The spat over regulation between medical insurers and the Insurance and Pensions Commission (Ipec) raises more questions than answers.
I don’t trust medical funders generally. Their manipulative behaviour is dangerous. Many of them barely own up to their promise to deliver relief during difficult times — they are a real pain.
Neither do I give Ipec full marks in this hullabaloo because when desperate, State agencies have demonstrated similar manipulative precision.
They needlessly flex muscles to swindle the public through all forms of tricks.
It is how their bosses end up expending on expensive cars and exclusive mansions.
But while medical insurers claim Ipec oversight would stifle innovation and drive up costs, the aggressiveness with which they have gone after the regulator is astounding.
I wonder what is really driving this resistance.
This is a community that prides itself for being sophisticated. But they don’t seem to understand that it has been proven robust scrutiny of public finances brings transparency and efficiency — two essential components that they seem to be shying away from. I agree that they already operate under some form of regulation from the Ministry of Health and Child Care. But government oversight mostly zeroes in on core business.
- Editor’s Memo: The regulation ruckus
Keep Reading
It lacks the actuarial competences required to run a flawless system — one that does not prejudice policyholders. That skill is readily available at Ipec, along with a range of specialised professionals trained to respond to vital issues.
In any case, Ipec already has the experience, having worked with the industry through tumultuous times.
In an industry where policy holders' health and financial well-being are at stake, shouldn't transparency and accountability be paramount? Perhaps the Ipec Amendment Bill, which has provoked medical insurers’ outbursts, must balance their viewpoints and what regulation will achieve. That way, Zimbabwe comes up with a law that protects the public interest, while helping investors earn a profit.
This is how regulatory regimes in South Africa, Kenya and Namibia ended up as success stories.
Having said this, I must caution Ipec against abusing its powers for selfish gain.
That will be immoral and unacceptable.
Zimbabweans are already grappling with a harsh economic environment, and any additional costs imposed on medical insurers would likely be passed on to policyholders. Ipec must prioritise the interests of policyholders and the healthcare system over its own revenue generation ambitions.
I am not speaking out of tune.
Over many years, we have seen that regulators, when faced with financial strain, resort to piling up new taxes and fees, or expanding their mandate for selfish financial gain.
In 2014, the Ministry of Tourism and Hospitality Industry tried to take over the National Museums and Monuments.
The endgame was clear — it wanted to tap into whatever reve nue flows into that agency.
This is why Parliament must scrutinise Ipec's reasons for proposing to take over oversight of medical insurers.
It must determine if this has not been motivated by money.
If that is the case, then the Ipec Amendment Bill is not worth the pain. It must be rejected.
It is also important to note the insurers' points before dismissing them totally.
They bring an important point that Ipec's oversight would lead to increased administrative burdens and costs, which would be bad news for policyholders.
However, effective regulation can also bring benefits such as standardised practices, improved risk management, and enhanced consumer protection. The key is striking a balance between regulatory oversight and industry flexibility.
Regulation is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Ipec must work closely with medical insurers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to develop a regulatory framework that balances the needs of all parties involved. This includes ensuring that medical insurers can operate efficiently while also protecting policyholders' interests.
So, rather than resisting regulation, medical insurers should engage constructively with Ipec to shape a regulatory framework that supports the healthcare sector's growth and development.
