals, specialists, public clinics and
private GP practices to deliver health services free of charge to every South African citizen and
legal resident (i.e., universal free access). Because the intention is that access to health care
would be available for free at the point of service, the objective of the NHI in the long term is to
ensure that access to health care is determined by an individual’s need, not their financial status
and to ensure that everyone has some measure of financial risk protection against catastrophic
health events.
In terms of the envisaged national legislation, it would be compulsory for all South Africans to
belong to the NHI and make mandatory (compulsory) prepayment to the NHI Fund based on their
ability-to-pay (i.e., payments before the health service is actually utilised). This would be different
from pre-payments to medical aid schemes which are voluntary (it is possible to opt out of joining a
medical aid scheme and hence avoid making the prepayment), and user charges (i.e., out of
pocket (OOP) payments made by patients to health care providers at the point of service).
The proposed single NHI Fund would aim to reduce fragmentation in funding pools and promote
greater cross-subsidisation in the overall health system, among the young and old, the healthy and
the sick, as well as the rich and the poor.
3 RATIONALE FOR THE NHI

The two primary rationales offered by the White Paper for the establishment of an NHI lie, firstly, in
the heavy burden of disease which South Africa faces and, secondly, in the structural problems in
the health sector.
The White Paper characterises the burden of disease as “quadruple”, in the form of: (1)
communicable diseases, notably HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis; (2) non-communicable diseases,
such as hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, mental illnesses, chronic
respiratory diseases; (3) maternal and child mortality and (4) violence and trauma-related
disorders. The cumulative impact of these diseases resulted in the doubling of the death rate in
South Africa between 1997 and 2006. While life expectancy has recently increased and mortality
rates have declined, the White Paper contends that these gains cannot be sustained in the present
health system which is “mainly curative, fragmented and unaffordable”.
The South African health care system has been described as “two tiered”. There is an extensive
network of public primary health care(PHC clinics), community health centres and district hospitals
as well as secondary, tertiary, central (academic) and specialised hospitals. These public health
2
facilities serve the vast majority of the South African population and are funded by general tax
revenues. Because the income tax system is generally progressive, the public health system is
redistributive. Most primary services are free and hospital fees are low or waived for low-income
patients.
There is, however, substantial variation in the quality of public health services (in respect of staff
attitudes, waiting times, cleanliness, drug stock outs, infection control and safety and security of
staff and patients) and improving the quality of public health care remains a formidable challenge.
The public health care sector also faces acute shortages of specialist and managerial skills. The
White Paper observes that the focus of public health has been placed on curative rather than
preventative interventions and on hospitals rather than PHC facilities. Instead of the entry level for
accessing health services being at the PHC level, it often occurs at the secondary, tertiary and
specialist services levels. Entry at an inappropriate level of care has significantly contributed to the
high costs of public health care and the inefficiency of the health system.
The private health care sector consists of several corporate hospital groups, networks of
pharmacies, roughly 15 000 independent general practitioners and specialists and other
professional service providers. Due to the high costs of private health care, it is affordable mainly
to those who are members of medical aid schemes. These members pay membership tariffs as
voluntary pre-payment for particular benefit plans. Benefit plans may vary markedly in respect of
the comprehensiveness of the package, and the amount of coverage (e.g., the level of co-payment
required) to cater for the different incomes and needs of members). Where a service is not
included in the benefit plan, the medical aid does not cover the full cost of the service, or scheme
benefits have run out, medical aid members may still have to pay additional out-of-pocket (OOP)
costs.
Medical schemes are subject to various regulatory requirements of the Medical Schemes Act of
1998, such as prescribed minimum benefits (PMB) and a prohibition on risk-based tariffs. PMBs
refer to a set of defined medical benefits that all medical schemes are mandated to cover to ensure
that all their members have access to certain minimum health services, irrespective of the
particular benefit plan to which they belong. Medical schemes pool the risk of their members,
cross-subsidising among the healthy and the sick and among the young and the old, within that
particular scheme. There were 85 medical schemes in 2015, fragmented along occupational lines
and the ability of members to afford the benefit plans. Accordingly, the White Paper concludes that
cross-subsidisation within the private medical schemes environment is limited.
The White Paper attributes escalation in private health care costs (and hence increases in member
tariffs) to: (a) a fee-for-service model, especially in relation to PMBs; (b) imbalances in tariff
negotiations between health care purchasers and providers; and (c) small and fragmented risk
pools in each medical scheme. Under a fee-for-service payment regime there are separate
payments to a health care provider for each medical service rendered to a patient. Medical
schemes reimburse for all services, regardless of their impact on patient health. This may create
an incentive for a health service provider to deliver medically unnecessary services which may
inflate costs. (This supplier-induced demand under conditions of information asymmetry between
the health service provider and the patient is a form of “moral hazard”1.). According to the White
1
“Moral hazard” problems arise when two parties to a transaction have different information (i.e. information
asymmetry). The more informed party to a contract (the agent) has an incentive to act in ways which
undermine the interest of the less informed party (the principal), who cannot effectively monitor or assess the
impact of her actions. A professor with tenure (the agent), for instance, has no incentive to remain a diligent
3
Paper, in addition to the fee for service payment regime, increased levels of hospitalisation
associated with treatment and management of PMB conditions have also placed upward pressure
on private health care costs.
But the main reason for the NHI put forward by the White Paper lies in the need to eliminate the
huge disparities between access to health care services in the public and private sectors. The
White Paper points out that South Africa spent 8.5% of GDP on health in 2014/15. Roughly half
this amount financed public health service provision, which serves about 80% of the population.
The other half financed private health care provision, accessed by only about 20% of the
population. As a result, the White Paper argues that the distribution of health care benefits is not
aligned with the need for health services: “The benefit incidence of health care in South Africa is
very ‘pro-rich’ with the richest 20% of the population receiving 36% of total benefits (despite having
a ‘health need share’ of less than 10%) while the poorest 20% receive only 12.5% of the benefits
(despite having a ‘health need share’ of more than 25%).” (p. 17).
The Department of Health’s estimation of public and private catchment populations and the
distribution of the health care workforce between the two sectors has, however, been contested.
Van der Heever (2011) pointed out that the OOP fees paid by public sector patients to access
private hospital care (about 1% of GDP) overstate private medical scheme expenditure2. Econex
estimated that in 2010 61.9% of all GPs in South Africa work in the public sector, serving 2861
people per GP (in comparison with 2723 people per GP in the private sector). Econex also
concludes, however, that more specialists (56.2%) work in the private sector, serving 1767 people
per specialist (in comparison to 9581 people per specialist in the public sector) (Econex, 2010a).
For the same year, Van den Heever (2011) estimated that 61.3% of all GPs work in the public
sector, covering 3301 people per GP (compared to 1561 per GP in the private sector) and 56.7%
of all specialists work in the private sector, covering 1921 people per specialist (in comparison with
8559 people per public specialist in the public sector).
These somewhat varying estimates of the distribution of specialist health skills in the public and
private sectors, and the lack of consensus on among experts on such elementary statistics, are
extremely disturbing, since the availability of human resources and their development is crucial to
effective implementation planning for the phased introduction of the NHI. However, the White
Paper is a strategic document and the more detailed implementation plans which are forthcoming
will probably be based on more detailed information.
4 PRINCIPLES AND FEATURES OF THE NHI

The principles underpinning the NHI place emphasis on equitable access to health care as a socio-
economic right, which needs to be underpinned by social solidarity (in support of risk pooling and
cross-subsidisation of the poor by the rich, the old by the young and so forth). Health care is
regarded as a public good and a social investment, different from other tradable commodities. The
NHI principles also highlight the need for the provision of health services to be affordable, efficient
and effective as well as providing appropriate levels of care to meet local needs.
teacher since she gets her salary irrespective of whether students (the principals) learn or not, and they are
not in a position to be able to judge the quality of tuition accurately. Similar medical professionals (the more
informed agent) may prescribe unnecessary medical interventions for patients (the less informed principal)
under conditions of information asymmetry.
2
Bearing in mind that means testing in the public hospitals results in an individual earning above R72 000
per annum or households above R100 000 per annum being liable for full public hospital costs.
4
Cross-subsidisation amongst the young and the old and among sick and the healthy, is typically
able to take place within medical schemes risk pools. Redistribution from rich to poor, however,
requires a fiscal mechanism. The NHI will endeavour to integrate the redistributive elements that
underpin the public health provision with the risk pooling elements that underlie private sector
financing arrangements, in order to achieve universal health cover. The NHI aims to improve
health coverage by extending access to people who do not have access to health care (population
coverage), by expanding the range of services which they can access, including pharmaceutical,
laboratory and radiology services (service coverage) and by reducing the financial burden from
cost-sharing or user fees borne directly by health care users (financial coverage).
The seven features of the NHI delineated in the White Paper (pp. 9-10) are listed verbatim below:
I. Universal access: All South Africans will have access to needed promotive, preventive,
curative, rehabilitative and palliative health services that are of sufficient quality and are
affordable without exposing them to financial hardships. The right to access quality health
services will be on the basis of need and not socioeconomic status.
II. Mandatory prepayment of health care: NHI will be financed through mandatory
prepayment which is distinct from other modes of payment such as voluntary prepayment
and OOP payments.
III. Comprehensive services: NHI will cover a comprehensive set of health services that will
provide a continuum of care from community outreach, health promotion and prevention to
other levels of care.
IV. Financial risk protection: NHI will ensure that individuals and households do not suffer
financial hardship and/or are not deterred from accessing and utilising needed health
services. It involves eliminating various forms of direct payments such as user charges, co-
payments and direct OOP payments to accredited health service providers.
V. Single fund: This refers to integrating all sources of funding into a unified health financing
pool that caters for the needs of the population.
VI. Strategic purchaser: In order to purchase services for all, there should be an entity that
actively utilises its power as a single purchaser to proactively identify population health
needs and determine the most appropriate, efficient and effective mechanisms for drawing
on existing health service providers.
VII. Single-payer: This refers to an entity that pays for all health care costs on behalf of the
population. A single-payer contracts for health care services from providers. The term
"single-payer" describes the funding mechanism and not the type of provider.
The argument for a single payer is that it would permit the NHI to harness its “monopsony3 power
to strategically purchase services” in ways that would “yield the efficiency benefits of economies of
scale and ensure that incentive structures for health care providers are integrated and coherent”
(p. 60), thereby reducing the costs and increasing the scope for personal health care services
available.
There appears to be some disagreement about the definition of universal coverage among
stakeholders. Some stakeholders (such as Van der Heever, 2011) contend that South Africa has
already achieved universal coverage, since the entire population is already covered by pre-paid
health care – either through the tax-funded public health system or through subsidised private
medical scheme contributions, but that access is compromised by the poor quality of public
3
A monopsony is a market structure in which only one buyer interacts with many would-be sellers of a
particular product, and therefore can exercise considerable market power.
5
hospital services. Patient fees and cost-sharing have largely been abolished in the South African
public health system except for the top 10% of income earners who are covered by a private
medical scheme. This argument focuses mainly on the population coverage dimensions of
universal coverage, but from a service coverage perspective, coverage shortfalls still exist.
The White Paper does not conclusively define the comprehensive benefit package that will be
offered, but the following components have been suggested: (1) preventive, community outreach
and promotion services; (2) reproductive health services; (3) maternal health services; (4)
paediatric and child health services; (5) HIV, AIDS and tuberculosis services; (6) health counselling
and testing services; (7) chronic disease management services; (8) optometry services; (9) speech
and hearing services; (10) mental health services including substance abuse; (11) oral health
services; (12) emergency medical services; (13) prescription medicines; (14) rehabilitation care;
(15) palliative services; (16) diagnostic radiology and pathology services. The White Paper
envisages the establishment of a Benefits Advisory Committee which will formulate the “service
entitlements” for primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary levels of care, supported by detailed
treatment guidelines, an Essential Medicines List as well as an essential devices and diagnostics
list, based on the best available evidence and assessments of cost-effectiveness. These “service
entitlements” will reflect the types of services to be provided by the different kinds of accredited
providers contracted to the NHI. Without clear parameters and detail on the scope of the benefit
package, it is difficult to derive accurate cost projections, as discussed further in Section 8 on page
26.
Hospital health services will be accessed solely through referral from PHC level providers to these
higher levels of care. Just those health facilities that meet nationally approved standards will be
certified by the Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC) established in 2013, and will
therefore be eligible for accreditation and contracting by the NHI Fund.
5 NHI INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

The White Paper envisages a three phased transition over a 14 year period, with an initial pilot
phase at PHC level, then extending to higher levels of care which will be “supported by a detailed
risk management plan and a monitoring and evaluation plan that will allow close monitoring of
progress”. These risk management and monitoring and evaluation plans have not yet been
released into the public domain at the time of writing this report, but the sequencing of key
implementation activities is reflected in Table 1, below. The initial timeframes may have been
overly optimistic, since many of the activities in Phase 1 have not yet been concluded.
The interventions which are being implemented in the pilot districts include: strengthening the
service delivery platforms at primary care level (including Municipal Ward-based PHC Outreach
Teams), the integrated school health programme, district clinical specialist teams, contracting with
private providers, strengthening management and governance at facility and district level and
improving management of central hospitals as well as improving the infrastructure of health
facilities. The White Paper concedes, nevertheless, that not all pilots have been able to meet core
quality standards: “The health facilities in the pilot districts have had variable results with regard to
meeting the core quality standards, mostly with poor scores for PHC facilities and slightly better
scores for hospitals being recorded” (p. 41). The Office of Health Standards Compliance inspection
reports have been used to inform quality improvement interventions, such as Operation Phakisa’s
Ideal Clinic Realisation project.
6
The White Paper envisages that the legislative framework for the NHI Fund and associated public
entity would be put in place during Phase 1, through the promulgation of an NHI Act and
amendments to other relevant legislation, such as the National Health Act and municipal
legislation. An NHI Commission comprising experts in relevant fields such as health financing and
economics, public health, health policy, will exercise oversight of the NHI Fund.
Table 1: Summary of NHI phases and implementation milestones
PHASE I: 2012/2013 TO 2016/2017

