Browsing by Author "Zwane, Sibongile"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An evaluation of the quantitative risk assessment simulation undertaken during the planning stage of mega-projects
    (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2024-07) Zwane, Sibongile; Schutte, David; Maila, Sue; Jones, Razaak; Laryea, Samuel; Li, Baizhan; Essah, Emmanuel Adu; Mensah, Sarfo; Liu, Hong; Yao, Runming
    This research examines how the absence of robust risk identification processes during the planning stage can significantly impact the quantitative risk assessment (QRA) outcomes and increase the likelihood of cost overruns in mega-projects in South Africa. By analysing specific mega-projects and their risk identification procedures, this study highlights the importance of a high-quality assessment of the QRA input stage in the context of these mega-projects. Through surveys and interviews with project managers and stakeholders, the study has provided deeper insights into the consequences of inadequate planning, such as project cost overruns and decreased project profitability. The research indicated that a robust risk identification process during the planning stage is pivotal in mitigating cost overruns in mega-projects in South Africa. Projects that prioritise structured methodologies involving all the relevant stakeholders and conduct comprehensive risk identification practices are better equipped to control project costs. The unanimous agreement on the significance of risk identification in cost overrun prevention emphasises its paramount importance. The findings will contribute to the risk management body of knowledge, offering valuable recommendations for improved risk identification and mitigation strategies to enhance project outcomes and positively impact project owners. Lastly, the paper sheds light on the nuanced landscape of risk identification, its impact on cost overruns, and the strategies for its improvement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An examination of the theory and planned application of a risk equalization mechanism within the South African medical schemes industry
    (2022) Zwane, Sibongile
    S29(n) of the Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998 proclaims all schemes may set the levy (price) also known as a member contribution due for each available benefit option based exclusively on two characteristics: Income and number of dependents. The former pricing procedure results in a regulatory requirement known as community rating. In reality, there are other observable characteristics which are more indicative of claims experience such as age and a patient health condition(s) which medical schemes cannot take into consideration in setting the levy. The inevitable consequence of this restriction is that high and low risk members could be in the same scheme and the same risk pool. Therefore, two schemes offering the exact same benefits would have different prices. Arguments are put forward which suggest that in the interests of preserving social solidarity, the introduction of a risk equalization mechanism would act as a necessary support for the current community rating provisions. That is, a risk equalization mechanism would transfer funds between the two schemes so that in the end both schemes would charge the same price. Although it was proposed in the 1990s, that a risk equalization mechanism be adopted within the South African medical schemes industry, it was not implemented. Grounded theory is used to build a theoretical basis for risk equalization using data that is extrapolated from the situational maps of other similar global private, healthcare funding markets that have enacted and applied community rating legislation alongside some form of risk equalization. The general theory which emerges from the grounded theory process shows that generally, in private, healthcare funding markets where community rating is adopted, a risk equalization mechanism is also adopted. Not surprisingly, consistent with theory and global experience, the re-introduction of a community rating system as a centerpiece of the 1998 Medical Schemes Act with plans to also adopt a risk equalization mechanism was a sound policy decision. However, recent healthcare policy changes suggest that medical schemes will not disappear completely but will play a less significant role in future. As such, the most opportune time for implementing risk equalization in South Africa has in all probability passed.