In order to answer the research questions (iii) to (viii) above, ANOVAs were conducted. The results are reported in Tables 5.6 to 5.9.
TABLE 5.6: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AREA GROUPS WITH REGARD TO PERCEPTIONS OF PROJECTED NHI SUCCESS
Univariate Tests of Significance for NHISUC Sigma-restricted parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition
SS Degree of Freedom MS F p
Intercept 1729.044 1 1729.044 2925.462 0.000000
AREA 9.489 2 4.745 8.028 0.000427
The empirical result (p-value* < 0.001) shows that the null hypothesis, that there is no significant difference between the area groups with regard to their perceptions of projected NHI success, is rejected. There is therefore a significant difference in the perceptions of the area groups in this regard.
TABLE 5.7: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AGE GROUPS WITH REGARD TO PERCEPTIONS OF PROJECTED NHI SUCCESS
T-tests; Grouping: AGE Group 1: 3 Group 2: 4 Mean - 3 Mean - 4 t- value df p Valid N - 3 Valid N - 4 Std.Dev. - 3 Std.De v. - 4 F-ratio - Variances NHI Success 2.93 2.67 1.73 113 0.09 67 48 0.78 0.80 1.06 0.82
The empirical result (p-value* exceeding 0.05) shows that the null hypothesis, that there is no significant difference between the age groups with regard to their perceptions of projected NHI success, is supported. There is therefore no significant difference in the perceptions of the various age groups in this regard.
TABLE 5.8: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL GROUPS WITH REGARD TO PERCEPTIONS OF PROJECTED NHI SUCCESS
Univariate Tests of Significance for NHISUC Sigma-restricted parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition
SS Degree. of - Freedom MS F p
Intercept 247.8117 1 247.8117 394.1594 0.000000
EDUC 2.4526 5 0.4905 0.7802 0.564879
Error 142.0883 226 0.6287
The empirical result (p-value* exceeding 0.05) shows that the null hypothesis, that there is no significant difference between the educational groups with regard to their perceptions of projected NHI success, is supported. There is therefore no significant difference in the perceptions of the different educational age groups in this regard.
TABLE 5.9: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS WITH REGARD TO PERCEPTIONS OF PROJECTED NHI SUCCESS
Univariate Tests of Significance for NHISUC Sigma-restricted parameterization Effective hypothesis decomposition
SS Degree of - Freedom MS F p
Intercept 1084.840 1 1084.840 1728.337 0.000000
TITLE 3.313 6 0.552 0.880 0.510443
Error 141.228 225 0.628
The empirical result (p-value* exceeding 0.05) shows that the null hypothesis, that there is no significant difference between the occupational groups with regard to their perceptions of projected NHI success, is supported. There is therefore no significant difference in the perceptions of the different occupational groups in this regard.
TABLE 5.10: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TENURE GROUPS WITH
REGARD TO PERCEPTIONS OF PROJECTED NHI SUCCESS
T-tests; Grouping: TENURE Group 1: 2 Group 2: 4 Mean - 2 Mean - 4 t- value df p Valid N - 2 Valid N - 4 Std.Dev. - 2 Std.Dev. - 4 F-ratio - Variances p – Variances NHI Success 2.74 2.94 -1.19 84 0.24 56 30 0.81 0.66 1.49 0.24
The empirical result (p-value* exceeding 0.05) show that the null hypothesis, that there is no significant difference between the tenure groups with regard to their perceptions of projected NHI success, is supported. There is therefore no significant difference in the perceptions of the different tenure groups in this regard.
TABLE 5.11: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JOB EXPERIENCE GROUPS WITH REGARDTO PERCEPTIONS OF PROJECTED NHI SUCCESS
T-tests; Grouping: EXPERI Group 1: 2 Group 2: 4 Mean - 2 Mean - 4 t- value df p Valid N - 2 Valid N - 4 Std.Dev. - 2 Std.Dev. - 4 F-ratio – Variances p – Variances NHI Success 2.65 2.98 -1.73 66 0.09 35 33 0.81 0.79 1.02 0.95
The empirical result (p-value* exceeding 0.05) shows that the null hypothesis, that there is no significant difference between the job experience groups with regard to their perceptions of projected NHI success, is supported. There is therefore no significant difference in the perceptions of the different job experience groups in this regard.
In summary: With the exception of the area groups, the two-sample t-test and ANOVA results reveal that there were no significant differences amongst the different demographic groups with regard to their perceptions of projected NHI success. Considering health disparities of healthcare provision encountered in the current healthcare system, it is important to notice that both the public and private sectors have similar perceptions on the projected NHI success. This means that a consensus appears to exist between healthcare providers with regard to critical success factors that the South African government needs to consider in the implementation of the NHI. The finding that the geographical area groups differ significantly with regard to perceptions of projected NHI success is important and will be discussed in the next chapter.
5.4 CONCLUSION
In Chapter 5, the results of the descriptive statistics, two-sample t-tests and ANOVAs were reported. The results seem to indicate the following:
The descriptive statistics reveal that all the respondents strongly believe that the lack of transparency about the NHI could suppress the projected NHI success and
that the leadership of South Africa is not effectively communicating the vision and mission of the NHI to all healthcare providers and key stakeholders. A large number of respondents have the perception that the healthcare leadership is incompetent to achieve the objectives of the NHI. An incentive-based approach to attract healthcare providers from the private sector seems a viable option to alleviate the burden of human resource shortages. In contrast to the poor servicing area, a large number of healthcare providers of the affluent areas are not in support of the NHI. In the next chapter the empirical results of Chapters 4 and 5 will be interpreted in terms of the managerial implications they present for whoever will manage the implementation of the NHI.
CHAPTER 6
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of this study was to contribute to the successful implementation of the proposed South African NHI by identifying critical success factors that would impact such implementation. In order to achieve this objective, the study set out to do the following:
Conduct a literature study to understand the nature, objectives, potential benefits and disadvantages of NHIs in other countries and in South Africa;
Conduct a mail survey of a sample of managerial representatives of healthcare institutions in the Nelson Mandela Healthcare District;
Analyse the data;
Report, interpret and discuss the empirical results; and
Draw conclusions and provide recommendations based on these conclusions.