Category Healthcare
SUB CATEGORIES General  |  HIV |  Medical Schemes | 

LCBOs amounts to ‘Let them eat cake’

17 February 2020 Myra Knoesen
Patrick Masobe, Chief Executive Officer of Agility Health

Patrick Masobe, Chief Executive Officer of Agility Health

As recently as March 2019, the Council for Medical Schemes released a discussion document seeking industry inputs on how best to go about implementing Low Cost Benefit Options (LCBOs), with the intention of introducing measures to provide the protection of healthcare cover on medical schemes for low-income households.

The project, according to Patrick Masobe, Chief Executive Officer of Agility Health and former Registrar of the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS), to introduce minimum benefits specially tailored for LCBOs was meant to be implemented as a measure to replace risk based health insurance products, which were until recently subject to an Exemption Framework. 

“Just nine months later in December, as the holiday mood began to settle over our nation, the CMS announced that no further exemptions to the insurance products would be granted and the replacement LCBOs too would no longer be developed and rolled out – no exemptions, no exceptions, finished and klaar,” emphasised Masobe. 

Key critique of the LCBO model

“And what rationale was cited for this about-turn? Again, we are told, it is to protect the healthcare interests of low-income households – this time through aligning with national health policy in pursuit of the ever-elusive National Health Insurance (NHI),” said Masobe. 

“A key critique of the LCBO model cited, is the potential that members on such plans could be largely reliant on public health facilities, and therefore, such plans may not be helping to reduce pressure on state facilities. It should be noted, however, that not all products marketed for the low-income segment are necessarily directing members to State health facilities. To the contrary, these very same products will ultimately serve to reduce pressure on Government hospitals as they are specifically designed to keep members healthy and productive,” added Masobe. 

“Options provided in terms of health insurance products and even the Bargaining Council Medical Schemes established with certain exemptions to the Medical Schemes’ Act to provide cover for blue collar workers are to be similarly scrapped, again with the noble aim of aligning ‘with the broader health policy discussion that seeks to ensure adequate access to care, irrespective of the economic status of the population,” continued Masobe. 

In the meantime, where does the Regulator’s decisions on LCBOs leave the majority of South Africans who cannot afford private healthcare? “In a position where there are simply no options for access to private healthcare, and therefore they are back at square one – waiting in long queues for the overburdened State system to provide healthcare cover. And that will now extend to people currently on some form of cover on insurance or other exempted products,” said Masobe. 

The absence of a workable alternative

The Demarcation Framework, which flowed from an agreement between the Ministers of Health and Finance in 2015, has been extended twice so far and recent developments beg the question, where do the Ministers stand on the Registrar’s recent pronouncements? 

“Prohibiting LCBOs at this point in the transition towards universal health coverage will have far-reaching and harmful effects, not least on the poor which these regulations claim to champion. In the absence of a workable alternative framework that could be implemented by the cut-off date in March 2021, it is unconscionable to expose those who may have had access to insurance products and other exempted products to the potential risks associated with having no cover and no safety net (which was what LCBOs were going to provide), including the threat of possible bankruptcy if faced with a catastrophic health event,” said Masobe. 

“Fair administrative procedure should surely require that when regulatory changes on this scale are proposed, people who are likely to be adversely affected be afforded the opportunity to voice their concerns and be consulted on the timing of implementation. We have no indication that this has taken place, even though it has been estimated that as many as two million people may be stripped of access to private healthcare through the eradication of affected health insurance products without providing an alternative solution, through LCBOs or otherwise. Whether the State healthcare system has the resources and capacity to adequately provide for these additional patients is doubtful, to say the least,” added Masobe. 

Further to the above, Masobe said the Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMBs) review process to include aspects of primary healthcare cover will either impoverish the comprehensive basket of services currently provided, or it threatens to drive up the costs associated with providing PMB cover to the point where even fewer South Africans can afford medical scheme membership, even though schemes operate on a not-for-profit basis. 

“The Health Market Inquiry report has recommended a number of targeted reforms that could achieve proper balance with regard to medical schemes regulations and puts forward a number of measures to address concerns around risk pooling, costs and efficiency,” said Masobe. 

Mere hope for inclusive healthcare system

As we move towards the implementation of NHI, expected to roll out by 2026, Masobe said mere hope for a more inclusive healthcare system will not sustain those facing serious medical challenges. 

“There are many ways of achieving universal health coverage, however for the foreseeable future the most viable option for South Africa appears to be for the public health sector to operate alongside a properly regulated medical scheme sector. Micro-managing the healthcare funding sector stifles innovation, which could provide solutions in the short and medium term to deliver access to world-class healthcare to more South Africans,” said Masobe. 

“There is no doubt that reform is needed as both the private and public healthcare sectors evolve to provide an effective, sustainable and well-governed health system that meets the healthcare needs of all South Africans. The drastic action of cutting off low-income households from the only available means of funding access to private healthcare without providing an alternative substitute model is surely not a necessary or logical step to achieving NHI,” emphasised Masobe. 

“Depriving lower income families of the option to access private healthcare, or even the opportunity to comment on the regulations directly impacting their lives, seems a strange way to go about broadening access. It is not only undemocratic – it amounts to the healthcare equivalent of declaring ‘Let them eat cake’,” concluded Masobe. 

Writer’s Thoughts:
The drastic action of cutting off low-income households from the only available means of funding access to private healthcare, without providing an alternative substitute model as Masobe emphasised, is not logical to achieving NHI. Do you agree? Please comment below, interact with us on Twitter at @fanews_online or email me your thoughts


Added by cynical simon, 17 Feb 2020
NHI is a concept which's time has run out.I an not even trying to defend my opinion, and I find it ludicrous the anybody else is wasting time on trying to defend it by entering into a debate on the means of delivery.
Report Abuse
Added by Peter, 17 Feb 2020
The current range of low cost options add huge value to members at a low cost, and remove a burden from the state.. These products absolutely should be allowed to continue.
Report Abuse
Added by Paul Chinchen, 17 Feb 2020
It appears to me that this is a way for Government to artificially increase the demand by poor and desperate people in the National Health Insurance Scheme - a scheme which is unlikely to be financially sustainable or financially prudent. A scheme that is destined to make more and more people wholly dependent on Central Government for their health as well as their welfare. Once beholden to government they will not be free to vote for anything but more of the same. “Better to die fighting for freedom then be a prisoner all the days of your life.”
― Bob Marley
Report Abuse

Comment on this post

Email Address*
Security Check *
Quick Polls


How confident are you that insurers treat policyholders fairly, according to the Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) principles?


Very confident, insurers prioritise fair treatment
Somewhat confident, but improvements are needed
Not confident, there are significant issues with fair treatment
fanews magazine
FAnews June 2024 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

Understanding prescription in claims for professional negligence
Climate change… the single biggest risk facing insurers
Insuring the unpredictable: 2024 global election risks
Financial advice crucial as clients’ Life policy premiums rise sharply
Guiding clients through the Two-Pot Retirement System
There is diversification, and true diversification – choose wisely
Decoding the shift in investment patterns
Subscribe now