Compulsory membership of the (expensive) parliamentary medical scheme, Parmed, is being reconsidered by the National Assembly, and may be replaced with voluntary membership, reports Moneyweb.
An amendment to the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme Act, 1975, would replace compulsory membership which, argues ActionSA MP Dr Kgosi Letlape – who introduced the private member’s Bill – would grant MPs 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 use public healthcare services”.
A 2017 comparison report by Medscheme, which administers Parmed, said the scheme “offers some key advantages to members”, including very comprehensive benefits, competitive contributions, no restrictions in hospital, pharmacy or specialist networks, flexible medicine formularies, cover for all chronic conditions, and no co-payments or deductibles on procedures.
It offers members “freedom of choice and some of the richest benefits available in the medical schemes market,” the report said, adding that its chronic benefits far exceed all others, as it covers 100+ diseases.
Letlape contends that Parmed’s one-size-fits-all approach fails to accommodate the diverse needs of 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.”
Additionally, he added, the escalating costs of Parmed are a significant concern.
“It is unconscionable for a … scheme to be exclusive to MPs, as well as to other public office bearers, to the exclusion of the public whom they serve.”
These officials should be free to join a medical aid scheme of their choice, including the Government Employees Medical Scheme (GEMS), he believes.
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 NHI 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 wanting 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, and that there was no support for the continuation of Parmed in its current form.
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 and political parties.
If the amendment is passed, it proposes that officials can terminate their Parmed membership with at least one calendar month’s notice.
Moneyweb article – MPs don’t want to be on the best medical aid in SA (Open access)
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
MP calls for scrapping of costly medical scheme
CMS wants single medical scheme for public servants