MPs don’t want to be on the best medical aid in SA
· Citizen
The National Assembly is considering a proposal to amend the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme Act, 1975, which would replace compulsory membership of the Parmed Medical Aid Scheme with voluntary membership.
The amendment bill is a private member’s bill introduced by ActionSA MP Dr Kgosi Letlape.
Visit albergomalica.it for more information.
This, he argues, will grant members of parliament and other elected office-bearers, including those in the National Council of Provinces, members of provincial legislatures as well as judges, “the right to join a medical aid scheme of their choice, or to utilise public healthcare services”.
Currently, these officials are forced to be members of the scheme.
Rich benefits
A 2017 comparison report by Medscheme, which administers Parmed, said the scheme “offers some key advantages to its members“.
These included “very comprehensive benefits, competitive contributions, no restrictions in terms of hospital, pharmacy or specialist networks, very comprehensive and flexible medicine formularies, cover for all chronic conditions, and no co-payments or deductibles on procedures”.
It said that this contributes “to a scheme that offers its members freedom of choice and some of the richest benefits available in the medical schemes market”.
Its chronic benefits far exceed all other schemes, as it covers 100+ diseases.
The report found that the “Parmed chronic benefit available to members is very rich and is not subject to restrictive formularies and provider networks”.
Letlape’s concerns
Letlape contends that “Parmed’s one-size-fits-all approach fails to accommodate the diverse needs of its members, who have varying family sizes and healthcare requirements.
“This lack of flexibility results in inconsistencies and reinforces the argument that a single, compulsory scheme cannot effectively cater to all members, yet they have no alternative but compulsory contributions to Parmed”.
He says the “escalating costs of Parmed are a significant concern”, given the “substantial deductions from the salaries of Parmed members”.
He adds that “it is unconscionable for a medical aid scheme to be exclusive to members of Parliament, as well as to other public office bearers, to the exclusion of the public whom they serve”.
He argues that these officials should be free to join a medical aid scheme of their choice, including the Government Employees Medical Scheme (Gems).
Public submissions
In a recent briefing to the Portfolio Committee on Health, Letlape said 10 public submissions were received and that nine of these supported the bill.
A tenth opposed it on the grounds that Parmed should be abolished and replaced with a “compulsory, solidarity-based, tax-funded scheme, integrated and aligned with the National Health Insurance Act of 2023 and Section 27 of the Constitution”.
There were three groupings of those in favour of the bill:
- Those expressing general support;
- A group that supports making Parmed voluntary, but with concerns about the potential burden on government; and
- Those who want Parmed to be abolished on the grounds that there shouldn’t be a separate healthcare system for publicly elected officials.
Letlape said none of the 10 submissions raised concerns about affordability. He argued there is no support for the continuation of Parmed in its current form.
Next steps
At this point, comments or objections will be invited from other stakeholders, including the Department of Health, the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS), parliament, provincial legislatures, the judiciary as well as political parties.
If the amendment is passed and enacted, it proposes that officials be able to terminate their membership of Parmed by giving at least one calendar months’ notice to the scheme.
This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.