Health system strengthening initiatives
Implementation of the four streams of PHC Re-engineering including contracting of general
practitioners and other private PHC health professionals into public health facilities
Quality improvement in clinics through the Ideal Clinic Model, public hospitals
Implementation of the Centralised Chronic Medication Dispensing and Distribution Programme
Amendments to the National Health Laboratory Act and National Public Health Institute of South
Africa Bill
Implementation of Emergency Medical Services Regulations
Establishment of hospital and clinic governance Structures
Implementation of the eHealth Strategy
Strengthening management and leadership for the overall health system.
Moving central hospitals to the national sphere
Amendments to the National Health Act making central hospitals a national competence and
regulations for the governance and management of these central hospitals as semi-autonomous
institutions will be promulgated. (The South African constitution regards Health as a shared
function across national and provincial spheres of government, where health policy is set at
national level and implementation – including managing all hospitals – is currently done by the
provincial Health Departments as a provincial competence).
A Transitional Fund will be established for the funding of the functioning of these hospitals.
Establishment of the NHI Fund
Work Stream 1: Prepare for establishing the NHI Fund including reviewing other
relevant pieces of legislation as well as inter-governmental functions and fiscal framework that will
be impacted by the implementation of NHI
Work Stream 2: Clarification of the NHI benefits and services including the PHC ‘Lab’52
Work Stream 3: Preparation for the purchaser-provider split
Work Stream 4: Review of medical schemes to define their future role
Work Stream 5: Completion of NHI Policy paper and NHI Bill
Establishment of institutions
The Office of Health Standards Compliance
District Health Management Offices (DHMO);
National Health Commission.
PHASE 2: 2017/2018 TO 2019/2021
Purchasing of services to be funded by NHI through a Transitional Fund
Mobilisation of additional resources through alignment of the funds
directed at medical benefits for Compensation Funds and state subsidies to medical schemes on
behalf of employees
Establishment of a fully functional NHI Fund
Establishment of NHI Fund Management and Governance Structures
Population registration process
Amendments to the Medical Schemes Act of 1998
PHASE III: 2021/2022 to 2024/2025
Introduction of mandatory prepayment for the NHI
Contracting for accredited private hospital and specialist services
Finalisation and implementation of the Medical Schemes Amendment Act
Source: Summarised from the NHI White Paper, 2015: pp. 83-86
The proposed functions of the NHI Fund are listed by the White Paper (p. 61) as follows:
7
1. Pooling of all the financial resources allocated for purchasing personal health services for the
entire population;
2. Strategic purchasing of personal health services on behalf of the entire population;
3. Contracting with all accredited NHI public providers and identified accredited private service
providers (based on need);
4. Facilitating the procurement of goods and services for all NHI accredited and contracted
facilities, whether in the public or private sector, in order to increase the buying power of the
Fund at an affordable cost;
5. Administering the funding and purchasing of all personal health services that are provided
through accredited and contracted providers;
6. Developing and implementing strategic mechanisms for procuring of goods, including drugs,
medical equipment and technology, on behalf of providers that will be contracted.
7. Developing contracting and reimbursement strategies for contracted providers at various levels
of care;
8. Undertaking audit and risk management to mitigate moral hazard, collate utilisation data and
implement information management systems;
9. Maintaining the national database on the demographic and epidemiological profile of the
population;
10. Undertaking health economic analysis, pharmaco-economic analysis, cost-benefit analysis and
actuarial research and analysis to ensure the sustainability of the NHI Fund; and
11. Undertaking ongoing research, monitoring and evaluation of the impact of NHI on health
outcomes.
The functions related to strategic purchasing are elaborated on in greater detail in Table 2, below.
8
Table 2: Proposed purchasing functions of the NHI
Key strategic purchasing actions in relation to providers

 Select (accredit) providers – range and quality of services, location
 Establish service agreements/contracts
 Develop formulary (of generic drugs, surgical supplies, prostheses etc.) and standard treatment
guidelines
 Design, implement and modify provider payment methods to encourage efficiency and service
quality
 Establish provider payment rates
 Secure information on services provided
 Monitor provider performance and act on poor performance
 Audit provider claims
 Protect against fraud and corruption
 Pay providers regularly and timeously
 Allocate resources equitably across areas
 Implement other strategies to promote equitable access to services
 Establish and monitor user payment policies
 Develop, manage and use information systems
Key strategic purchasing actions in relation to citizens / population served
 Assess the service needs, preferences and values of the population, and use the results to specify
service entitlements/benefits
 Inform the population of their entitlements and obligations
 Ensure population can access their entitlements
 Establish effective mechanisms for complaints and other feedback from the population and respond
 Publicly report on use of resources and other measures of performance
Key actions by government to promote strategic purchasing
 Establish clear frameworks for purchaser and providers
 Fill service delivery infrastructure gaps
 Ensure adequate resources mobilised to meet service entitlements
 Ensure accountability of purchaser
Source: White Paper, 2015: p. 65
During Phase I, the establishment of the NHI Fund entity would entail developing the requisite
administrative systems and processes, such as a provider payment system (Diagnostic Related
Group system), health patient registration system, health provider registration system and fraud
and risk mitigation system. Providers and patients will be registered. It is anticipated that providers
will make use of a web based Health Provider Registration System while patients will be registered
at designated public facilities using the health patient registration system and be issued an NHI
Card using a unique identifier linked to the Department of Home Affairs. The NHI Fund will also
begin to accredit providers (ideal clinics, GPs, public hospitals and the like) once they have been
certified by the Office of Health Standards Compliance (OHSC) and the relevant health
professions’ statutory bodies. During Phase I, central hospitals, which are currently provincial
competences, will become national competences and gain semi-autonomy. The White Paper
proposes that a Transitional Fund be established to finance their operation (p. 84).
At the beginning of Phase II, the Transitional Fund will purchase PHC services from certified and
accredited public and private providers at non-specialist level. All Ideal Clinics will be accredited for
contracting with the this Fund. Later in this phase, public hospitals certified by the OHSC (including
district, regional, tertiary, central and specialised), Emergency Medical Services and National
9
Laboratory Health Services will be contracted for personal health services by the NHI Fund. The
White Paper envisages that the Uniform Patient Fee Schedule would be abolished. Consequently,
no fees would be levied at public sector hospitals, except for non-citizens, third-party payers, such
as medical schemes, the Road Accident Fund and Compensation for Occupational Injuries and
Diseases (p. 29).
Towards the end of Phase II, the White Paper anticipates the amendment of the Medical Schemes
Act so that medical schemes provide complementary cover.
The activities to be undertaken in this phase will involve consideration for the creation of an interim
single “virtual” pooling arrangement for schemes not funded through the State. Private providers
will be required to comply with a uniform information system for registration and reimbursement
that complies with the stipulated requirements of the NHI Fund.
In the third, and final stage, the final arrangements for a fully functional NHI would be made and
private sector providers at higher levels of care such as private hospitals and specialists would be
contracted.
In Phase III, mandatory prepayment from those who are eligible would also be introduced with the
intention of mobilising additional revenue for the NHI (p 86). The White Paper indicated that
“individuals will not be allowed to opt out of making the mandatory prepayment towards NHI,
though they may choose not to utilise the benefits covered by the NHI Fund.” (p.80). Minimal detail
is, however, provided as to the nature and level of those mandatory taxes.
Medical benefits from Compensation funds and state subsidies to medical schemes (such as
GEMS, Polmed (the police medical scheme), Parmed (the parliament medical scheme) and other
private medical schemes to which the state makes contributions as an employer, including state-
owned entities) would also be “reallocated to the NHI Fund” (p. 85).
The future role of medical schemes in general is a major area of uncertainty: whether they will be
permitted to offer just complementary (‘top-up’) cover for services not covered by the NHI benefit
package, or whether they will be allowed to offer comprehensive cover for those who choose such
cover in addition to making their mandatory payments to the NHI Fund.
The Competition Commission’s market inquiry into the private health care sector, which was still
ongoing as at March 2017, would also be an important factor influencing the proposed NHI
dispensation. The uncertainty concerning the changing roles of private medical aids, the extent and
timing as to when health services currently reimbursed through private insurance become financed
through the NHI and how this impacts on the health system during the transition (e.g., in terms of
utilisation and cost) makes forecasting of NHI costs and revenue needs very difficult. The extent to
which health care users reduce voluntary health cover and rely on the health services funded by
the NHI, is likely to significantly influence the growth in total health expenditure.
The pace and sequencing of implementation of the NHI is likely to be a key variable affecting its
costs. By May 2014, while there had been some progress, NHI implementation in the 11 pilot
districts appeared to be proceeding at a much slower pace than anticipated. Quality improvement
scores allocated by the OHSC remained poor for PHC facilities and only slightly better for
hospitals. In addition, GP contracting was also much slower than anticipated. 156 full time
equivalent (FTE) doctors were appointed relative to the targeted 450 FTE doctors for 9 NHI
districts (Department of Health 2015). A recent study of GPs contracted by the Tshwane District in
Gauteng Province highlighted the frustrations GPs encountered with the “lack of appropriate
infrastructure and equipment in NHI facilities, difficulties integrating into the facilities and lack of
10
professional autonomy, as well as unhappiness with contracting arrangements. Despite strong

support for the idea of NHI, there was general scepticism that private doctors would embrace the
scheme on the scale required” (Surender, Van Niekerk, & Alfers, 2016: 1092). Because of the
pervasive infrastructure and medication shortages, GPs were constrained to providing basic
nursing services rather than physician care (Surender, Van Niekerk, & Alfers, 2016).
Of the 1427 PHC facilities inspected by the OHSC between March 2012 and March 2016, only 89
had achieved scores of greater than 70%. Of the 110 PHC facilities inspected in the NHI pilot sites,
only 25 (22.7%) had increased their scores by 20% or more, the remainder showing little or no
improvement (Business Day, 24/11/2016).
6 INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN UHC FINANCING

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has motivated for a global move towards Universal Health
Coverage (UHC) (58th World Health Assembly 2005). Diverse approaches have been taken by
different countries, some of which have been more successful than others.
It is widely accepted that, for health care reform to take place, reforms to the financing of the
system are required. Where financing reform has not accompanied health care reform, these
reforms often not been successful, but where finance reform has occurred, results have been more
positive, as evidenced in Mexico and Thailand (Department of Health 2015).
Countries that have made significant progress towards or have achieved full UHC, include Brazil,
Canada, Costa Rica, Finland, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey and the United
Kingdom (Department of Health 2015). Other countries have instituted initiatives to move towards
UHC. These include the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in the USA,
commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or “Obamacare” and “Seguro-Popular” in Mexico
(Department of Health 2015). The former is currently under threat (Sanger-Katz 2017).
Many of these countries have seen a shift from separate private and public funding pools to either
a single funding pool for health care or multiple pools which are subject to standard benefit (PMBs)
and tariff regulations.
A number of different approaches have been used to finance UHC. These include:
 financing from general revenue (primarily direct and indirect taxes)
 payroll taxes/social security collections
 membership contributions or
 a combination of the above.
Furthermore, the level of earmarking funds from specific taxes, such as levies on foreign exchange
transactions, taxes on airplane tickets, solidarity charges on mobile phone calls, petroleum taxes
as well as alcohol and tobacco taxes varies from country to country (Giedion, Alfonso and Diaz
2013).
Not only is there international variation as to how health care is financed but also as to the manner
in which providers are paid. In some countries a single statutory fund pays providers, while in other
countries non-profit or private funds and administrators are allowed to operate separate funding
pools, provided that a set of PMBs are covered. In both single-payer and multi-payer systems,
UHC relies on a redistributive tax base and pre-funding arrangements that make it possible for a
broad range of services to be free at the point of delivery. In some single-payer countries (notably
Spain, Sweden and the UK) the bulk of health service delivery is via public sector entities, although
11
private providers are still part of the system; e.g., in the UK the bulk of PHC is provided by
independent general practitioners.
Table 3 records South Africa’s health care expenditure as compared to a range of middle income
countries, using World Health Organisation data. South Africa spends a far higher percentage of
GDP on health care than many of these countries (8.8% of GDP in 2012). This proportion is larger
than other BRIICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South Africa) with just
Brazil approaching that of South Africa’s spend. So too is South Africa’s government health
expenditure greater, as a percentage of GDP. The absolute per capita total (and government)
health expenditure in South Africa, however, is lower than that of both Brazil and Russia, although
higher than China. This is due to differences in per capita Gross National Income (GNI) between
these countries. While that of China in 2013 was similar to that of South Africa, that of Brazil was
approximately double and that of Russia almost four times higher.
Government’s share of the total health care expenditure, although significantly high as a
percentage of GDP, comprises less than 50% of total health spending, in contrast to that of
Argentina, Costa Rica, Thailand, Turkey and Uruguay – countries which have made significant
progress towards UHC. In South Africa, a significant proportion of health care funding is privately
funded. Health is accorded significant budget priority in South Africa with 14.2% of general
government expenditure devoted to health in 2013, a greater proportion than in Argentina and
Thailand, but less than in Costa Rica, Turkey and Uruguay.
South Africa’s total health spending per capita was $601 per annum in 2012, which was greater
than that of Thailand, Malaysia and Turkey, but less than that of Argentina, Costa Rica, Mexico
and Uruguay. The average per capita government health spend in South Africa was $288 in 2013.
Despite comparing favourably with other middle income countries, South Africa’s life expectancy is
much lower. While Argentina, Costa Rica, Thailand, Turkey and Uruguay all had life expectancies
of at least 75 years in 2013, South Africa’s average life expectancy was only 60 years.
Table 3: Government health expenditure in selected middle income countries
Gross Life Total Govt Govt Per Per Health

National expect- health health health capita capita as a %
Income ancy expend- expend- expend- THE Govt of
COUNTRY per capita 2013 iture iture as iture as (US$) exp General
2013 (THE) as % GDP % THE 2012 (US$) Govt
(current % GDP 2012 2013 2012 expend-
US$) 2012 iture
Argentina 14 668 76 5.0 2.7 54.8% 731 401 7.7%
Australia 66 837 83 9.4 6.3 67.0% 6 258 4 194 17.3%
Botswana 6 793 64 5.8 3.5 60.1% 397 238 10.4%
Brazil 11 711 75 8.5 3.8 45.1% 993 448 7.1%
Canada 52 689 82 10.7 7.6 71.0% 5 619 3 992 18.6%
Chile 15 828 80 7.5 3.6 48.2% 1 192 575 15.3%
China 6 966 75 5.4 3.0 55.8% 375 209 10.3%
Colombia 8 028 78 6.8 5.2 76.3% 549 419 18.1%
Costa Rica 10 462 79 9.5 6.9 73.0% 990 723 24.1%
Ghana 1 827 63 4.6 3.2 70.1% 85 59 10.6%
India 1 513 66 4.5 1.3 28.4% 69 19 4.7%
Malaysia 10 628 74 4.0 2.2 54.8% 427 234 5.9%
12
Gross Life Total Govt Govt Per Per Health

