The South African traditional health practitioner as a beneficiary of and provider to medical funds and schemes through the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (Act No 22, 2007)
Gabriel Louw, Andre Duvenhage
Abstract
Background
Payments to traditional health practitioners for services rendered from medical funds and schemes, as envisaged by the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (Act No 22, 2007), is controversial and a point of contention. Such policy was followed before in South Africa in the 1990s when some funds and schemes offered limited alternative healthcare benefits for members consulting traditional healers.
Aims
The study aimed to offer a contemporary view of the South African traditional health practitioner as a provider to and beneficiary of the medical funds and schemes through the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (No 22, 2007).
Methods
This is an exploratory and descriptive study that makes use of an historical approach by means of investigation and a literature review. The emphasis is on using current documentation like articles, books and newspapers as primary sources to reflect on the South African traditional health practitioner as a provider to and beneficiary of the medical schemes and funds through the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (No 22, 2007). The findings are offered in narrative form.
Results
It seems as if the South African authorities completely misunderstand the future implications of the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (No 22, 2007) on healthcare. This is specifically true when it comes to the right to claim from medical funds and schemes for services rendered by traditional health practitioners and the possible extra costs for these medical schemes and funds.
Conclusion
The implications of Section 42(2) of the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (No 22, 2007) which aims to set up a claiming process for traditional health practitioners, seems to be very problematic. The fact that Act No 22 (2007) has not been enacted properly nine years after its promulgation has put a halt on the professionalization of traditional healers until 2015. This also affected their status as a beneficiary of and service provider to the various medical funds and schemes. At present there seems to be no clear and justified reason why the South African traditional health practitioner cannot be accepted as a beneficiary of and provider in the medical insurance industry.
Full Text:
Payments to traditional health practitioners for services rendered from medical funds and schemes, as envisaged by the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (Act No 22, 2007), is controversial and a point of contention. Such policy was followed before in South Africa in the 1990s when some funds and schemes offered limited alternative healthcare benefits for members consulting traditional healers.
Aims
The study aimed to offer a contemporary view of the South African traditional health practitioner as a provider to and beneficiary of the medical funds and schemes through the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (No 22, 2007).
Methods
This is an exploratory and descriptive study that makes use of an historical approach by means of investigation and a literature review. The emphasis is on using current documentation like articles, books and newspapers as primary sources to reflect on the South African traditional health practitioner as a provider to and beneficiary of the medical schemes and funds through the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (No 22, 2007). The findings are offered in narrative form.
Results
It seems as if the South African authorities completely misunderstand the future implications of the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (No 22, 2007) on healthcare. This is specifically true when it comes to the right to claim from medical funds and schemes for services rendered by traditional health practitioners and the possible extra costs for these medical schemes and funds.
Conclusion
The implications of Section 42(2) of the Traditional Health Practitioners Act (No 22, 2007) which aims to set up a claiming process for traditional health practitioners, seems to be very problematic. The fact that Act No 22 (2007) has not been enacted properly nine years after its promulgation has put a halt on the professionalization of traditional healers until 2015. This also affected their status as a beneficiary of and service provider to the various medical funds and schemes. At present there seems to be no clear and justified reason why the South African traditional health practitioner cannot be accepted as a beneficiary of and provider in the medical insurance industry.
PDF