Ignition in 3, 2, 1…


Oh goody!  It’s opening night and the show is about to start.

In case you haven’t heard, The DoH has gone ahead and announced proposed changes to the Regulations to the Medical Schemes Act.  By far the most controversial aspect is the proposed changes to Regulation 8…

As I have said previously, this is going to create a lot of source material for this blog.  Keep an eye on the Sunday papers for what will no doubt be a parade of soundbites from extremely indignant healthcare providers who are “concerned about their patients.”

If you have the opportunity also try this: ask a representative from the C4MS what their view is on this and watch them squirm as they weasel out of a straight answer.

314b5afe6737a2194cab330f141e67d4I don’t think that the interpretation of “payment at cost” currently being enforced is right.  On the other hand changing Regulation 8 without mending the other issues that have created this situation (lack of reference prices, ethical charging guidelines and collective price determination) or the structural issues (open enrolment without mandatory cover and community rating without risk equalisation) is akin to mending a broken deck chair on a sinking passenger liner while Celine Dion sings that bloody song.

<p”>Now shhhhhh!  The show is about to start…

(Honey?!  Where did we pack the popcorn machine?)

{Edited 10:18 to fix font issues}


One thought on “Ignition in 3, 2, 1…

  1. Well, the main problem is that 8(1) is untouched so the pay in full interpretation remains. Then you have the situation where the Minister is trying to introduce NHRPL through the back door after the Competition Commission kicked it out. Funny thing is the Minister appoints the CC to investigate health care and then he kicks it in the butt by ignoring its ruling. The amendment to 8(2) applies only if schemes appoint a DSP. The new 8(2)(c) only applies when read together with (a) and (b) – it is an “and” not “or” situation. And then, as only doctors can be appointed DSP’s, the Minister expects medical schemes to force several thousand doctors to sign contracts with medical schemes that have the effect of limiting what they can charge. If so, then why is NHI stumbling over this point?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s