National expect- health health health capita capita as a %
Income ancy expend- expend- expend- THE Govt of
COUNTRY per capita 2013 iture iture as iture as (US$) exp General
2013 (THE) as % GDP % THE 2012 (US$) Govt
(current % GDP 2012 2013 2012 expend-
US$) 2012 iture
Mexico 10 703 75 6.3 3.3 51.7% 674 349 11.6%
Morocco 3 104 71 5.9 2.0 33.0% 184 61 5.8%
Namibia 5 511 68 8.5 5.0 59.0% 470 277 13.9%
Nigeria 2 980 55 3.7 0.9 23.8% 110 26 6.5%
Peru 6 623 76 5.2 3.0 58.2% 346 202 14.4%
South Korea 14 438 82 7.2 3.9 54.3% 1 870 1 016 12.3%
Russia 25 985 69 7.1 3.7 52.3% 1 024 535 9.8%
South Africa 6 853 60 8.8 4.2 47.9% 601 288 14.2%
Thailand 5 741 75 5.4 4.2 78.5% 588 462 10.5%
Turkey 10 924 75 6.2 5.3 85.3% 355 302 21.7%
United Kingdom 39 455 81 9.3 7.8 83.3% 3 685 3 070 16.5%
Uruguay 16 879 77 8.7 6.1 70.0% 1 465 1 025 20.9%
Venezuela 12 265 76 4.9 1.5 31.3% 606 189 6.4%
Low income 62 5.1 38.8% 32 13 9.0%
Low middle
66 4.1 64.4% 85 32 6.2%
income
Upper middle
74 6.0 56.2% 446 249 11.6%
income
High income 79 11.6 60.6% 4632 2857 16.8%
Source: World Health Organization Health Statistics 2015 National Health Accounts data, World Bank World
Development Indicators
Table 4 provides the sources of funding for health care in a range of countries (as of 2013). In a
number of countries such as Mexico, new programmes have begun to increase the share of health
care expenditure from public funds. What is notable is the high share of health expenditure in
South Africa which comes from private health insurance. Despite this share being 43% of total
health spending in 2013, it funds the needs of less than 20% of the population (Department of
Health 2015). A significant fraction of the OOP is also spent on this small fraction of the population
because of health care packages that are restricted in scope. Even in a country such as the UK,
where the bulk of the National Health Service (NHS) is financed from general tax revenues, user
fees are still used to fund some proportion of the health service. In many countries with well-
developed health insurance systems there remain limits to the range of free services. In Canada
and France, for example, many citizens take out top-up insurance for dental, optical and other
benefits.
Table 4: Sources of revenue as a percentage of total health care expenditure, 2013
COUNTRY Public funds Private funds Total
13
General Social Total Private Out of Non- Other Total

govern- secu- public health pocket profits private
ment exp rity funds insur- expend- funds
(excl funds ance iture
social
security)
Argentina 11.3 43.5 54.8 10.9 30.2 3.4 0.7 45.2 100
Australia 67.0 67.0 8.4 18.8 1.1 4.7 33.0 100
Botswana 60.1 60.1 31.9 5.1 2.8 0.1 39.9 100
Brazil 45.1 45.1 27.7 25.8 1.4 54.9 100
Canada 69.6 1.4 71.0 12.5 13.6 1.2 1.6 29.0 100
Chile 44.0 4.2 48.2 19.4 32.3 51.8 100
China 17.2 38.6 55.8 3.5 33.9 6.8 44.2 100
Colombia 12.8 63.5 76.3 9.9 13.8 23.7 100
Costa Rica 10.0 63.0 73.0 1.4 24.5 1.1 27.0 100
Ghana 55.4 14.7 70.1 0.6 19.9 6.0 3.4 29.9 100
India 26.7 1.8 28.4 1.8 63.8 0.7 5.2 71.6 100
Malaysia 54.2 0.6 54.8 7.3 36.1 1.8 45.2 100
Mexico 22.5 29.2 51.7 4.2 44.0 48.2 100
Morocco 24.5 8.5 33.0 7.8 59.2 67.0 100
Namibia 57.5 1.5 59.0 25.1 7.4 8.3 0.2 41.0 100
Nigeria 23.8 23.8 2.4 72.9 0.9 76.2 100
Peru 36.9 21.3 58.2 4.8 31.9 1.6 3.6 41.8 100
South Korea 11.5 42.8 54.3 6.2 35.2 0.6 3.7 45.7 100
Russia 25.5 26.8 52.3 1.9 45.4 0.4 47.7 100
South Africa 46.6 1.3 47.9 43.0 6.6 1.9 0.6 52.1 100
Thailand 79.9 5.4 85.3 4.6 8.3 0.6 1.1 14.7 100
Turkey 22.8 55.7 78.5 16.8 4.7 21.5 100
United Kingdom 83.3 83.3 3.4 9.5 3.7 0.1 16.7 100
Uruguay 30.6 39.4 70.0 13.5 16.5 30.0 100
Venezuela 22.1 9.1 31.3 2.3 62.6 3.8 68.7 100
Source: National Health Accounts, World Health Organisation, 2015
Out of pocket expenditure in South Africa funded 6.6% of health spending in 2013. This is lower
than Thailand (8.3%) and Colombia (13.8%) and much lower than in Uruguay (16.5%), Turkey
(16.8%), Costa Rica (24.5%), Argentina (30.2%), Malaysia (36.1%) and Mexico (44%) in 2013,
From this table, it can be deduced that in many countries public funds stem primarily from general
government revenues. Among OECD countries, thirteen provide automatic health coverage,
funded primarily from general tax revenues: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (Paris, Devaux and
Wei 2010). In China, Colombia and South Korea, however, more than twice as much is paid from
social security funds as from general government expenditure. In Mexico the balance is near
equal. Of these countries, Colombia has by far the highest share of overall expenditure from social
security funds. Many countries make use of general government revenues, although some degree
of specific earmarking is/has been used in Australia (GST; mining taxes), Ghana (VAT), Malaysia
(petroleum taxes), South Korea (tobacco tax) and Brazil (VAT and financial transaction taxes).
Although payroll taxes (social health insurance (SHI) taxes) are frowned upon by many fiscal
economists, they are still widely used by countries following the social insurance model in Europe
(Germany, Netherlands), in Latin America (e.g., Chile, Colombia, Mexico) and in Asia (Japan,
Korea, Taiwan). Arguments are, however, advanced for the advantages of SHI systems over the
14
use of general taxation revenues. Most of these entail the enforcement of “an institutional
separation of the ‘purchasing’ of health care, which would be done by insurers or a SHI agency,
and the delivery of health care, which could remain the responsibility of the health ministry”
(Wagstaff 2007).
A major issue with SHI, however, is that scale-up to UHC is usually much slower than when
general government revenues are used. While in developed countries, SHI schemes have been
successful, in developing nations the use of general tax revenues has proved more effective than
SHI schemes in achieving UHC (Task Force on Global Action for Health System Strengthening
2009). Some countries such as Spain, Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Italy and Portugal abandoned
SHI in the 1970s and 1980s and switched entirely from payroll taxes to general taxation to pay for
health (Belli 2016). Others, like Malaysia, are debating the introduction of a payroll tax to augment
existing resources for health. In Germany, increasing use is made of general tax revenues to
maintain UHC (Oxfam 2013). Germany is notable in that high income earners are allowed to opt
out of SHI to enrol in private health insurance. In 2010, 15% of the population did so (Paris,
Devaux and Wei 2010).
Many countries which operate SHI schemes have implemented policies so that the poor can obtain
health insurance at no cost or lower costs. These include 12 OECD countries (Austria, Belgium,
Luxembourg, France, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Turkey, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan and
Poland) (Paris, Devaux and Wei 2010).
Figure 1: Government expenditure on health as a percent of total health expenditure 2000-

2013
Source: World Health Organization Health Statistics 2015 National Health Accounts data
In some countries a significant shift from private to public funding has occurred. This is most
notable in Thailand where public funding increased from approximately 55% in 1998 to 85.3% in
15
2013. This has usually been associated with a significant increase in coverage, which in Thailand
is now approaching full UHC. A significant change in funding can also be noted for China where
public funding has increased from 32% in 1998 to 56% in 2013.
Table 5 presents data indicating that many of the countries, which have made strides towards or
have achieved UHC, rely on general revenue, for instance Australia, Brazil, Malaysia, New
Zealand and the UK. Other countries rely on a mix of payroll taxes and general revenue, although
in South Korea, payroll taxes are more significant.
Table 5: Tax instruments used to fund health care in selected countries
Differences exist between countries as to how funding is pooled. The UK’s NHS operates a single
pool, albeit with some subdivision in practice regarding resource allocation at the level of district
purchasing authorities. In Australia and Canada, however, separate state or provincial funding
pools are maintained. In Germany, Japan and the Netherlands, separate purchasing authorities
have developed from occupational and other membership funds. Nonetheless these all provide a
statutorily regulated package of benefits.
In single pool systems, such as New Zealand and the UK, mechanisms exist to allow for risk-
adjusted payments at regional level. The operation of multiple funding pools could lead to
inequities in health outcomes. As a result, many countries that allow multiple pools, e.g., Colombia,
Germany and the Netherlands, have introduced risk equalisation mechanisms to prevent insurers
gaining advantage via risk-based selection or membership targeting (Paris, Devaux and Wei
2010). Competition is based on cost and quality, not on risk. Even in Thailand, which has achieved
effective universal coverage, three main schemes operate: the universal coverage scheme, the
civil servant scheme and the social security scheme. Mexico, too, operates multiple schemes such
as the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) scheme for private sector employees and the
Institute for Social Security and Services (ISSTE) scheme for public sector workers and their
dependants. In Kyrgyzstan and the Republic of Moldova payroll taxes from the formal sector are
pooled with the general tax revenue to fund UHC (Kutzin, Jakab and Shishkin 2009).
16
6.1 Selected countries’ experience

