THE Medical Services Amendment Act, 2026 is founded on a principle that few Zimbabweans would dispute: no one suffering a life-threatening medical emergency should be turned away because they cannot immediately pay for treatment.
It is a humane and constitutional obligation.
The right to emergency medical treatment is enshrined in Zimbabwe’s Constitution, and giving legislative effect to that right is long overdue.
However, good intentions alone do not keep hospital doors open.
By compelling private hospitals to admit and stabilise emergency patients for at least 48 hours regardless of their ability to pay, the government has created a new legal obligation without providing a credible financing mechanism to support it.
That omission could undermine the very healthcare system the law seeks to strengthen. Private hospitals are not charities.
They are healthcare institutions employing thousands of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, laboratory scientists, cleaners and support staff.
They purchase medicines, surgical equipment, oxygen, blood products, laboratory reagents, food, electricity, fuel and medical consumables every day. Every emergency patient admitted without payment represents a real financial cost.
- Saving lives should never bankrupt private hospitals
Keep Reading
If those costs are not recovered promptly, hospitals will eventually struggle to replenish essential stocks, pay staff and maintain quality services.
Zimbabwe does not have to look far for lessons.
Government has a long and well-documented history of delaying payments to service providers across numerous sectors.
Contractors, suppliers, healthcare providers and businesses have repeatedly complained about outstanding government debts stretching for months and, in some cases, years. That history naturally raises concern among private healthcare providers.
If government cannot guarantee timely reimbursement, private hospitals may find themselves carrying a growing burden of unfunded emergency care. The consequences would extend far beyond hospital balance sheets.
Delayed payments would reduce cash flow, constrain investment in new equipment, delay procurement of medicines and eventually compromise patient care.
The unfortunate irony would be that legislation designed to improve access to healthcare could ultimately weaken one of the country’s most important healthcare pillars.
Government must, therefore, move quickly from legislation to implementation. The first priority should be the establishment of a dedicated National Emergency Healthcare Fund.
This fund should be ring-fenced exclusively for reimbursing accredited private hospitals that provide emergency treatment under the Act.
Funding should come from the national budget, with annual appropriations based on projected emergency care costs.
More importantly, reimbursement should not depend on cumbersome paperwork or lengthy bureaucratic approvals.
Zimbabwe needs a modern, automated claims management system.
Every emergency admission should be electronically registered through a secure national digital platform linked to the Health and Child Care ministry.
Once a patient is admitted under the emergency provisions, the hospital should upload the required clinical documentation and treatment records.
After independent verification by designated medical officers, payment should be processed automatically within a legally prescribed period, ideally no longer than 30 days.
Any delay beyond that period should attract statutory interest payable by the State, creating a financial incentive for timely settlement.
Such systems already exist in various forms in countries operating public-private healthcare partnerships.
Zimbabwe need not reinvent the wheel.
Government should also establish clear reimbursement tariffs covering emergency consultations, theatre procedures, intensive care, medicines, laboratory investigations, radiology, specialist fees and hospital accommodation.
Predictable pricing will reduce disputes and enable hospitals to plan their operations with greater certainty. Private healthcare providers must also be protected through legally enforceable service-level agreements.
These agreements should clearly define government obligations, payment timelines, audit procedures and dispute-resolution mechanisms.
Hospitals should never be left negotiating payment months after saving a patient’s life.
The private sector, likewise, has responsibilities.
Hospitals should maintain transparent billing systems, submit accurate claims and ensure emergency provisions are not abused.
Independent audits will be necessary to safeguard public funds while maintaining public confidence in the reimbursement process.
Ultimately, the success of this law will not be measured by the number of patients admitted under its provisions.
It will be judged by whether emergency care remains both accessible and sustainable.
Zimbabwe’s public health system already faces immense pressure.
Private hospitals have long complemented government facilities by providing specialist services, advanced diagnostics and additional treatment capacity.
Weakening that sector through unfunded legal obligations would be a costly mistake. Saving lives is a shared national responsibility.
Government has rightly placed patients at the centre of emergency care.
It must now place equal urgency on protecting the institutions expected to deliver that care.
Rights without resources become empty promises.
If the State expects private hospitals to act as partners in fulfilling constitutional obligations, then it must honour its own obligation to pay fairly, transparently and on time.
Only then will this important reform deliver on its promise of ensuring that no Zimbabwean is denied life-saving treatment simply because they cannot immediately afford it.
