Private medicine and the privatisation of health care in South Africa

Abstract

Health services in the Republic of South Africa (RSA) are provided by a mixture of public and private providers and institutions. Estimates of total health-related expenditure for 1985 range between 5.3% and 5.9% of gross national product (GNP), divided on approximately a 55:45 basis between public and private sectors. Basic preventive and curative services are provided by a hospital- and clinic-based public system. The public system does not adequately serve the rural areas and African tribal bantustans, and racial discrimination and/or segregation are obvious in its organisation and funding. The public sector's strength is the provision of state-subsidised care to many citizens who are unable to afford private medicine. The vast majority of hospitals are operated on a non-profit basis by government, industries, and voluntary agencies. Excluding hospitals that receive state subsidies, private investor-owned hospitals control about 10% of all hospital beds in the RSA. One-third of these investor-owned beds are held by state-dependent contractors providing long-term care. Two-thirds are wholly independent. Growth has been rapid in the independent hospital sector, and major corporations have entered the market. In 1985, over 85% of the white population was privately insured by a variety of prepayment programmes, including those organised through parastatal corporations and government departments. Despite major enrolment growth in the preceding decade, only 8% of blacks held private insurance by 1985; their coverage also tended to be less comprehensive. Faced with deficit financing, a sluggish economy, complaints from its white constituency about taxation levels, and pressure from private sector interest groups, the Nationalist government has endorsed the concept of privatisation of health care. Exponents of privatisation claim that it will permit differentiation by income to supplant discrimination by race. However, the direct links between disposable income and race, the rapidly rising costs of private insurance, and the still-limited extent of private coverage among the black majority, indicate that privatisation is likely to co-opt a comparatively small proportion of the total black population. It may exacerbate the urban-rural imbalance in health status and health services, promote growth of hospital-intensive curative services rather than needed expansion of community-centred preventive and primary care, and create financial barriers to access for low-income patients. Lastly, private sector expense data suggest that privatisation is likely to save costs only for those among the elite, mainly white, who currently pay more in taxes than they use in public health care resources.