Attaining UHC has achieved considerable momentum in a number of developing countries over the
last decade, some through social or national health insurance models. Certain developing
countries have made considerable progress in extending coverage to their populations between
2006 and 2011 (albeit off small initial bases): China’s New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme
increased coverage from 32% of the population (410 million) to 64% of the population (832 million);
Ghana’s National Health Insurance Scheme, which had been established in 2005, from 11.4% of
the population (2.5 million) to 32.8% of the population (8.2 million); Mexico’s Seguro Popular from
14.3 % of the population (15.7 million) to 43.8% (55.6 million). In developing countries which
already had fairly high levels of coverage in 2006, by 2011 increases were generally more modest:
Chile’s Fondo Nacional de Salud increased coverage of the population from 68% (12 million) to
78% (13.2 million) and the Social Security of Costa Rica from 88.8% (3.6 million) to 91.5% (4.3
million). Thailand’s Universal Coverage Scheme, established in 2002, dropped marginally in
coverage from 72% (47.5 million) in 2006 to 71.2% (47.7 million) in 2011 (World Bank 2015).
Brazil’s health system draws from a wide range of funding methods: a number of direct and indirect
taxes, private voluntary insurance, and OOP payments. Specific taxes have been earmarked for
health care. Brazil created the tax-based Sistema Unica de Saude (SUS) in 1988 to fund free and
universal access to health (d'Ávila Viana, da Silva and Yi 2015). In 2013, 45% of health care in
Brazil was funded by public money (from central, state and municipal government), with a large
percentage of OOP expenses (26%). Since 2004, public funding had increased significantly as a
share of overall funding. $11.5 billion was raised from a tax, levied on bank transactions
(Contribuição Provisória Sobre Movimentação Financeira (CPMF)), but this was abolished in 2007
because of criticism about its effects on the cost of borrowing, inflation and market distortions.
Direct tax revenue is progressive but the ICMS (VAT) and OOP payments are regressive (Ugá and
Santos 2007).
SUS authorities contend that underfunding is the prime cause of the system’s challenges and
shortcomings. There were attempts in the 1980s to earmark 30% of social security budget for SUS
while more recently a proposal to institute a new tax to fund the SUS was not approved by
congress: “Economic authorities are reluctant to support new taxes for health or to increase
allocation to health, partly because SUS has an image of being inefficient and wasteful, and health
authorities find it difficult to make a strong case for increased funding” (Couttolenc and
Dmytraczenko 2016, 17)
Malaysia guarantees universal access to health care through public hospitals and health clinics.
Approximately 45% of total health care expenditure in 2009 was funded by government. Half of
revenue for public funding stems from direct taxes with approximately 30% from indirect taxes and
the rest from non-tax/special tax revenues. These include a variety of petroleum taxes. By 2015,
Malaysia had not introduced a national health insurance system. Nevertheless, it has been
deemed to have achieved UHC in terms of access to health service and good financial risk
protection in relation to health, despite out-of-pocket expenditures on private health care providers
comprising roughly one third of total health spending (Ng 2015).
Another Asian country to rely significantly on general government revenues for UHC is Sri Lanka
(Oxfam 2013). By 2013, the proportion of government funded health care had risen to 55%.
In Thailand, use is made of general tax revenues, with modest social health insurance, to create a
national pool to fund the universal coverage scheme (UCS) (Wagstaff 2007). Users have a
restricted choice of provider. A comprehensive package of benefits, free care at the point of
17
service, improvements in the functioning of PHC improvements in rural access have reduced OOP
expenses to below 20% while increasing government funding from 55% of total health funding in
1988 to 80% in 2009 (World Health Organisation 2010 ) and 85% in 2013. Over time the share of
indirect taxes and OOP payments has decreased, with direct taxes and SHI increasing. The
revenue mix is seen as highly progressive. When UCS was rolled out, it was felt that the
contributory scheme for the informal sector would be difficult to enforce and expensive to manage.
General taxes allowed UCS to be rolled out quickly (Limwattanon, et al. 2011).
In Mexico, an increase in government expenditure on health was achieved through the Seguro
Popular (Popular Health Insurance) programme, a tax-financed voluntary public health insurance
system designed to gradually extend insurance coverage to the poor and informal sector workers
(Frenk, Gómez-Dantés and Knaul 2009). Its introduction followed a pilot project in twenty states
(Knaul and Frenk 2005). Those uninsured who do not enrol in the program pay user fees at the
point of service. Those enrolled, who pay a yearly membership fee according to a sliding scale
based on household income, are exempt from user fees. Funding for the Seguro Popular
programme is shared between the federal government, the state governments and the household
through annual enrolment fees (Frenk, González-Pier, et al. 2006). The increase in general
government expenditure on this programme decreased the share of social security funding in
Mexico from 35% to 25% over the period of 1995-2010. Nonetheless, in absolute terms, social
security funding has continued to increase because of the increase in enrolment, reaching 29.2%
of total health expenditure in 2013. It should be noted, however, that the OECD has described the
Mexican system as “bad for patients and bad for taxpayers” (OECD 2016). Life expectancy
relative to other countries in the OECD has been extended since the implementation of Seguro
Popular. The system remains fragmented, though, with people belonging to different subsystems
depending on their occupation. Millions of Mexicans belong to more than one insurance scheme
and many millions more, when surveyed, appeared not to know that they have any health
insurance at all (ibid).
In the 1980s and 1990s, the bulk of health care was financed privately in Ghana, primarily through
OOP payments. As a result, Ghana instituted the National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS) in
2004. Premiums are collected from members in the formal and informal sector. Although enrolment
is mandatory, it has become voluntary in practice (in 2013 only 36% of the population was covered
(Oxfam 2013)). In the formal sector a 2.5% payroll tax is levied. Workers in the informal sector pay
registration fees and premiums, ranging from US$5 to $35. A significant fraction, however, is
raised from VAT. 2.5% was added to the VAT rate in 2013. This raises over 65% of NHIS health
care funding (Amporfu 2013). The incidence of VAT has been shown to be neutral in Ghana
(Younger 2015) but in combination with progressive social security contributions the overall funding
of the NHIS is progressively structured (Younger 2015). NHIS-covered services incur no OOP
charge at the point of service. Ghana is considering introducing a one-off payment to replace
annual contributions for the informal sector to increase coverage since less than 10% of NHIS
funding is obtained from informal sector premiums (Amporfu 2013). Very few Ghanaians enrol
privately since they are not eligible for subsidisation by the NHIS Fund. By 2013, government
funding, social security and out of pocket expenditure comprised 55%, 15% and 20% of total health
spending respectively, with private medical schemes contributing less than 1%.
In 1977, South Korea created a mandatory Social Health Insurance (SHI) for industrial workers
(Kwon 2009). To achieve rapid expansion, a low benefit package was offered initially. The SHI was
expanded incrementally over time as the NHI fund improved its financial stability. It was extended
to the self-employed and by 1989 covered the whole population. In 2006, industrial, government
18
and school employees contributed 3.38% of their wage income to SHI. This was shared between
employees and employers. Co-insurance rates of 20% for inpatient care and 35-50% (depending
on the type of hospital) for outpatient care are charged. Pooling of both public and private
resources ensures coverage of the population in its entirety. The elderly (over 65), Medicaid and
chronic illness patients pay discounted co-payments for outpatient care. As a result, OOP
expenditure declined from 63% in (1983) to 38% (in 2004) and 35.2% in 2013. This is higher than
the OECD average and remains a barrier to access. In 2006, 17% of funding was provided from
public funds (excluding SHI) and comprised approximately 12.8% from general taxes and 4.3%
from a tobacco tax. While the rapid expansion of coverage has been laudable, the OECD points
out that there has been insufficient focus on the quality of care. In addition, the system is geared
towards acute care with insufficient focus on preventative health care (OECD 2012).
In China, health funding has been expanded through the expansion of social health insurance,
notably for urban residents. China aims to achieve UHC by 2020 (Yip, et al. 2012). The Urban
Employee–Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI) is financed through contributions from employers
(6%) and employees (2%) (Langenbrunner and Somanathan 2011). In the early 2000s, in excess
of 90% of China’s rural population was not covered. Rural Chinese were subject to large OOPEs
(Brant, et al. 2006). To address this, China rolled out the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme
(NRCMS) from 2003 to 2008 (Chen 2013). This is heavily subsidised by local and national
government from general taxation, with a small supplement from individual premiums (Yip and
Mahal 2008). The plan requires an annual contribution of 10 Yuan ($1.25) from rural residents,
which is matched by a 20 Yuan ($2.50) contribution from government (10 Yuan each from the
national and local governments) which are deposited in a special, county-level account (Dong,
Hoven and Rosenfield 2005). Nonetheless, large doubts exist over the effectiveness of this
scheme (Brant, et al. 2006), particularly around the small size of individual risk pools. A third
scheme, the Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance (URBMI) scheme, targeting non-salaried
urban residents, especially children, students and the elderly, was also launched in 2007 and
expanded to all cities in 2010 (Chen 2013). These systems still suffer from payroll tax evasion and
non-enrolment in social health insurance as well as problems with large co-payments.
Colombia achieved UHC in 2008. This was driven by significant growth in funding from social
security funds. Through a merger of social insurance funds, Colombia created a contributory
regime and subsidised regime with risk cross-subsidisation between the two. 51% of the population
was covered by the latter in 2008. The subsidised regime targets lower income members of the
population, informal sector workers and the elderly.
Australia introduced the Medicare programme in 1984 (Department of Health 2015). This is funded
by a surcharge on taxable income and is known as the Medicare levy. General tax revenue,
however, remains the primary source of health care funding. This is funded from general revenues
at both the federal and state level (Healy, Sharman and Lokuge 2006). Furthermore, a portion of
the goods and services tax (GST) is reserved to fund health care. The Medicare levy is a form of
payroll tax and has a progressive structure. In order to exempt low income earners, it is levied on a
percentage of income above a certain threshold. In 2014, this rate was increased from 1.5% to 2%
in order to finance the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. In 2015-16, the Medicare levy yielded
Australian $14 790 million, which was about 22% of national health spending in that year
(Australian Treasury 2016). It is used in addition to general tax revenue to meet the costs of a set
of PMBs for the entire population. Prior to the introduction of Medicare, health care subsidies were
limited to low income groups (the scheme was known as Medibank, started in 1975). In Australia,
hospital inpatient services are free in public hospitals but patients may choose to be private
19
patients (in both public and private hospitals), in which case co-payments are required. Where a
patient chooses to be a private patient, Medicare covers 75% of a specified 'schedule fee' for the
physician’s services. A further 1% surcharge (Medicare Levy Surcharge) is applied to high-income
earners who elect not to purchase private health insurance for hospital treatment. In 2010, 45% of
the population had some form of private insurance. Australia has also imposed a levy, specifically
on mining companies, to help pay for health sector programmes and there are plans to introduce a
sugar tax and increase excise duties on alcohol and tobacco to contribute to the cost of Medicare.
Overall, health care financing is slightly progressive, despite 30% of funding deriving from
regressive indirect taxes (GST and ‘sin’ taxes). Since 1998, a private health insurance rebate has
been introduced through which 30% of premiums paid by people, eligible for Medicare, are
covered. This was to spur the uptake of private insurance.
In the Netherlands, social insurance coverage based on a common basic benefit package (BBP)
for all legal residents was mandated by the 2006 Health Insurance Act. Previously the population
had been covered by sickness funds (covering 65%) and private voluntary insurance (37%). The
BBP is comprehensive, including ambulatory and hospital care, outpatient pharmaceuticals,
maternity care, dental care for youth, rehabilitation, and some other services, but excludes long-
term care which is covered by separate legislation. Nonetheless 92% of the population subscribe
to voluntary insurance to pay for uncovered services. A similar model operates in Switzerland
(Paris, Devaux and Wei 2010).
The Slovak and the Czech Republics operate mixed models. Employees are subject to mandatory
health insurance, financed through income -linked employer and employee contributions. Their
families and the unemployed, however, are covered via direct payments, of premiums to health
insurance companies, by national government on their behalf (Paris, Devaux and Wei 2010).
Even in the USA, which relies heavily on private health insurance, the tax-financed Medicaid and
Medicare programmes (for low-income families and the elderly, respectively) account for a large
share of overall health spending. Nonetheless (as of 2016), 11% of the US population remained
uncovered (Marken 2016).
6.2 Cost pressures: international experience

Most countries, whether advanced or developing, are facing increasing cost pressures in relation to
health expenditure. The average public health and long term care expenditure for OECD countries
is expected to increase from 6% of GDP in 2006-2010 to 9.5% in 2060, assuming that cost
containment policies are implemented. Without these policies, the increase could be even greater
(as much as 14% of GDP). Within the BRIICS countries, health spending is also expected to
accelerate to 10% of GDP by 2060 unless cost-containment policies are implemented (OECD
2013). Although there are significant differences across individual countries, the main drivers are
new technologies, rising relative prices and health policies and institutions, and, to a lesser extent,
demographic and income trends, such as ageing populations (OECD 2013).
In the aftermath of the 2008 global economic crisis, even established health insurance systems
experienced extreme financial pressures. In November 2016, the Comptroller and Auditor General
of the United Kingdom reported that, with an aggregate deficit in 2015-16, the financial position of
the National Health Service Trusts (i.e., hospitals) had continued to deteriorate: “With more than
two-thirds of trusts in deficit in 2015-16, we repeat our view that financial problems are endemic
and this is not sustainable” (National Audit Office UK 2016, 12). There is evidence that fiscal
austerity measures introduced by the NHS have also compromised access and the quality of care.
20
There is a joint plan by the Department of Health and the NHS to close the £22 billion gap between
patients’ needs and available resources by 2020-21. The plan assumes that £6.7 billion of
efficiency savings can be realised through capping public sector pay, favourably renegotiating
contracts, increasing revenue raising activities and decreasing running costs. A further £6.7 billion
is to be achieved by moderating health care service demand and achieving 2% productivity
improvements (National Audit Office UK 2016).
The Auditor General of the UK raises some serious concerns about how realistic these
assumptions are and the likelihood of the planned savings actually materialising. The UK
Department of Health maintains that the level of funding that the NHS has received over the past
few years is adequate, which the NHS contests: “Confronted as NHS England is by the pressures
of rising demand for services, these signs of difference do not help build a confident feel about the
future of the NHS” (National Audit Office UK 2016, 12). This is indicative of some very disquieting
fault lines in the implementation of their purchaser-provider split model.
6.3 Fiscal sustainability of benefit packages

In many developing countries, there is a gap between the free, comprehensive benefit package
promised, without any restrictions in theory, and the de-facto actual benefits. Implicit rationing in
practice balances the increased demands for health care services with available resources due to
inadequate availability of health care providers such as specialists, complicated authorisations,
waiting lists, geographic access and transport cost barriers, crowding, long waiting times in
facilities offering more specialised health services, stock outs of critical drugs and quantitative
restrictions at health care providers. The burden of implicit rationing tends to fall most heavily on
the poor and vulnerable (World Bank 2015).
Many developing countries have moved from implicit benefit packages to explicit benefit packages,
either through negative lists (which exclude health services from the package with the remainder
being covered), positive lists (where services covered are listed and unlisted services are not
covered) or through positive and negative lists (which contain inclusions and exclusions). As can
be observed from Table 6 below, the content of benefit packages varies markedly.
Table 6: Benefit packages in selected countries, 2011

Costa Rica
Argentina
Columbia
Thailand
Mexico
Turkey
Ghana
Benefit package structure

Brazil
Chile
Maternity Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Emergency services Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hospital services No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Physician service components No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pharmaceuticals No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Public health services e.g immunization Yes Yes No Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes
Outpatient primary care Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Outpatiient specialist care Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pharmaceuticals for outpatients No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Clinical lab tests for outpatient services Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Imaging for outpatients -basic (X-rays and ultrasound) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Diagnostic imaging beyond basic (e.g. MRI CT Scan) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Eyeglasses No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Mental healh/behavioural No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Dialysis or transplants No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Explicit package positive (PL) and/or negative list (NL) PL PL PL N/A - NL PL PL&NL PL
GDP per capita (US$ 2011) $ 13 694 $ 12 567 $ 14 511 $ 7 125 $ 8 704 $ 1 594 $ 8 704 $ 5 192 $ 10 605
21
Source: Adapted from World Bank 2015: pp 74-75, pp 76-77
Explicit packages attempt to balance resource constraints with delivery of a basket of services, in
practice available to everybody, through explicit rationing of what coverage does and does not
allow.
In a recent study, surveying 24 developing countries’ health systems, criteria for defining benefit
packages included cost-effectiveness, the degree of financial protection and the opinion of the
scientific community. Initial affordability was not, however, rigorously assessed, nor the fiscal
impact of subsequent revisions to the benefit package:
The majority drew up their initial budget for the package with reference to what
government was willing to spend, sometimes also using benchmarking or even
best guesswork; only a minority conducted actual analysis, systematic estimation
of costs, formal cost-effectiveness study, or HTA [Health technology
assessment]. This vagueness led the SIS programme in Peru, for example, into
a major mismatch between what it promised and what it could feasibly achieve
(World Bank 2015, 81).
While more explicit benefit packages reduce implicit rationing and create greater certainty for the
patient as regards the scope of services which can be expected in practice, these packages could
also increase exposure to future fiscal risk as utilisation rates increase, cost pressures intensify
and expensive new technology and medicines are adopted in the absence of effective
accountability mechanisms. In negotiating this trade-off, countries often mitigate greater fiscal
sustainability by explicitly limiting the scope of the benefits provided.
However, fiscal sustainability risks still loom large for countries that may have
promised open-ended comprehensive entitlements that are not explicit, even if
they are not, in effect, made universally available to all beneficiaries via implicit
rationing that, typically, disproportionately affects the poor and vulnerable. In the
short term, the fiscal risks in such countries may be low if this implicit rationing
continues. However, in the longer term, benefits may need to be made more
explicit. (World Bank 2015, 194)
In the 24 country sample being studied, cost sharing (OOP payments for user charges) was rare
for PHC, such as maternal and public health services, but about one third required cost-sharing for
outpatient treatment and half required co-payment for in-patient services, especially
pharmaceuticals. In most cases, these co-payments were retained by health facilities rather than
pooled at a higher level. Countries like Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Ghana and Thailand did not require
co-payment, whereas China, Colombia and Turkey did (World Bank 2015).
According to the World Health Organization, “[w]hen the OOPE share of total health expenditures
is 20 percent or less, the incidence of catastrophic health expenditures and health spending related
impoverishment usually becomes negligible” (World Bank 2015, 119). At 6.6% of total health
expenditure, South Africa’s aggregate OOPE compares favourably with the WHO benchmark of
20% (see Table 4 on page 13). What is of greater concern in the South African context is whether
the incidence of OOPE is borne mainly by the relatively well-off who are willing and able to pay out
of pocket for better responsiveness in health care provision, or whether OOPE reflects low or
incomplete coverage among the poor. Low income patients tend to be extremely price sensitive,
22
especially in relation to chronic medication (World Bank 2015). Exemptions from user charges at
point of service for the poor are therefore crucial.
Countries surveyed in the World Bank study generally made use of three main types of cost
sharing regimes:
1. Programme protective cost containment caps on benefits, either as budgetary limits or as
quantitative restrictions to contain aggregate UHC spending. China’s UHC programme capped
reimbursements at six times the local county or municipality income. The Republic of Georgia
caps reimbursements by service type at around US$10,000 per operation and US$7,500 for
radiation/chemotherapy. Vietnam had a per episode cap of 40 months of the minimum monthly
salary (about US$35 per episode per member). Brazil’s UHC programme imposes explicit caps
on in-patient admission as a quantitative limit.
2. Demand management caps aimed at limiting costs by beneficiary utilisation. For instance, co-
payments for outpatient drugs are required in Georgia’s UHC programme. In Vietnam, patients
were penalised for bypassing lower facilities without referral, by incurring higher co-payments:
70 percent at central, 50 percent at provincial, and 30 percent at district health facilities. In
Colombia, only higher end services, such as surgeries, hospitalisation, and diagnostic imaging
required co-payment.
3. Modalities designed to mitigate the adverse financial impact of direct payments. Eleven of the
24 UNICO countries had neither explicit co-payments nor budgetary nor quantitative
restrictions. While co-payments were required under Colombia’s UHC programme for surgery
and hospitalisation, these were capped per visit and per year, while some disease categories
and vulnerable population subgroups were completely exempt, as were indigent beneficiaries
in Chile and Mexico (World Bank 2015).
In Jamaica, as with many other developing countries, progress towards UHC has been impacted
upon by a weak macroeconomic outlook, spending cuts associated with IMF funding conditions,
staffing reductions, termination of donor funded programmes and uncertainty about the specifics
surrounding the policies required to achieve UHC (Coombs n.d.).
6.4 Earmarking of revenues

