NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
FOR WRITTEN REPLY
QUESTION NO. 635
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER: 07 March 2011
(INTERNAL QUESTION PAPER NO. 4)
Ms E More (DA) to ask the Minister of Health:
(1) (a) What are the contributing factors that led to only 53% of the
HIV/Aids grant set for the 2009-10 financial year being met as opposed
to 99% of the grant allocation being spent, (b) how does he justify
this disjuncture between budget spent and targets met and (c) what
steps has he taken to rectify the situation;
(2) what is the current target for the 2010-11 financial year with regard
to the targets being met in comparison to the budget being spent?
NW679E
REPLY:
1) (a) The question raised by the Honourable Member is based on
the audit outcome of 2009-10, which reported a significant
finding from the HIV and AIDS Grant from provincial audits that
the 2009-10 Annual Report of the National Department of Health
reported that the health sector only achieved 53% of the targets
set for 2009-10 financial year and also reported that 99% of the
Grant allocation was spent during the year. The Annual Report of
2009-10 of the National Department of Health did not make the
finding that the health sector achieved only 53% of its target
set for 2009-10.
All targets for the reporting period were met and in most
instances they were exceeded, except two targets that were
marginally below the expected target not achieved, as
demonstrated in the table below.
|Target |Actual |
|Community care givers |27 000 |25 278 |
|Percent of TB patients |80% |75% |
|counselled | | |
We expected to achieve 12% coverage for providing newly
diagnosed TB and HIV positive co-infected eligible patients with
INH Prophylaxis therapy but achieved only 1.8% coverage.
(b) Given the above assessment the assertion that there was a
disjuncture between the budget expended and the performance as
state in the audit outcome is not supported by what was reported
in the Department of Health Annual Report 2009-10
With regard to poor performance in the provision and uptake of
the INH Prophylaxis (IPT), the low performance was largely
related to the reluctance of some medical practitioners to
prescribe IPT because they feared that they may misdiagnose
active TB and by prescribing INH that they will cause
resistance. Secondly, the Department did not have an active
programme to train health personnel in the use of INH.
(c) The National Department of Health has â
i) conducted provincial visits to support clinicians to
understand the importance of INH Prophylaxis;
ii) conducted training in provinces on the use of INH.
2) All sub-programmes benefitting from the HIV conditional grant are set
to meet their targets and spent their allocation for 2010-11.
Provinces are continually monitored and supported to assist them to
meet their Division of Revenue Act commitment as articulated in the
grant framework.
Expenditure to December 2010
|Province |Expenditure |Amount |Difference |% spent |
| |to December |transferred | | |
| |2010 | | | |
|Eastern Cape |425,015.00 |512,978.00 |87,963.00 |82.85 |
|Free State |245,077.00 |325,187.00 |80,110.00 |75.36 |
|Gauteng |893,832.00 |959,439.00 |65,607.00 |93.10 |
|KwaZulu/Natal|964,020.00 |1,095,711.00 |131,691.00 |87.98 |
|Limpopo |375,123.00 |386,172.00 |11,049.00 |97.13 |
|Mpumalanga |334,085.00 |455,461.00 |121,376.00 |73.35 |
|Northern Cape|94,777.00 |151,904.00 |57,127.00 |62.39 |
|North West |308,024.00 |356,880.00 |48,856.00 |86.31 |
|Western Cape |342,451.00 |419,980.00 |77,529.00 |81.53 |
END.