Social health insurance contributes to universal coverage in South Africa, but generates inequities: survey among members of a government employee insurance scheme

Abstract

BackgroundMany low- and middle-income countries are reforming their health financing mechanisms as part of broader strategies to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Voluntary social health insurance, despite evidence of resulting inequities, is attractive to policy makers as it generates additional funds for health, and provides access to a greater range of benefits for the formally employed. The South African government introduced a voluntary health insurance scheme (GEMS) for government employees in 2005 with the aim of improving access to care and extending health coverage. In this paper we ask whether the new scheme has assisted in efforts to move towards UHC.MethodsUsing a cross-sectional survey across four of South Africa’s nine provinces, we interviewed 1329 government employees, from the education and health sectors. Data were collected on socio-demographics, insurance coverage, health status and utilisation of health care. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine if service utilisation was associated with insurance status.ResultsA quarter of respondents remained uninsured, even higher among 20–29 year olds (46%) and lower-skilled employees (58%). In multivariate analysis, the odds of an outpatient visit and hospital admission for the uninsured was 0.3 fold that of the insured. Cross-subsidisation within the scheme has provided lower-paid civil servants with improved access to outpatient care at private facilities and chronic medication, where their outpatient (0.54 visits/month) and inpatient utilisation (10.1%/year) approximates that of the overall population (29.4/month and 12.2% respectively). The scheme, however, generated inequities in utilisation among its members due to its differential benefit packages, with, for example, those with the most benefits having 1.0 outpatient visits/month compared to 0.6/month with lowest benefits.ConclusionsBy introducing the scheme, the government chose to prioritise access to private sector care for government employees, over improving the availability and quality of public sector services available to all. Government has recently regained its focus on achieving UHC through the public system, but is unlikely to discontinue GEMS, which is now firmly established. The inequities generated by the scheme have thus been institutionalised within the country’s financing system, and warrant attention. Raising scheme uptake and reducing differentials between benefit packages will ameliorate inequities within civil servants, but not across the country as a whole.

Trends and characteristics of enrolment in the National Health Insurance Scheme in Ghana: a quantitative analysis of longitudinal data

“…Besides, individuals living in these two largely urbanised regions could afford to pay the NHIS premium due to improved economic opportunities and relatively low incidence of poverty. The findings support studies by Van der Wielen [ 49 ] and Dake [ 50 ] which show higher NHIS coverage of individuals living in urban areas than those in the rural areas.…”

Violence against female health workers is tip of iceberg of gender power imbalances

“…The lack of visibility undermines the ability to champion reform. 15 Insufficient data on violence against female health workers echoes a broader lack of prioritisation to measurement and acknowledgement of women’s experiences and contributions to healthcare. 16 …”

Public Medical Insurance and Healthcare Utilization and Expenditures of Older with Chronic Diseases in Rural China: Evidence from NRCMS

“…These studies show that the program has also encouraged farmers to get more health care, resulting from moral hazard and adverse selection in health insurance and care utilization. differences in health care utilization and costs between those with and without social health insurance and between those with different health insurance schemes [ 25 ]. Hence, there still is a need for local government to continue to take effective countermeasures.…”