The proceeds of earmarked taxes (also known as hypothecated or ring-fenced taxes), rather than
being lumped in the general revenue pool, are dedicated exclusively to financing specific public
services such as health; for example, an earmarked surcharge on income tax. As illustrated in
Table 7 below, mandatory social insurance contributions, a form of earmarking, were significant in
Costa Rica (95% of total UHC programme financing) and, to a lesser extent, Chile (39%) and
Ghana (15%). In these countries, UHC programmes are embedded Social Health Insurance
comprehensive UHC programmes that pool contributions from formal sector populations with
government-subsidised premium payments for the poor.
23
Table 7: Earmarked taxes as a source of government health revenue (selected developing

countries)
TYPE OF COUNTRY DESCRIPTION

EARMARKING
Specific taxes Colombia Earmarked payroll tax from parallel formal sector
earmarked for UCH insurance programme
programmes Costa Rica Taxes on luxury goods, liquor, beer, soda and other
imported goods to finance the non-contributory regime
Specific taxes Chile Tobacco taxes, customs revenues, sales of shares in
earmarked for public health enterprises earmarked for financing SHI
financing general reform
government health Colombia Earmarked state-level taxes on tobacco and alcohol for
spending (or for financing general health spending
financing other non- Mexico Earmarked alcohol and tobacco taxes for financing
UHC programmes) general government health spending
Thailand Earmarked alcohol and tobacco taxes used to support the
Thailand Health Promotion Fund
General taxes Chile Earmarked 1% VAT for AUGE
earmarked for Ghana Earmarked National Health Insurance levy, 2.5% VAT
financing UHC Brazil Federal health spending equal to health spending in
programmes, other previous year adjusted for changes in nominal GDP;
non-UHC programmes minimum 12% of state expenditure and 15% of
health programmes, or municipal expenditure earmarked for health
general government Vietnam Increase in government spending on health has to be
health spending higher than increase in overall government spending by
law (Resolution No. 18/2008/NQ-QH12 in 2008)
Source: Adapted from World Bank, 2015: p116
The above table also illustrates that other forms of earmarking are also utilised. In Ghana, for
instance, a 2.5 percent value-added tax (VAT) levy was earmarked for UHC programme financing,
accounting for almost half of the UHC programme financing in that country. In Chile, the additional
VAT proceeds from raising the VAT rate from 18 to 19% were earmarked to finance the AUGE
reform introduced in 2005 (World Bank 2015). “Sin taxes” on alcohol, tobacco and soft drinks are
also earmarked for health care purposes in some countries.
Proponents of earmarking argue, from a political perspective, that earmarking may shield health
expenditure from competing claims by other public services, under conditions of fiscal austerity or
economic vulnerability, ensuring greater prioritisation of the health sector. Economic arguments for
earmarking centre on the benefit principle – those paying tax receive the health service benefits.
There is typically more willingness to pay increased taxes for well-defined services which are
perceived by the taxpayer as adding value. Resistance and evasion may therefore be less for
earmarked taxes than for general taxation (World Bank 2015). This nexus between mandatory tax
contribution and receipt of health benefits is key to the social contract underpinning Social Health
Insurance systems in many countries. In South Africa, the constitutional imperative to finance the
progressive realisation of health care for poor and unemployed South Africans and those in the
informal sector, would attenuate this link.
Earmarking revenue sources, on the other hand, may also lead to under-funding of health
activities, especially if general non-earmarked revenues are reduced as earmarked revenue is
increased. Conversely, earmarked surpluses in an earmarked fund may be diverted to other
activities, especially where governance is poor. Critics point out that earmarking cannot substitute
24
for political will to prioritise health spending, to reduce macroeconomic flexibility and to undermine
allocative efficiency by introducing additional constraints (World Bank 2015).
7 EXISTING FINANCING SOURCES OF HEALTH CARE IN SOUTH

AFRICA
The international experience of extending UHC coverage outlined in the previous sections provides
a useful backdrop against which to analyse the South African context and the fiscal implications of
the White Paper NHI proposal.
As can be seen in Table 8 below, in 2014/15, South Africa spent 8.6% of its GDP (R334.6 billion)
on health care. 48.3% of the total health spending is financed by the public sector (R161.7 billion or
4.1% of GDP), 49.8% by the private sector (R166.7 billion or 4.5% of GDP) and 1.8% by donors
(R6.1 billion or 0.2% of GDP).
Health is a concurrent function for which all three spheres of government have responsibilities.
National health policy is largely set by the national Department of Health, but the implementation of
health policy and the delivery of health services in clinics, hospitals and other public health
facilities, is largely the responsibility of the nine provincial health departments. They are therefore
the largest spenders on public health, but other departments such as Defence, Correctional
Services and Education also incur health expenditure. Municipalities likewise play an important role
in environmental health while the Workmen’s Compensation and Road Accident Funds similarly
finance health expenditure.
Medical schemes financed R139.1 billion or 83.3% of total private sector health spending in
2014/15. This figure includes an estimate of R20 billion for the state’s contribution to medical aid
schemes on behalf of its employees, but excludes state owned entities and contributions to
Polmed and Parmed. Other private health financing sources include OOP payments by households
to GPs and other service providers, private sector employer contributions to medical aids on behalf
of their employees and medical insurance.
Besides these direct expenditures, members of medical aids, whether employed in the public or
private sector, received an additional R16 billion in tax credits which the uninsured cannot claim (p
48).
The South African Health Review 2016 estimates that in 2014, there were 8 814 458 medical aid
beneficiaries, based on data from the Council for Medical Schemes 2014/15 annual report.
Estimates of medical aid coverage in 2014 range from 16.3% (where Stats SA mid-year estimates
for 2014 are used to estimate the total population) to 18.1% (where the Stats SA General
Household Survey 2014 figures are used). The Stats SA General Household Survey figures
suggest that there are huge disparities in medical aid access across population groups. While the
average overall access is 18.1%, 76% of whites and 48.7% of Indians have access to medical aid,
compared to only 20.3% of coloureds and 10.6% of Africans (Health Systems Trust 2016, 307).
25
Table 8: Public and private sector health expenditure 2011/12 – 2013/14
Source: White Paper on NHI, 2015: p47
Based on the Council for Medical Schemes 2014/15 data, the per capita spending by medical
schemes (i.e. average benefits paid per beneficiary per annum) was R14 186. This was four and a
half times greater than the per capita spend in the public health sector of R3 183 (calculated from
National Treasury provincial expenditure 2014/14 per uninsured population in 2014) (Health
Systems Trust 2016, 307).
The White Paper identifies “the existence of a two-tier health care system where the rich pool their
health care funds and resources separately from the poor” (p.15) as the main contributor to
inequity in health care. The White Paper links this inequity in financing to disparities in the
distribution of health professions between the private and public sectors as well as geographical
disparities among rural and urban areas and across health districts.
8 NHI EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES

The White Paper acknowledges the complexity of trying to project future NHI cost estimates, since
these depend on an extensive array of assumptions concerning:
1. NHI policy design (such as the basket of services offered, the range of private service
providers from whom services are purchased, reimbursement arrangements),
2. NHI implementation (e.g. the extent to which the cost reductions from active purchasing
and price controls are realised), as well as
3. factors influencing the demand and supply of health care. The demand for health care
services is influenced by epidemiological trends and rates of utilisation of hospital and
outpatient services. Supply capacity factors, such as the availability of health facilities and
professional personnel and the prices of supplies, equipment and services, are also
pertinent.
26
Accordingly, instead of focusing on a single point estimate of NHI costs, the White Paper preferred
the approach of considering several scenarios and presenting a preferred option. Just the
preferred costing scenario, which is based on the costing in the Green Paper, is discussed in the
White Paper.
In this scenario, modelled by the National Treasury (delineated in Table 9), expenditure rises from
R110 billion during 2010/11 to R256 billion during 2015/16, in 2010 prices. After 2015/16, health
expenditure increases at an average annual rate of 6.7% per annum in real terms. Assuming GDP
grows at 3.5% annually, public health spending would increase from the current 4% to 6.2% of
GDP in 2025/26. The White Paper indicates, however, that these projections are merely illustrative
and “do not represent the actual expenditure commitments that will occur from the phased
implementation of NHI” (p.46)
Table 9: Projection of NHI costs adapted from the Green Paper
Table 9 also indicates that the funding shortfall is extremely sensitive to assumptions about the
economic growth rate which influence baseline resource growth projections, If baseline resources
grew at 5% per annum, the shortfall would only be R27 billion in 20125/26. By contrast, a more
sluggish 2% growth rate would translate into a R108 billion shortfall. This is depicted in the graphic
below (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Funding shortfall under different growth paths
Source: White Paper on NHI, 2015, p47
27
These projections appear to abstract from many of the implementation challenges and the
behavioural responses to the proposed reforms, as they do not take into consideration “the health
system’s absorptive capacity and personnel requirements or the accompanying public and private
sector health service reforms. As people make greater use of health services under NHI, their
expenditure on private health services would decrease” (p.47).
Cost scenarios for the NHI could vary markedly, depending on the assumptions which underpin
them. These include:
1. Future changes in utilisation of hospital and PHC services with the introduction of the NHI,
especially given the pent-up demand for quality hospital services not currently provided by
the public sector.
2. Changes in the demographic structure (e.g., ageing populations) and epidemiological
profiles of the trends in the burden of disease.
3. The scope of the benefit package, the quality of services provided and the impact of formal
and informal systems of rationing (e.g., referral systems, queues with long waiting times).
4. Supply side constraints in the short to medium term, e.g., the availability of GPs and
specialists, hospital beds, the geographic distribution of health infrastructure, the number
of PHC institutions and hospitals accredited by the OHSC and so forth.
5. Health inflation which tends to exceed consumer price index inflation and is driven, inter
alia, by remuneration of health professionals, the mix of health professionals utilised, the
exchange rate, new technologies and improved drugs.
6. Impact of efficiency gains in the public and private sectors on unit costs, while maintaining
service quality.
7. Provider reimbursement mechanisms: Payment mechanisms could influence both the
volume and price of services. Prospective payment systems based on volumes and
capitation may contain costs more effectively than retrospective fee-for-service contracts.
8. Costs of delivery at procedure level in the public and private sectors
9. Administrative costs to be incurred, e.g., setting up the NHI fund public entity, District
Health Management Office for each health district, hospital boards, scaling up the Office of
Health Standards compliance, National Health Commission (NHC), NHI Fund, NHI
Benefits Committee, Clinical Peer Review Committee, National Health Information
Repository and Data System, Health Patient Registration System (HPRS), Patient Registry
and Master Patient Index (MPI) service, a system of “health technology assessment”,
Health Provider Index (HPI), “a national health products list” which will set out what is
allowed at different “provider levels”.
A number of other costing studies for NHI implementation have been done, based on a wide range
of assumptions. These yield widely varying expenditure projections. A model by Sule Calikoglu and
Patrick Bond generated estimates in 2006 prices ranging between R77 billion and R174 billion per
annum, with a preferred estimate of R148 billion, which translates into R189 billion at 2009 prices
(Econex 2010b). An estimate by McIntyre, Ataguba and Cleary suggests R131 billion per annum in
2009 Rands (Econex 2010b)
Econex’s model indicates that under the most optimistic efficiency savings assumptions and the
severe rationing, the cost of NHI in 2009 prices was likely to be roughly R179 billion per annum.
Given that about R62 billion was spent on public health care in 2009, this implied an additional
R112 billion in 2009 prices to be funded from the fiscus. The most likely estimate, however, lay
between R216 and R244 billion per annum in 2009 prices (Econex 2010b)
28
McLeod, Grobler and Van der Berg (2010), using cost-curve data from existing medical schemes,
estimated the costs of a range of benefit packages, assuming different levels of delivery efficiency,
reflected in Table 10. The largest efficiency gain was modelled as 50 percent of medical
scheme costs based on staff model health maintenance organisations. 30%, 20% and no efficiency
gains were also modelled. The five benefit packages modelled were:
1. Medical Scheme Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMBs): consists of PMBs in-hospital excluding
maternity; PMBs for maternity in hospital; PMBs for chronic medicine; and PMBs for related
visits and tests
2. Basic Benefits: PMBs+ Primary Care: consists of the PMBs as above, with primary care
including specialist costs
3. High Cost Benefits: PMBs+ all In-Hospital: consists of the PMBs as above; primary care
including specialists; and all benefits provided in-hospital
4. Core Benefits: PMBs+ Primary Care + In-hospital: consists of the PMBs as above, PHC
including specialists and all benefits provided in-hospital
5. Fully Comprehensive: all health care benefits: consists of the PMBs as above; Primary care
including specialists; all benefits provided in-hospital; and a final “slice” of benefits that includes
non-PMB out-of-Hospital non-primary care costs.
Table 10: Estimates of NHI costs in 2009 R billions by : McLeod, Van der Berg and Grobler
Note: Excludes administration and managed care costs

