Monday 11 March 2013

South Africa: Will strict regulation of tobacco still suffice as global tobacco companies set sights on Africa

Tobacco usage continues to stake its claim atop of the global podium for causes of preventable deaths. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) tobacco kills almost 6 million people a year and causes billions of dollars of economic damage worldwide. If the world continues along this current trajectory tobacco will kill more than 8 million people worldwide each year by 2030.  It is estimated that over the course of the 21st century, tobacco could kill a billion or more people. Quite a sobering statistic when compared to the 20th century where wars, conflict, famine and disease combined killed roughly the same number of people.
Most deaths due to tobacco-attributable illnesses occur in low and middle income countries. The costs to society due to smoking and tobacco abuse are many. Families are torn asunder, loved ones are lost and breadwinners perish due to smoking related illnesses every year. Not to mention the detrimental effect tobacco related illnesses and deaths have on the economy and levels of productivity. Against the backdrop of this incapacitated global tobacco epidemic, where does South Africa stand in terms of its management of tobacco and smoking and how do we compare to other nations?
South Africa has a rather capricious history with tobacco consumption. In 1994, the Medical Research Council estimated that for every R1 the government received from taxes on cigarettes, it spent R2 on treating tobacco related diseases. South Africa’s prevalence of smoking also ranks 20th in the world and on average 8% of all deaths in South Africa, which equates to approximately 50, 000 deaths each year are a direct result of smoking related illnesses. Tobacco is a drain on our already ailing healthcare system and it comes as no revelation that South Africa is embroiled in a constant melee to find enough money to overhaul the overburdened health system and deal with the country’s quadruple burden of disease. It is estimated that the direct costs of smoking to South Africa can be quantified to approximately U$127-million which equates to about 1 billion 156 313 rands. This figure is representative of both private and public direct medical costs of treating tobacco related diseases. Indirect costs include environmental damage due to cigarette butt littering, suffering of victims and their families and losses in productivity. A recent review published in the journal Addiction found that smokers take on average three more sick days from work every year than non-smokers. Occupational Care South Africa (OCSA) estimated that productivity lost due to absenteeism cost our economy R12 billion in 2009. Therefore one must ask what steps South Africa has taken to curb this rather counter intuitive phenomenon and control the use of tobacco in order for the state to save money?
South Africa has indeed made significant strides in curbing the use of tobacco and preventing tobacco-attributable illnesses and deaths during the past decade. We have done this by implementing strong tobacco control legislation. The Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act ratified by President Nelson Mandela in 1999 provides South Africa with one of the most comprehensive tobacco control legislation packages in the world. This act bans tobacco advertising and promotions from tobacco companies. It also protects children and adolescents from multimillion-rand marketing schemes and ensures the rights of non-smokers to a smoke-free environment. More recently in 2009, President Jacob Zuma gazetted into law new anti-smoking regulations that strengthen limits on smoking in public places and put more regulations on the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products. These include:
§  Larger fines for smoking in non-smoking areas
§  Prohibitions of smoking in partially enclosed public spaces, cars with passengers under the of 12 and areas used to commercial childcare, schooling or tutoring
§  Limited smoking areas to persons only over age the 18
§  Outlawed tobacco industry-sponsored ‘parties’
§  Prohibitions of the sale of tobacco products to and by persons under the age of 18.
South Africa has also stood firm in its relentless battle against tobacco companies. In 2012 British American Tobacco South Africa, the country’s largest cigarette manufacturer tried to lift the ban against the advertising of tobacco products. The Constitutional Court denied to the company leave to appeal. Yusuf Saloojee, executive director of the National Council against Smoking South Africa, said in a media report at the time of the ruling: “We welcome the Constitutional Court’s decision, which confirms our confidence that the country’s tobacco control laws are fair, reasonable and based on solid science.”
Thus despite our slightly tenuous history with tobacco, South Africa has actually made significant progress during the last decade in reducing tobacco usage. As a result of these tobacco control measures South Africa’s smoking rates have experienced a significant decline. Between 1995 and 2004 adult smoking rates fell by 20% and approximately 2.5% of smokers have stopped smoking resulting in a 40% decrease in annual cigarette consumption rates. South Africa was also one of the first signatories to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’s (FCTC). The convention, which took effect in 2005, is ratified by nearly 170 countries. The recommendations state that smoke-free laws must cover all enclosed public places, workplaces, and public transport without exemption and avoid designated smoking rooms, ineffective ventilation, and air filtration schemes. However South Africa unfortunately falls somewhat short of the robust anti-smoking FCTC standard because we allow for designated smoking areas which negate the smoke free premise upon which the FCTC protocol is based.
In spite of this, South Africa, in comparison to many other middle to low income countries where the tobacco epidemic is still a burgeoning epidemic, has actually shown that the epidemic can be curtailed if evidence-based policies and initiatives such as those contained in the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control are implemented properly. In addition a heartening study found that in contrast to the US, UK and Canada where tobacco causes 1 in every 5 or 6 deaths, in Africa it causes only 1in every 84 deaths. However, according to a 2009 smoke-free status report, Global Voices: Rebutting the Tobacco Industry, Winning Smoke free Air, Africans are set to experience the highest increase in the rate of tobacco use among developing countries. This is due to the illicit trade on black market cigarettes as well as African countries proving themselves lucrative target markets for predatory tobacco companies. In a report filed for the Los Angeles Times Online in December last year, Saloojee expressed concern over this growing interest in African countries saying, “The African population is very young. If they [tobacco companies] can hook customers now, they’ve got customers for the next 40 or 50 years. So the prospects of an increasing market share are very good.” The more countries move to fully meet their obligations under the FCTC the more aggressive tobacco companies are becoming to try and weaken public health efforts to ban tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. And Africa is in their direct line of vision.  
Thus South Africa still has a great deal of ground to cover and hurdles to overcome before it reaches its goal of a truly smoke and tobacco free society. However one thing is for certain and that’s the fact that South  Africa  can consider itself a success story in terms of reducing tobacco usage and implementing progressive anti-smoking regulations. South Africa has also proven that cultural or regional factors need not prove insurmountable barriers to effective tobacco control, an example from which the rest of Africa should imbibe and attempt to emulate.

