ONE of the most consequential healthcare policy battles in recent years is now unfolding between the Ministry of Health and Child Care and the Association of Health Funders of Zimbabwe (AHFoZ).
At the centre of the dispute are proposed amendments to Statutory Instrument 330 of 2000 that would prohibit medical aid societies from owning or operating healthcare facilities and compel them to divest existing interests in hospitals, clinics and specialist units.
While the Ministry is pursuing the proposed reforms, AHFoZ has turned to Parliament, urging lawmakers to scrutinise the amendments and intervene before changes that could fundamentally reshape Zimbabwe’s healthcare financing system take effect.
Its argument is simple.
Zimbabwe’s healthcare system does not suffer from an excess of healthcare infrastructure.
It suffers from a shortage of it.
Public hospitals remain under pressure. Medical aid coverage remains limited. Patients continue to face rising healthcare costs, significant shortfalls and growing barriers to accessing quality care.
Against that reality, Parliament should ask a straightforward question:
Why dismantle existing healthcare infrastructure before proving that patients will be better off without it?
Supporters of the amendments argue that separating healthcare funders from healthcare providers would address concerns associated with insurer-provider integration.
However, no evidence has been publicly presented demonstrating that vertically integrated healthcare models have harmed consumers, restricted patient choice or monopolised healthcare delivery in Zimbabwe.
The question before Parliament is therefore not whether concerns have been raised.
It is whether a blanket prohibition and forced divestiture are justified in a healthcare system already struggling with affordability, access and capacity constraints.
If medical aid-owned facilities are forced out of the system, what replaces them?
Will public hospitals absorb the additional demand? Will private providers fill the gap? And if they do, at what cost to patients?
These are questions Parliament should insist on having answered before the amendments proceed. Healthcare policy should not be judged by theory alone.
It should be judged by outcomes. Will healthcare become more affordable? Will access improve? Will quality increase?
Will patients be better protected?
If those answers remain unclear, then Parliament has both the authority and responsibility to demand greater scrutiny.
Because healthcare systems take years to build and moments to weaken.
Before Zimbabwe dismantles existing healthcare capacity, it must first demonstrate that patients—not institutions—will be the beneficiaries.