THE MAJORITY of stakeholders have rejected a proposed amendment to Statutory Instrument (SI) 330 of 2000, which seeks to bar medical aid societies from owning and operating hospitals and clinics.
They argued that the move will severely undermine access to affordable healthcare for ordinary Zimbabweans and civil servants.
The proposal was tabled during an all-stakeholder meeting convened by the Health and Child Care ministry on Wednesday.
The meeting brought together medical aid societies, labour unions, service providers including doctors, private hospitals, dentists and other healthcare professionals to deliberate on the proposed changes.
Stakeholders warned that such a move widens the gap between what medical aid firms pay and what private service providers charge, leaving patients to shoulder steep shortfalls.
In an interview with NewsDay, Zimbabwe Nurses Association president Enock Dongo said the proposal was “selfish and self-centred”, and designed to benefit a few private hospital owners and doctors at the expense of the general public.
“In Zimbabwe, service providers are not effectively regulated in terms of the fees they charge. Medical aid societies follow AHFoZ [Association of Healthcare Funders Zimbabwe] rates, but these are not binding on private providers.
“For example, a specialist may charge US$100 for a consultation, yet the AHFoZ rate may be US$50. The difference becomes a shortfall that the patient must pay,” he said.
- Hesitancy slows Covid vaccination for children
- Hesitancy slows Covid vaccination for children
- Multisectoral COVID-19 messaging campaign improving prevention and vaccine uptake in Zimbabwe
- Cultivate demand for Covid-19 vaccines
Keep Reading
“The proposed amendment is totally ridiculous and retrogressive. It runs contrary to the national Vision 2030 agenda.
“Limiting access to affordable healthcare and increasing out-of-pocket expenses for citizens contradicts the government’s stated goal of enhancing universal health coverage and improving the welfare of workers.”
Dongo argued that medical aid societies such as Premier Service Medical Aid Society (PSMAS) have bridged this gap by establishing their own facilities, including hospitals, dental and ophthalmology centres, where members can access services without co-payments or shortfalls.
PSMAS, whose membership largely comprises civil servants earning modest salaries, often paid in ZiG, while service providers charge in United States dollars at parallel market rates, has provided significant relief to workers and their dependants.
“If these facilities are banned, members will be forced into the private sector where charges are exorbitant. Civil servants will suffer the most because they cannot afford co-payments,” Dongo said.
Other stakeholders argued that banning medical aid-owned facilities will eliminate competition and limit patient choice.
They called for the total rejection of the amendment, insisting it will worsen the lives of ordinary citizens and undermine equitable access to healthcare.
