The market inquiry into private health care will continue despite the legal wrangling between industry player Netcare and KPMG, which was appointed as a technical service provider, according to panel chairman and former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo.
“What the commission had to decide is: does it wait for the outcome of the litigation with all the permutations it can come up with or should it find some technical [expertise] that will help assist the technical team in the interim,” Ngcobo said. “A decision was subsequently taken that at least in the interim the commission should take steps to find an alternative service provider.”
The commission has not disclosed the names of the four interim service providers but will do so when they start working at the beginning of next month.
Tamara Paremoer, the inquiry director for the Competition Commission’s market inquiry, said academics were among the new service providers.
Netcare has challenged KPMG’s appointment in October last year to advise on legal and administrative matters. It argued that the appointment was a conflict of interest because KPMG had previously consulted for Netcare.
In the meantime, the commission has announced timeframes for completion of different aspects of the inquiry. At the end of May, a statement of issues would be published for comment and the commission would outline the issues of concern that it had encountered. Companies would be required to make their submissions by the start of August.
The commission expects to conduct public hearings on its recommendations in March and April next year.
Nicola Theron, an economist at Econex, said while it was commendable that the commission had set a timetable, she felt the target to finish the inquiry by the end of next year was ambitious.
With the inclusion of sectors such as pharmaceuticals, consumables and medical devices, which were omitted in the initial terms of reference, Theron said the inquiry was now too comprehensive.
Ngcobo urged stakeholders to be transparent and accurate when they came forward with information. “It will be easier for us to make correct diagnosis of the problem,” he said, adding it was essential for the panel to get accurate information because there was a “real danger” that the inquiry might be flawed to the detriment of not only its conclusions but to the market as a whole.