Sunday 3 March 2013

2013 Budget Analysis: Healthcare expenditure, NHI & Corruption. What's in store for South Africa this year...

The 2013 budget speech has allocated R133-billion over the medium term to health which accounts for 4.5% of the budget. Health financing and national health insurance will account for 44% of health spending over this period. Despite the tight fiscal climate, it does seem encouraging that the health sector is receiving extra funding. However South Africa already spends 8,5% of its gross domestic product on health and is still on the lower end of the health outcomes spectrum when compared with similar middle-income countries. Therefore is this increase to the health budget really necessary, or should Gordhan have paid more attention to spending money allocated to healthcare more efficiently?

Gordhan stated that alongside social assistance, access to health care is a vital element in the social wage. This is an encouraging statement given the manner in which social determinants play such a fundamental role in defining the status of a nation’s health. He also pointed out examples of progress in the healthcare sector, acknowledged the progress made in reducing mortality and improving the HIV and TB programmes and placed a renewed focus on the NHI initiative.

However Gordhan is too vague in supplying us with details regarding the National Health Insurance. It is all very well alluding to the fact that a tax increase ‘might’ be needed to fund the implementation of NHI without giving any concrete details about when, where and how this anticipated tax increase will manifest itself in the future.

New policy initiatives such as the NHI are only possible if South Africa succeeds in driving economic growth towards 5% year. According to Stats SA, our current GDP at market prices has only increased by 2,1% during the fourth quarter of 2012. This also means that government revenue needs to double within the next 20 years in order for NHI to become a reality. Therefore the affordability of the NHI is inextricably linked with the growth of the economy. Bearing this in mind and taking into consideration South Africa’s current economic growth trajectory at only 2,1%, implementation of the NHI is practically impossible to conceive unless government takes measures to reduce spending in certain areas and increase taxes in others. Gordhan however states that the initial phase of NHI will not place new revenue demands on the fiscus.

In my opinion this is rather short-sighted. South Africa unfortunately suffers from a quadruple burden of disease and the Gini Co-efficient for South Africa is one of the largest in the world. The gap between the rich and the poor is exponential and growing everyday. A NHI policy is going to need a large sum of capital to launch and implement never mind run effectively, to do this; taxes will have to be raised in order to procure this much needed capital. However Gordhan’s budget speech fails to address these glaring issues about how the NHI will be funded.

According to the Mail & Guardian, reductions have actually been made to the NHI grant due to slow spending. This seems completely counter-intuitive to me especially in terms of South Africa’s lack of sufficient economic growth and the fact that NHI will never come to fruition unless our GDP makes a distinct improvement in the global economy.

In addition, I also think that there should have been more clarity on how much money allocated to the health budget would be spent on combating corruption in the health sector. Not only is this a huge problem which directly affects South Africans at the moment but corruption in the health sector will undoubtedly also hinder the effective implementation of NHI.

(See http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Corruption-costs-E-Cape-health-R45m-20110307

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Devastating-corruption-in-E-Cape-health-dept-20130203
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/06/201265112355558115.html )

Gordhan should have been more lucid about how much money in the healthcare budget would be used to combat corruption, improve governance structures in health districts and hold public health officials accountable for their actions.

However despite these criticisms, the budget speech does show that health infrastructure, contracting with general practitioners and financial management reforms as well as medical and nurse training capacity must first be improved if NHI is to be effective and build public confidence in the reform.