Source: McLeod, Van der Berg and Grobler (2010:p33)
As can be seen from the table, fully comprehensive care with no efficiency gains could cost as
much as R334 billion per annum in 2009 prices, decreasing to R234 billion if a 30% efficiency gain
were realised. With only basic benefits and an efficiency gain of 30%, the cost per annum would
still be R176 billion when calculated at 2009 prices.
While there is considerable variation across costing models, all point to the fact that resources
required for the NHI are substantial. The White Paper’s costing is not out of line with R256 billion at
2010 prices and is not out of line with other costings. The possible variation, however, is extremely
large, which makes the task of revenue raising very difficult indeed. While it is understood that the
29
White Paper represents a strategic policy perspective, greater institutional design and
implementation detail is required to understand its resource requirements.
A major area of concern is that the revenue shortfall in the White Paper of R71.9 billion (presented
in Table 9) is contingent on a real growth of 3.5% of GDP. Should the growth rate be at 2%, then
the shortfall anticipated by the White Paper would increase markedly to R108 billion. According to
the South African Reserve Bank, the real GDP growth was 1.6% in 2014, 1.3% in 2015 and was
forecast in November 2016 to be 0.4%, 1.2% and 1.6% in 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively.
Should the average real growth rate fall below 2%, it is likely that the R108 billion figure could
substantially understate the actual shortfall. In a submission to the Davis Tax Committee, Econex –
using the same NHI costs as the White Paper, but more recent real growth forecasts – arrived at
an NHI annual shortfall of about R111 billion in 2010 prices by 2025/26 (Econex 2016).
Given the large amounts at stake, it would be critical to manage the fiscal risk by linking
expenditure outlays to available fiscal resources. Here credible cost scenarios play a pivotal role
and their absence could compromise the goals of the NHI. A case in point is that of Ireland, where
the White Paper on Universal Health Insurance in 2011 promised implementation by 2016, without
providing either costings or details of the service package. In November 2015, after an Economic
and Social Research Institute study indicated it was unaffordable, given that total public health
spending would have to increase by between €666 million and €2 billion (3.5 to 11%), the Irish
government abandoned its plan (Irish Times 2015).
9 MACROECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NHI

In addition to promoting equity (e.g., by reducing risk of impoverishment through catastrophic
health spending), the NHI could also yield economic benefits. The NHI White Paper suggests that
a one year improvement in a nation’s life expectancy could increase GDP per capita by 4% in the
long run and that higher labour productivity, increased labour participation and reduced
absenteeism could lead to an additional 0.5% increase in GDP growth. Because health care
expenditure in an economy has been estimated to create a 5% Keynesian multiplier effect, the NHI
White Paper posits that each R1 extra spent on health care would create R0.05 extra economic
activity in the long run. The National Department of Health cited a 2012 KPMG report on the effect
of productivity gains:
A KPMG economic analysis of NHI suggests that if the NHI improves the health
of the labour force resulting in productivity gains of 10% between 2012 and 2020
(half of the improvement in productivity seen in other countries), the economic
benefits would outweigh the economic costs of implementing NHI (KPMG
2016:4).
More research is, however, required to empirically establish the nature and magnitude of the link
between health expenditure and economic growth. The average South African life expectancy
increased by 9.1 years between 2004 and 2015 but this was not accompanied by concomitant
GDP growth. Moreover, it is contested whether greater life expectancy causes greater GDP growth
and higher incomes, or vice versa. The South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF), in its
submission to the DTC (SAPPF 2016:23), contends that causality runs from higher incomes to
longer life expectancy:
This statement by the White paper is, in fact, disproved by the bulk of the academic
literature, which strongly suggests that causation runs in the opposite direction. For
30
example, this relationship was confirmed by a seminal 1996 study by economists Lani
Pritchett and Lawrence Summers, who showed the dramatic effect that increases in
incomes can have on health. They found a strong causative effect of income on infant
mortality and demonstrated that, if the developing world’s growth rate had been 1.5
percentage points higher in the 1980s, half a million infant deaths would have been
averted. The most probable cause for the lack of correlation between life expectancy and
wealth in South Africa is probably the 38% extended unemployment figures, which remain
unconsidered. Even providing the indigent with all-encompassing free health services will
not make up for lacking nutrition, sanitation and clean water that could be obtained by
increasing employment levels (SAPPF 2016).
The White Paper also implicitly assumes a high degree of substitution of expenditure from medical
schemes to the public sector – in other words, that households will simply redirect their health
spending from medical aid scheme membership tariffs towards NHI funding or increased tax
payments. However, if higher income earners retain private medical cover despite mandatory
contributions to NHI, this would substantially increase the proportion of GDP devoted to health –
which would have macroeconomic consequences for household disposable income, consumption
and economic growth. Few higher income households would stop using private sector services in
favour of public services if the quality of services offered by the public sector were perceived to be
lower than that of the private sector, or if the mix of services in the NHI benefit package did not
correspond with consumer preferences. In the early stages of NHI implementation, the White
Paper envisages mainly a PHC, preventative thrust. Higher income earners, however, typically
require coverage for catastrophic expenditures, not PHC out of pocket expenditure which
comprises a relatively small proportion of their incomes (Van den Heever 2011).
Other crucial variables in NHI financing are the low levels of formal employment and high levels of
unemployment and informal sector employment in South Africa, all of which translate into a narrow
tax base. The attainment of UHC worldwide has been predicated on compulsory rather than
voluntary prepayment. This is likely to present a challenge, however, for fiscally constrained
developing countries, such as South Africa, where large proportions of the population are not in
regular paid employment. In order to cater for the informal sector and unemployed, sole reliance
cannot be placed on payroll taxes.
Empirical studies in Colombia, Mexico and Thailand have raised concerns about perverse labour
market incentives for jobseekers where the same benefit package is offered to both formal and
informal sectors. If the benefits are similar in both sectors, workers may choose to remain in the
informal sector to avoid the payroll deductions, reducing formal employment in some labour
categories and retarding the formalisation of the economy (World Bank 2015).
To explore the impact of tax-financed UHC schemes on macroeconomic aspects of labour supply,
asset holding, inequality, and welfare, Huang and Yoshino (2016) construct a dynamic stochastic
general equilibrium model with heterogeneous agents who have different education levels,
employment statuses and probabilistic health expenditure shocks depending on whether they are
young or old. The model, calibrated to the Thai economy, displays characteristics common to
developing economies, such as informal employment and tax avoidance. In the model, government
implements a tax-financed UHC scheme through which the informal and old-age agents can
access health care with a lower out-of-pocket ratio, financed by government revenue. To balance
its budget, the government faces 3 options: (1) increasing the labour income tax rate for formal
workers by 2.58% (the tax rate difference with and without the universal coverage scheme), (2)
increasing the consumption tax by 1.20%, or (3) increasing the capital income tax by 4.35%. Under
31
such a UHC, equity improves, but there are efficiency trade-offs as distortions are introduced into
the labour market. Financing UHC through labour income or consumption taxes reduces labour
supply, whereas financing through capital income tax increases this supply:
At the disaggregate level, the results are consistent with the literature that labor
income tax has the highest distortion for the labour supply. We find that in the
formal sector, where the labour income tax is enforced, labour supply is
discouraged more than with the less-distortive consumption tax. Agents with low
education are especially less willing to work, at a reduction of 2.81%, compared
with only 0.42% when the consumption tax is used to finance the scheme.
(Huang and Yoshino 2016, 16)
In all three UHC tax financing scenarios, there are negative impacts on output, largely due to
declining aggregate capital. Capital tax could be preferable to the other two taxes, given that it
tends to increase labour supply and is associated with a smaller reduction of capital.
This suggests that further research needs to be performed on the type of behavioural responses
likely in South Africa.
10 PRINCIPLES OF GOOD TAX DESIGN

The White Paper envisages a “moderate rise” in total health spending to GDP ratio over the
medium term (p 48). This is expected to be financed partially through the “restructuring of medical
scheme arrangements” and the introduction of the proposed NHI fund, which is envisaged to
trigger “a shift from private spending to public health expenditure” (p48). In general, an increasing
tax burden on households is anticipated to be offset by the reduced burden of medical aid
membership fees. It is, however, acknowledged that the individual impacts on individual household
would be conditional on the specific design of the NHI (e.g. its benefit package) and the
behavioural responses of individual households.
A second source of sustainable funding for NHI would be economic growth, which would mobilise
additional tax revenues without significantly altering the existing tax structure, and would permit tax
increases “”without unduly impacting on households’ disposable income” (p48).
Where changes to the tax system are required, the White Paper articulates the following design
principles. These are listed verbatim below:
1. Equity: The tax system should impose obligations on all residents or qualifying taxpayers in
proportion to their ability to contribute, with tax rates set after taking into account the economic
burden or potential welfare losses associated with alternative tax bases and rate structures. A
tax system should incorporate both elements of equity: horizontal (people with equivalent
incomes pay comparable amounts of tax) and vertical (those with higher incomes pay more,
according to their ability to do so). The high levels of income inequalities in South Africa require
that a progressive tax system be maintained.
2. Efficiency: The tax system should minimise economic distortions, i.e. have a limited unintended
burden on the productive economy and consumption patterns. It must produce sufficient
income for the state to meet its spending needs, collected in a manner that interferes as little
as possible with allocation choices. The costs of administration, collection and compliance
should also be taken into account in assessing the efficiency of the tax system.
3. Simplicity: Tax administration should be designed to collect revenue in a manner that is timely
and convenient to taxpayers, as well as simple to understand.
32
4. Transparency and certainty: The timing of tax collection and calculation of tax liability should be
known and certain to allow for proper planning. Transparency implies that a well-reasoned
rationale exists for the imposition of taxes and that tax legislation is accessible and
comprehensible.
5. Tax buoyancy: Changes in national income and discretionary changes to the tax system affect
tax revenue. Tax buoyancy measures the ratio of change in tax revenue relative to the change
in the tax base. In practical terms this refers to the ability of the tax system to raise revenue
during all phases of the business cycle. It is important to ensure that the tax system raises
sufficient revenue, while contributing to a counter-cyclical fiscal framework.
While acknowledging that there may be trade-offs among these principles, the White Paper states
that these principles of good tax design correspond closely to the NHI principles (outlines in
Section 4 on page 4), and that a balance must be struck which avoids “economic disruption or a
breakdown in solidarity” when making crucial policy decisions relating to the appropriate tax base
and mix, the trade-off between efficiency and equity; and the degree of progressivity of the tax
system.
11 SUMMARY OF NHI FINANCING OPTIONS PROPOSED BY THE

WHITE PAPER ON NHI
The first part of this section summarises the various revenue options identified in the White Paper.
The second part presents various tax scenarios to fund the estimated R71.9 billion NHI funding
shortfall (in real 2010 prices) by 2025/26, identified in Table 9: Projection of NHI costs adapted
from the Green Paper on page 27.
11.1 Potential sources of revenue identified by the White Paper

The advantages and disadvantages for various revenue instruments are summarised below:
Table 11: Sources of revenue for NHI identified in the White Paper
REVENUE DEFINITION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

SOURCE
Payroll tax Taxes calculated on payroll, as Payroll taxes could be a A flat rate would be regressive. A
either employer or employee significant source of sliding scale would be progressive.
contributions or both. This is revenue. The current level An earnings cap on a sliding scale
similar to the present Skills at which payroll taxes are would introduce greater regressivity.
Development Levy. Flat rates set is regarded as low. It By adding to the costs of
or sliding rates may be used. would be a buoyant and employment, these tax instruments
An earnings ceiling may be stable source may retard job creation in the formal
prescribed at which the tax is of revenue and sector and increase informal and
capped in nominal terms. administratively simple. unprotected work.
Health is one amongst Very wealthy individuals are often
several social benefits that not “employed” but derive their
could be financed in this income from investments, and or
way inherited wealth. They would not be
subject to this tax.
33

SOURCE
Surcharge Taxable income is calculated A surcharge is seen as A higher personal income tax
on income as gross income administratively feasible burden would reduce disposable
tax minus allowable deductions “as it income and household consumption
(including business expenses would be based on a well- and savings (which may
and contributions to retirement established system” (p53). compromise investment and future
funds). Gross income includes economic growth).
income from employment and
capital income (interest and
profits in the case of
unincorporated businesses).
The current personal income
tax structure is progressive,
with marginal tax rates ranging
between 18% and 41%.The
proposed surcharge would be
on the same base. Australia
introduced a surcharge on
taxable income in 1984 known
as the Medicare Levy.
Value Taxes levied on transactions or The current VAT rate of Consumption

Added Tax goods and services, 14% “is moderate by taxes such as VAT are considered
(VAT) irrespective of the comparison with the less distortionary in resource
increase circumstances of buyer or international average (16.4 allocation, do not undermine formal
seller. per cent)” (p 53). VAT is sector employment or savings.
broad based, reaching Despite zero-rating of basic
both the formal and necessities, there is an equity
informal economies. VAT concern that VAT is regressive.
is also buoyant, generating
a substantial and stable
share of GDP in tax
revenue.
Increases in Specific excises are a tax on By reducing consumption High rates of tax may lead to
duties on each unit of output or sale of a of these harmful products, smuggling. Revenue yields are
alcohol and good, unrelated to the value of the burden of disease is likely to be small in relation to the
tobacco a reduced. quantum of funding required for
products good. Ad valorem duties are NHI. About R11.7 billion in revenue
levied on commodities as a was raised from cigarette sales
certain percentage of their and R14.8 billion from taxes on
value. alcohol sales in 2012/13.
Securities It is currently set at a rate of This is seen as a possible revenue
transfer tax 0.25 per cent and contributed source but there are no clear
R 3.3 billion to the fiscus in reasons why it should be dedicated
2012/13 to health expenditure rather than
general revenue. Revenue potential
is limited. It is seen as a volatile
revenue source which is costly to
collect.
Estate duty The estate duty is a form This is seen as a possible revenue
of wealth tax. It yielded R1 source but there are no clear
billion in 2012/13. reasons why it should be dedicated
to health expenditure rather than
general revenue. Revenue potential
is limited. It is seen as a volatile
revenue source which is costly to
collect.
Carbon tax The first phase of the proposed The carbon tax can be However, this should not be seen as
carbon tax regime, which will linked to health concerns a tax base that will continue to
allow a minimum tax-free through adverse impacts expand indefinitely. The primary
threshold of 60 per cent, is on the environment and objective of the carbon tax is to
projected to generate over R8 quality of life associated encourage behavioural change
billion per annum. It is not with climate change. through the pricing of an externality.
intended to increase the overall Secondly, the revenue The ideal is to see an eventual
tax burden, and offsetting raising potential is higher decline in the carbon intensity of the
34

