THE newly-enacted Medical Services Amendment Act, which forces private hospitals to treat life-threatening emergencies for up to 48 hours regardless of a patient’s ability to pay, has been condemned as a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation rushed through without proper consultation.
Lawyer Michael Sambo argued that while the Act marks a progressive shift in policy, its implementation is riddled with contradictions and unfunded mandates that will leave both hospitals and patients in legal limbo.
The Act was gazetted last month.
"I think the Act is a very progressive movement towards development. The challenge I see is they have given too much, given where we are coming from," Sambo told NewsDay.
Sambo was speaking on the sidelines of a Private Healthcare Association of Zimbabwe workshop in Harare on Tuesday.
The proposed law compels private institutions to admit and stabilise patients with critical emergencies for at least 48 hours, removing upfront payment as a condition for care.
Keep Reading
- Exchange rate crisis hits medical aid societies
- Adapt to aid cut effects: AHFoZ
- Medical aid sector urges swift regulatory law
- Zim medical funds fight clinics sell-off
However, Sambo warned that the legislation simultaneously grants hospitals the right to recover costs from patients deemed capable of paying, a clause he believes lets the government off the hook financially.
"So it's a right given, but almost taken," he said.
"If the hospital now has a right of trying to get something from me again, if I have the capacity, then it means the government will always run away from the responsibility... I see it as a stumbling block in as much as they will operationalise it."
Sambo also took issue with the Act’s failure to define "basic healthcare", arguing that the omission invites inconsistent standards and legal disputes over what care must actually be provided.
"Unfortunately, they have not yet defined something that is very critical, basic healthcare. They are saying certain groups of people will have certain basic healthcare, which they did not define," he said.
He indicated that the law offers little more than a re-statement of existing constitutional rights, without introducing the funding or regulatory clarity needed to make those rights a reality.
"There is basically nothing that I think people should be cheering for. We have had these constitutional rights before. But rather than now operationalising those rights to be effective, we don't see it. So there is nothing new to cheer for," Sambo said.
He called for future amendments to be subjected to broader consultation with healthcare providers, insisting that any meaningful reform must be practical, adequately resourced and backed by a clear fiscal plan not just political ambition.