New Bill Challenges MPs’ Exclusive Medical Aid Privileges in South Africa

For decades, South African members of parliament (MPs) have lived with a safety net the rest of the country can only dream of guaranteed access to one of the best medical aid schemes in the nation. But a new bill aims to end this privilege, stirring both political and public debate.

Why MPs Don’t Use Public Hospitals

By law, every MP and public office bearer must belong to Parmed, the Parliamentary and Provincial Medical Aid Scheme. It’s not optional, it’s written into legislation passed in 1975, long before South Africa became a democracy.

That law means lawmakers never have to step foot in the same overcrowded, underfunded public hospitals where millions of South Africans seek care. For critics, it’s a glaring disconnect: how can MPs legislate on healthcare when they don’t experience the system themselves?

Dr. Kgosi Letlape, a seasoned medical professional turned ActionSA parliamentarian, is spearheading the move to change this. His proposal is simple: make membership voluntary.

“Democracy is about choice,” Letlape said recently. “If lawmakers themselves can’t make personal choices, we have a problem.”

The Case for Change

Letlape’s background adds weight to his argument. Before entering politics, he was president of the Health Professions Council of South Africa, head of the World Medical Association, and founder of the Africa Medical Association. He’s not just talking politics, he’s lived healthcare at the highest levels.

ActionSA argues that MPs should not be insulated from the daily struggles ordinary South Africans face. For too long, they say, Parmed has created a bubble of privilege.

Public reaction online has echoed this sentiment. Many South Africans on social media have called it “unfair” and “hypocritical” that leaders legislate on healthcare policy while enjoying private-style benefits. Some have gone further, suggesting that experiencing public hospitals firsthand would finally push MPs to fix the system.

Parmed vs. Everyone Else

Parmed isn’t just a perk, it’s arguably the best medical aid option in the country. Research by Medscheme shows it outperforms heavyweights like Discovery, Momentum, Fedhealth, and Bonitas in affordability and coverage. It covers more chronic conditions, offers greater flexibility, and doesn’t impose the same network restrictions.

That’s why MPs have been reluctant to let it go. In fact, when an ad hoc committee reviewed Parmed back in 2017, many MPs complained it was too expensive, but rather than scrap it, they recommended adjusting the scheme and ensuring state contributions.

There’s also a technical concern: Parmed has the oldest member base of any medical aid in South Africa. If membership became voluntary, too many MPs might opt out, which could collapse the scheme and harm retired office bearers still relying on it.

The Politics Behind the Proposal

This isn’t the first time the system has been challenged. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) once tried to abolish Parmed altogether through the courts, but the effort failed on procedural grounds. With ActionSA now bringing a parliamentary amendment, the fight is back, this time with proper consultation.

The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) has already signaled its support, saying it hopes MPs living the realities of public hospitals will finally improve the system. The EFF, given its history, is also likely to back the amendment.

Still, the bill needs more than 50% support in the National Assembly, and with many MPs enjoying their current benefits, its success is far from guaranteed.

A Turning Point for Trust?

The bigger question isn’t just about medical aid, it’s about trust. South Africans often accuse their leaders of being out of touch, living in comfort while the majority struggle. This bill, if passed, could be a symbolic turning point: a small but powerful move to close the gap between citizens and their representatives.

As one Johannesburg resident posted on X (formerly Twitter): “If MPs want to represent us, they should live like us. Start with healthcare.”

Public submissions on the amendment are open until September 28, and the debate promises to be heated. For now, Dr. Letlape is optimistic. “If members of parliament see their lifestyle as more important than fixing problems in public healthcare, they can stay on Parmed,” he said.

But many South Africans will be watching closely, wondering whether MPs are finally ready to face the same realities as those they claim to serve.

{Source: News Day}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com