SOURCE
measures to address adverse than the other taxes economy that should ultimately lead
impacts on low-income explored and could to a decrease in associated tax
households and industry possibly increase in revenues over time.
competitiveness will be subsequent phases (from
introduced. 2020) as the tax free
thresholds are
progressively decreased.
Current Current employer contributions Public medical scheme

employer (subsidies) contributions (to the
contributions Government Employees
to medical Medical Scheme,
schemes the Police Medical
Scheme, Parliamentary
Medical Scheme, Municipal
Workers Union
Medical Scheme), State
entity medical schemes
(e.g. Transmed) and
private
medical schemes to which
State employees belong)
could be reallocated
towards
the funding requirements
for NHI
Remove the The scaling down of this However, the phasing-out of the
tax credit for tax expenditure could medical tax credits can only happen
membership augment the funds once the NHI is fully operational. In
to medical available for the NHI and addition, the needs of people with
schemes thereby limit the need for disabilities and the aged and the
and additional tax financial implications for such
for some increases. taxpayers would require special
medical attention.
expenses
Source: White Paper on NHI, 2015: pp 50-53
11.2 Tax rate scenarios

The tax scenarios set out in the White Paper aim to explore the impact of shifting from private
medical funding to an NHI equivalent of about 2% of GDP through raising an additional
R71.9 billion (in 2010 prices) to cover the NHI shortfall identified in Table 9 on page 27. The tax
scenarios model various tax mix permutations of increases in payroll tax, personal income tax
(PIT) and value-added tax (VAT). Offered merely as broad illustrations, these are “not proposed as
overall tax increases” (p 54).
The five scenarios to raise an additional 2% of GDP are modelled:
1. Scenario A: an increase of 1% in payroll tax, 1% marginal PIT rates which is equivalent to a
1% increase in surcharge on, and 1% of VAT
2. Scenario B: an increase of 2% in payroll taxes and 2% increase in marginal PIT rates
3. Scenario C: a 2% increase in marginal PIT rates and 1.5% increase in VAT
4. Scenario D: a 2% increase in payroll tax and a 1.5% increase in VAT
5. Scenario E: a 4% increase in marginal PIT rates.
Actual revenue yielded would depend on a number of factors, including the tax base targeted, the
structure of rates and exemptions, the particular tax mix selected and the rate of real GDP growth.
The following assumptions on the structure of the tax instruments underpin the modelling:
35
1. In respect of the payroll tax, the employer would pay a percentage of the total amount paid
in salaries to employees, similar to the current Skills Development Levy. No upper or lower
threshold is assumed. Such thresholds would decrease revenue yields and would require a
higher percentage of salaries to be taxable.
2. There is no change in the number of VAT items zero-rated.
3. The surcharge on taxable income is identical to an increase in PIT rates. The scenarios
assume that a percentage point increase would apply across all the PIT brackets. If the
marginal tax rate on the bottom bracket is left unchanged (to avoid changing the tax free
threshold), the simulations suggest that the percentage increase for the remaining brackets
would need to be doubled in general.
Table 12: Alternative tax scenarios to fund a R71.9 billion (at 2010 prices) NHI funding
shortfall by 2025
Source: White Paper on NHI, p55
Table 13 compares the 2014/15 average PIT rates by income category with those after a 1%, 2%
and 4% increase in average PIT rates, and the associated increases in tax liability per income
category.
36
Table 13: Average PIT rate changes, and changes in tax liability (in rands)
Figure 3 below graphically illustrates the increase in personal income tax burden by income
category associated with a 1%, 2% and 4% increase in marginal tax rates.
Figure 3: Additional tax liability (in Rands) by income category, associated with increases in
marginal tax rates
Table 14 illustrates the possible changes in tax structure associated with marginal PIT rate
increases per income bracket, as well as tax rebates and tax free thresholds.
37
Table 14: Personal income tax structure in 2014/15 and under different scenarios for a
surcharge on PIT in 2025/26 (in 2014 prices)
12 DISCUSSION OF FINANCING OPTIONS

It has been estimated by Econex that there would be a shortfall in covering NHI costs using the
scenarios presented in the White Paper. They conclude that this would not be covered by the
payroll tax and higher VAT. While other taxes may help cover some of the shortfall (e.g., higher
taxes on alcohol and tobacco), these would not be sufficient. Econex also predict a shortfall using
a scenario requiring a payroll tax of 2% and a VAT increase of 1.5% (Erasmus, M 2016).
38
Figure 4: Estimated shortfall in funding NHI costs
Source: Econex (Erasmus, M 2016)
The shortfall in 2025/26 of R71.9 billion in 2010 prices may seem optimistic because of the
assumption of 3.5% GDP growth. Assuming 2% growth, this shortfall would grow to R108 billion in
2010 prices. Nonetheless, PwC estimate that even the R71.9 billion shortfall cannot be funded by
most of the tax scenarios in the White Paper (PwC 2016). They suggest that tax increases would
need to be greater. This calculation may be found in Table 15 below.
39
Table 15: Tax rate scenarios for funding an NHI shortfall in 2025/26 of R72 billion (2010
prices)
T able 5: Alternativ e tax scenarios to fund a R7 1.9 billion (2010 prices) NHI funding shortfall by 2025/26
White paper PwC Estim ate
Increase T otal T otal Increase

Surcharge Surcharge
Pay roll in v alue- additional additional Pay roll in v alue-
on taxable on taxable
tax added tax raised tax tax added
incom e incom e
tax 2014/15 required tax
Scenario A: Surcharge on tax able income, VAT
1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%
increase and pay roll tax
Additional tax 201 4/1 5 1 4,032 1 7 ,540 1 8,664 50,236 68,900 1 4,032 1 7 ,540 37 ,328
Scenario B: Pay roll tax and surcharge on tax able 2% 2% 2% 2.5%
incomeAdditional tax 201 4/1 5 28,064 35,07 9 63,143 7 1,913 28,064 43,849
Scenario C: Surcharge on tax able income and VAT
2% 1.5% 2% 2%
increase
Additional tax 201 4/1 5 35,07 9 27 ,996 63,07 5 7 2,407 35,07 9 37 ,328
Scenario D: Pay roll tax and VAT increase 2% 1.5% 3% 1.5%
Additional tax 201 4/1 5 28,064 27 ,996 56,060 7 0,092 42,096 27 ,996
Scenario E: Surcharge on tax able income 4% 4%
Additional tax 201 4/1 5 7 0,1 59 7 0,159 7 0,159 7 0,1 59
Source: PwC, 2016
It is suggested that to fund the shortfall a surcharge on taxable income, payroll tax or increase in
VAT would have to be between 0.5 and 1% higher than that presented in the White Paper. A
greater shortfall, due to reduced rates of growth, would require even larger increases in tax rates.
To fund a R108 billion (2010 prices) shortfall in 2025/26 would require even greater tax increases
(see Table 16). This would require, for instance, a surcharge on personal income to be in excess of
6%.
Table 16: Tax rate scenarios for funding an NHI shortfall in 2025/26 of R108 billion (2010
prices)
Alternativ e tax scenarios to fund R108 billion (2010 prices) NHI funding shortfall by 2025/26
Increase T otal
Surcharge
Pay roll in v alue- additional
on tax able
tax added tax raised
incom e
tax 2014/15
Scenario A : Surcharge on tax able income, V A T increase and
2% 2% 2.5%
pay roll tax
Additional tax 201 4/1 5 28,064 35,07 9 46,660 109,803
Scenario B: Pay roll tax and surcharge on tax able income 3% 4%
Additional tax 201 4/1 5 42,096 7 0,1 59 112,255
Scenario C: Surcharge on tax able income and V A T increase
3% 3%
Additional tax 201 4/1 5 52,61 9 55,992 108,611

Scenario D: Pay roll tax and V A T increase 4% 3%
Additional tax 201 4/1 5 56,1 28 55,992 112,120
Scenario E: Surcharge on tax able income 6%
Additional tax 201 4/1 5 1 05,238 105,238
Source: PwC, 2016
40
13 TAX CREDITS
South Africa has recently reformed the tax treatment of medical expenses within the personal
income tax system. Moving towards NHI implementation will entail further reform.
Prior to 2012/13, taxpayers could deduct their contributions to registered medical schemes or
funds with similar provisions, subject to monthly caps that were adjusted annually. Such
contributions could be for the benefit of the taxpayer, her or his spouse and any other dependant
as defined in the Medical Schemes Act of 1998. Employer contributions to employee medical
schemes were added to the taxable income of the employee as a fringe benefit. Taxpayers could
claim a deduction of medical scheme contributions up to the capped amounts, regardless of
whether these contributions were made by the employee or by the employer on her or his behalf.
Taxpayers who did not belong to a medical scheme could deduct qualifying OOP medical
expenses to the extent that such expenditure exceeded 7.5 per cent of taxable income. This relief
was also available to medical scheme members, to the extent that the aggregate of the disallowed
medical scheme contributions and out-of-pocket qualifying medical expenses exceeded 7.5 per
cent of taxable income.4
In effect, this system of medical expense deductions resulted in better off individuals receiving
larger tax breaks (in absolute (Rand) terms) because of the progressive nature of the PIT system.
This inequity was a driving force in the decision to replace this system with a system of medical tax
credits.
The Medical Tax Credit is a fixed monthly amount which increases according to the number of
dependants. As such, the same tax relief is provided to all taxpayers (with the same number of
dependants) regardless of their tax bracket. In addition to being more equitable than the previous
arrangement, this has the advantage of being administratively simple and highly transparent.
The Medical Tax Credit is a form of tax expenditure. In the current tax year (2016/17), the cost to
the fiscus amounts to R17.4 bn. In effect, this is the contribution of the State towards the health
care costs of taxpayers in the private health care system. In his submission to the DTC sub-
committee, Prof. Alex van den Heever from Wits University presented an interesting comparison
between the value of the medical tax credit and per capita government spending on health,
summarised in Table 17 below. It is interesting to note that the medical tax credit is not entirely
dissimilar in magnitude to per capita state health spending.
Alignment with NHI will need to be carefully considered and can be achieved in a variety of ways,
ranging from abolishing the tax credit (as proposed by the DA) to viewing it as one of the
mechanisms for providing health care. At the time of introducing the new tax arrangements, the
Treasury noted that ‘The shift to tax credits will also facilitate the transition of medical schemes into
a National Health Insurance framework, in that the fiscal contribution is transparent, equitable and
limited, and likely to be in line with or less than overall insurance costs per person’ (Treasury,
National 2011).
4
The tax treatment for persons aged 65 and over was different and more generous, but for simplicity we
discuss just those taxpayers under 65, in this section.
41
Table 17 Per capita value of the universal subsidy framework divided between state
provision and the tax credit for medical scheme members in 2014 prices
Subsidy
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2005/6
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
Tax credit 2 321 2 000 1 872 2 117 2 239 2 342 2 385 2 694 2 517
Public health 2 013 1 904 2 217 2 426 2 719 2 832 2 981 3 057 3 052
Source: Van den Heever, 2016, personal communication
14 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The large degree of uncertainty and lack of common understanding of how the NHI will be
implemented and operate is of concern, given the magnitude of the proposed reform. International
experience in implementing UHC demonstrates that not only greater technical skills, but also
higher order political skills are essential, since any fundamental re-organisation of the health
system will invariably create winners and losers:
These skills will be put to the test in, say, adopting explicit targeting, choosing the
benefit package expansion path from among those already supported by strong
provider interest-groups, balancing short-term political gains secured through
populist promises against long-term risks of sustainability, or bringing powerful
new players (such as the pharmaceutical industry or associations of specialists in
tertiary care) into day-to-day decision making on budget allocations (World Bank
2015, 193).
Inadequate engagement at the early stages of NHI may well create resistance to change in the
latter stages of implementation – much like the e-tolls. The voice of the person in the street, the
patient, seems conspicuous by its absence in a policy domain dominated by experts.
As illustrated in the preceding sections, there are a number of factors in the design of NHI, as well
as its implementation, all of which have an impact on its financing trajectory. These include
parameters on risk pooling, on health care purchasing and on provision. Risk pooling decisions
include whether there would be a single or multiple purchaser, the level of consolidation of risk
pools and their coverage and composition as well as the nature of the resources allocation formula
(evidence and needs based, risk equalisation etc.). The structure of purchasing encompasses,
inter alia, the scope and pricing of the benefit package (which had not yet been defined in the
White Paper), contractual arrangements with health care providers such as GPs and hospitals,
quality management systems, payment and information systems. Provision refers to the modalities
of personal health service delivery by accredited public and private health care providers.
Although these parameters impact critically on the quantum and timing of the NHI financing
requirement, they lie outside the DTC’s mandate which is focused exclusively on the tax revenue
42
dimensions. Nonetheless, a few pertinent observations can be made based on the draft NHI White
Paper. It is premature to be prescriptive on funding mechanisms at this stage, but the DTC
believes that a discussion of funding principles underpinned by an independent assessment would
add value to the debate at this formative stage.
1. There is currently substantial uncertainty about both the costs and funding shortfall of the
NHI given the level of detail on institutional reforms and the lack of specifics on health
financing system reforms. Detailed implementation plans and financing plans still need to
be developed. The White Paper focuses on a R256 billion per annum funding increase
need, at 2010 prices, in 2025, with a funding shortfall of about R72 billion assuming real
average growth rate over the period of 3.5%. The additional cost per annum could,
however, be substantially more than this.
2. The projected shortfall is highly sensitive to the economic growth rate assumed. The
credibility of this assumption must be viewed relative to South Africa’s sluggish growth
performance over the last decade. Should the real annual growth rate reach just 2%, then
the shortfall could be as large as R108 billion. Should the average growth rate dip below
2% (as is currently the case), then it is likely that even the R108 billion figure could
substantially understate the actual shortfall.
3. It is difficult to estimate the potential economic benefits and costs without more
implementation detail. While the draft White Paper is at a strategic policy level, costing
requires a more detailed implementation framework. Realistic costing based on a well
defined benefit basket is critical for assessing fiscal consequences, sustainability and
revenue raising requirements.
4. The pace of implementation must be consistent with the fiscal resource envelope – detailed
implementation plans should be sensitive to human, infrastructure and financial resource
constraints. Design, sequencing and timing of implementation must be refined in the light of
constraints, both financial and supply side, in order to ensure that risks are appropriately
managed and the policy objectives of the NHI are not compromised. This is compatible with
the phased implementation approach outlined in the White Paper.
5. There should ideally be a fiscal rule to link NHI spending with the availability of fiscal
resources.
6. A great deal of the economic and fiscal impact depends on the shift from private to public
financing, the role of private medical funds, fund administrators and health insurers, and the
regulation of health care. Equally important are the behavioural responses of members of
private sector medical aids and their perceptions of the quality of services they receive
under the NHI. The highest earners are also the most internationally mobile.
7. The equity and efficiency impacts of alternative tax instruments (e.g., income tax, corporate
tax, VAT) are highly country specific and arise from the cumulative impact of all tax
measures and the expenditure side. The entire package should be considered when
determining overall progressivity, rather than considering one instrument in isolation.
8. A combination of tax instruments with as broad a base as possible is likely to introduce
fewer distortions of economic activity since lower rates would be required.
9. As NHI entitlement will result in a structural increase in spending, additional public
expenditure should be financed by tax instruments which are sufficiently buoyant to yield a
structural increase in revenues of the appropriate magnitude.
43
10. Given that the NHI introduces a universal benefit, it is appropriate that its financing base be
as broad as possible, in the interests of social solidarity. The cumulative effect of the
combination of tax instruments should be progressive.
11. The two points above mean that increases in VAT should not be ruled out as a funding
source. Although this may be regressive, it will be offset through progressivity on the
expenditure side.
12. Most OECD countries rely on PIT and social security taxes to fund UHC. Social security
taxes would have to be introduced at high levels to fund the proposed NHI. Social security
taxes cannot be the sole funding instrument in South Africa since, generally, benefits are
linked to contributions. This would not be feasible in South Africa since a high proportion of
the population is not in regular formal employment (i.e. unemployed or employed in the
informal sector).
13. A surcharge on PIT may be preferable to an increase in payroll tax from an equity
perspective because it is based on income sources beyond labour income, captures the
self-employed and is less likely to adversely affect employment.
14. Excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco or sugar-based beverages are levied primarily to change
behaviours, but high increases tend to lead to illicit trade, resulting in reduced collections,
and are, in any event, unlikely to fund a significant proportion of the NHI funding
requirement.
15. Given the considerable size of projected funding shortfalls, substantial increases in VAT
or PIT and/or the introduction of a new social security tax would be required to fund
the NHI.
16. Any revenues raised to fund the NHI should not be earmarked (hypothecated) since this
runs the risk of NHI being under-funded, but should be funded through general tax
revenues (although there may be political “soft” earmarking).
17. Although the poor should be exempted from OOP payments, a role remains for user
charges since cost-sharing with patients can may help in managing health care demand for
non-essential, elective services, or where primary care referral gatekeepers are bypassed
and patients go directly to a higher level of care. User charges may also cover services not
catered for in the NHI benefit package.
18. The magnitudes of the proposed NHI fiscal requirement are so large that they might require
trade-offs with other laudable NDP programmes such as expansion of access to post
school education or social security reform.
19. Given the current costing parameters outlined in the White Paper, the proposed NHI, in its
current format, is unlikely to be sustainable unless there is sustained economic
growth.
44
Bibliography
58th World Health Assembly. 2005. “Resolution 33: Sustainable health financing, universal
coverage and social health insurance.” World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Akazili, J, B Garshong, M Aikins, J Gyapong, and D McIntyre. 2012. “Progressivity of health care
financing and incidence of service benefits in Ghana.” Health Policy Plan. 27 (Suppl. 1): 13-
22.
Amporfu, E. 2013. “Equity of the premium of the Ghanaian national health insurance scheme and
the implications for achieving universal coverage.” Int. J. Equity Health 12: DOI:
10.1186/1475-9276-12-4.
Australian Treasury. 2016. 2015-16 Final Budget Outcomes. http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-
16/content/fbo/html/index.htm.
Belli, P. 2016. Reflections on the White Paper, based on International Experiences, presentation to
the DTC subcommittee on NHI. World Bank.
Brant, S, M Garris, E Okeke, and J Rosenfeld. 2006. Access to care in rural China: A policy
discussion. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of
Michigan.
Business Day. 2016. “NHI pilots fail to achieve targets.” Business Day, 24 November.
Chen, Y. 2013. Thesis: Health care financing in China: what lessons China can learn from other
countries on healthcare reform? Hong Kong: Hong Kong University.
Coombs, M. n.d. “Universal Coverage in Jamaica.” Accessed January 02, 2017.
http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=19100&Itemi
d=270.
Couttolenc, B., and T. Dmytraczenko. 2016. Brazil’s Primary Care Strategy. World Bank,
Washington DC: Universal Health Coverage Studies Series (UNICO) Studies Series No. 2.
d'Ávila Viana, A L, H P da Silva, and I Yi. 2015. Universalizing health care in Brazil: Opportunities
and challenges (Working Paper No. 2015-8). Geneva, Switzerland: UNRISD.
Department of Health. 2015. National Health Insurance for South Africa: towards universal
coverage. http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/39506_gon1230.pdf.
Department of Health. 2016. “National Health Insurance, presentation to the DTC subcommittee on
NHI (09 November 2016).”
Department of Health. 2015. Status of the NHI pilot projects.
https://ndoh.dhmis.org/owncloud/index.php/s/R5cmdp0gY4Fa43Z/download?path=%2FNHI
&files=NHI%20Pilot%20District%20Assessment%202015-%20FINAL.pdf.
Dong, Z, C W Hoven, and A Rosenfield. 2005. “Lessons from the past.” Nature 433: 573-574.
Econex. 2010b. Estimating the Financial Cost of the NHI Plan. http://econex.co.za/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/ECONEX_NHInote_7.pdf.
Econex. 2016. NHI funding options: making informed decisions. 13 October 2016: Submission to
the Davis Tax Committee on behalf of the Hospital Association of South Africa (HASA).
45
Econex. 2010a. Updated GP and specialist numbers for SA. http://econex.co.za/publication/health-

reform-note-7/: Health Reform Note 7.
Erasmus, M. 2016. NHI Funding Options: Making Informed Choices, presentation to the DTC
subcommittee on NHI. Econex.
Frenk, J, E González-Pier, O Gómez-Dantés, M A Lezana, and F M Knaul. 2006. “Comprehensive
reform to improve health system performance in Mexico.” Lancet 368: 1524-1534.
Frenk, J, O Gómez-Dantés, and F M Knaul. 2009. “The democratization of health in Mexico:
financial innovations for universal coverage.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 87:
542-548.
Giedion, U, E A Alfonso, and Y Diaz. 2013. UNICO Study Series No. 25. he impact of universal
coverage schemes in the developing world: a review of the existing evidence. Washington
DC, USA: World Bank.
Health Systems Trust. 2016. South African Health Review Review 2016.
http://www.hst.org.za/publications/south-african-health-review-2016.
Healy, J, E Sharman, and B Lokuge. 2006. “Australia - health systems review.” Health Systems in
Transition (World Health Organisation ) 8: 1-158.
Huang, X., and N. Yoshino. 2016. Impacts of univesal health coverage: financing, income
inequality and social welfare. ADBI Working Paper Series 617, November 2016: Asian
Development Bank Institute.
Irish Times. 2015. An outstanding policy failure on universal health insurance. 23 November 2015.
Knaul, F M, and J Frenk. 2005. “Health insurance in Mexico: achieving universal coverage through
structural reform.” Health Aff. (Millwood) 24: 1467-76.
Kutzin, J, M Jakab, and S Shishkin. 2009. “From scheme to system: social health insurance funds
and the transformation of health financing in Kyrgyzstan and Moldova.” Adv. Health Econ.
Health Serv. Res. 21: 291-312.
Kwon, S. 2009. “Thirty years of national health insurance in South Korea: lessons for achieving
universal health care coverage.” Health Policy Plan. 24: 63-71.
Langenbrunner, J C, and A Somanathan. 2011. Financing Health Care in East Asia and the
Pacific: Best Practices and Remaining Challenges. Washington DC, USA: World Bank.
Limwattanon, S, V Vongmongkol, P Prakongsai, W Patcharanarumol, K Hanson, V
Tangcharoensathien, and A Mills. 2011. “The equity impact of Universal Coverage: health
care finance, catastrophic health expenditure, utilization and government subsidies in
Thailand.” Consortium for Research on Equitable Health Systems , London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Marken, Stephanie. 2016. U.S. Uninsured Rate at 11.0%, Lowest in Eight-Year Trend. Accessed
October 11, 2016. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190484/uninsured-rate-lowest-eight-year-
trend.aspx.
McLeod, H., P. Grobler, and S. Van der Berg. 2010. Preliminary estimate of NHI costing: McLeod-
Grobler-Van der Berg model methodology and assumptions. 18 February 2010: A briefing
paper prepared for the National Treasury.
National Audit Office UK. 2016. The financial stability of the NHS. 22 November 2016.
46
Ng, C. 2015. Universal Health Coverage Assesssment: Malaysia. http://gnhe.org/blog/wp-

content/uploads/2015/05/GNHE-UHC-assessment_Malaysia.pdf, Global Network for Health
Equity (GNHE).
OECD. 2012. OECD health care quality review: Korea. Paris: OECD Publishing .
OECD. 2016. OECD Reviews of Health Systems: Mexico 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. 2013. What future for health spending? June 2013: OECD Economics Department Policy
Note No 19.
Oxfam. 2013. Universal health coverage: Why health insurance schemes are leaving the poor
behind. Accessed October 03, 2016.
https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp176-universal-health-coverage-091013-
en_.pdf.
Paris, V, M Devaux, and L Wei. 2010. OECD Health Working Paper No. 50. Healths systems
institutional characteristics: A survey of 29 OECD countries. Paris, France: OECD
Publishing.
PwC. 2016. “National Health Insuramce, presentation to the DTC subcommittee on NHI.”
Sanger-Katz, M. 2017. “What Does Trump’s Executive Order Against Obamacare Actually Do?”
New York Times 21 January 2017.
SAPPF. 2016. Submission on NHI financing to the Davis Tax Committee. 12 October 2016: South
African Private Practitioners Forum.
SARRAH. 2014. Status of the NHI pilot districts. Department of Health.
Surender, R., R. Van Niekerk, and L. Alfers. 2016. “Is South Africa advancing towards National
Health Insurance? The perspectives of general practitioners in one pilot site.” South African
Medical Journal 6 (11): 1092-1095.
Task Force on Global Action for Health System Strengthening. 2009. Global Action for Health
System Strengthening 9http://www.jcie.org/researchpdfs/takemi/full.pdf). Tokyo: Japan
Center for International Exchange.
Treasury, National. 2011. Conversion of Medical Deductions to Medical Tax Credits . Pretoria:
National Treasury.
Ugá, M A, and I S Santos. 2007. “An analysis of equity in Brazilian health system financing.” Health
Aff. (Millwood) 26: 1017-1028.
Van den Heever, A. 2011. Evaluation of the Green Paper on National Health Insurance.
http://hsf.org.za/projects/health-reform/national-health-insurance-project-
developments/alex-van-den-heever-nhi-green-paper-submission.
Wagstaff, A. 2007. “Social health insurance reexamined, World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper 4111.” World Bank, Washington DC, USA.
World Bank. 2015. Going universal: how 24 developing countries are implementing universal
health coverage reforms from the bottom up. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Health Organisation. 2010 . “Health systems financing: the path to universal coverage.
World health report 2010.” Geneva.
47
Yip, W C, W C Hsiao, Chen W, S Hu, J Ma, and A Maynard. 2012. “Early appraisal of China's huge
and complex health-care reforms.” Lancet 379: 833-842.
Yip, W, and A Mahal. 2008. “The health care systems Of China and India: performance and future
challenges.” Health Affairs 27: 921–932.
Younger, S, Osei-Assibey, E & Oppong, F. 2015. Fiscal incidence in Ghana. Working paper,
Tulane: Commitment to Equity Institute.
48

DCT Nhi 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DCT Nhi 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DCT Nhi 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT ON

FINANCING A NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

FOR THE MINISTER OF FINANCE

Intended use of this document:

The Davis Tax Committee is advisory in nature and makes recommendations to

THE DAVIS TAX COMMITTEE

FINANCING A NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (NHI)

1 THE DAVIS TAX COMMITTEE AND ITS MANDATE ..................................................... 1

1 THE DAVIS TAX COMMITTEE AND ITS MANDATE

2 DEFINITION OF THE NHI

3 RATIONALE FOR THE NHI

4 PRINCIPLES AND FEATURES OF THE NHI

5 NHI INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

PHASE I: 2012/2013 TO 2016/2017

Table 2: Proposed purchasing functions of the NHI

Key strategic purchasing actions in relation to providers

professional autonomy, as well as unhappiness with contracting arrangements. Despite strong

6 INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN UHC FINANCING

Table 3: Government health expenditure in selected middle income countries

Gross Life Total Govt Govt Per Per Health

Gross Life Total Govt Govt Per Per Health

Table 4: Sources of revenue as a percentage of total health care expenditure, 2013

COUNTRY Public funds Private funds Total

General Social Total Private Out of Non- Other Total

Figure 1: Government expenditure on health as a percent of total health expenditure 2000-

Table 5: Tax instruments used to fund health care in selected countries

6.1 Selected countries’ experience

6.2 Cost pressures: international experience

6.3 Fiscal sustainability of benefit packages

Table 6: Benefit packages in selected countries, 2011

Benefit package structure

Maternity Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: Adapted from World Bank 2015: pp 74-75, pp 76-77

6.4 Earmarking of revenues

Table 7: Earmarked taxes as a source of government health revenue (selected developing

TYPE OF COUNTRY DESCRIPTION

7 EXISTING FINANCING SOURCES OF HEALTH CARE IN SOUTH

Table 8: Public and private sector health expenditure 2011/12 – 2013/14

Source: White Paper on NHI, 2015: p47

8 NHI EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES

Figure 2: Funding shortfall under different growth paths

Source: White Paper on NHI, 2015, p47

Note: Excludes administration and managed care costs

9 MACROECONOMIC IMPACTS OF NHI

10 PRINCIPLES OF GOOD TAX DESIGN

11 SUMMARY OF NHI FINANCING OPTIONS PROPOSED BY THE

11.1 Potential sources of revenue identified by the White Paper

REVENUE DEFINITION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

REVENUE DEFINITION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Value Taxes levied on transactions or The current VAT rate of Consumption

REVENUE DEFINITION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Current Current employer contributions Public medical scheme

11.2 Tax rate scenarios

Source: White Paper on NHI, p55

Source: White Paper on NHI, 2015: p56

Source: White Paper on NHI, 2015: p56

Source: White Paper on NHI, 2015: p57

12 DISCUSSION OF FINANCING OPTIONS