By Victor Fanuel
HARARE — Government has gazetted the Medical Services Amendment Act, 2026, introducing sweeping reforms that compel private hospitals to provide emergency medical treatment to critically ill patients regardless of their ability to pay.
The legislation, which amends the Medical Services Act (Chapter 15:13), gives legal effect to constitutional provisions guaranteeing access to emergency healthcare and introduces criminal penalties for healthcare providers who unlawfully refuse life-saving treatment.
Government spokesperson Nick Mangwana announced the development on social media, saying: “Today, Zimbabwe gazetted an amendment to the Medical Services Act.”
“Most prominently, the Act introduces a binding emergency treatment obligation
“Private health institutions must now admit any patient with a life-threatening emergency for at least 48 hours to stabilise them before transfer, even if the patient cannot afford care,” added Mangwana.
The amendment requires private health institutions to admit patients experiencing life-threatening emergencies and provide treatment for at least 48 hours to stabilise their condition before any transfer can take place.
Hospitals may subsequently recover costs through agreements with either the Government or the patient.
The Act also empowers the Minister of Health and Child Care to direct private health institutions to provide specialist services to public-sector emergency patients during national emergencies or public health crises.
Healthcare providers who refuse to admit emergency patients without lawful authority face penalties of up to Level 8 fines, imprisonment for up to one year, or both.
The legislation further introduces statutory definitions for key terms including “basic health care,” “chronic illness,” “emergency medical treatment,” and “health care provider,” providing legal clarity for implementation.
The emergency treatment provisions are expected to address longstanding concerns over reports that accident victims and critically ill patients have, in some instances, been denied admission by private hospitals because they could not pay admission fees upfront.
However, the legislation has also generated debate among healthcare stakeholders.
Private hospital operators and medical associations have previously argued that while emergency care is both an ethical and professional obligation, mandatory treatment without guaranteed reimbursement could place additional financial pressure on private institutions already grappling with rising operating costs.
They have called for a clear and adequately funded reimbursement mechanism to ensure the law is sustainable.
The Bill also sparked controversy during its passage through Parliament over Clause 11, which proposed amendments relating to termination of pregnancy.
The provision drew strong opposition from churches, traditional leaders and some legislators, who argued it conflicted with constitutional protections.
Women’s rights and reproductive health advocates, however, argued the clause would have modernised Zimbabwe’s health laws and improved access to lawful reproductive healthcare.
The Senate ultimately removed the clause before the Bill was passed.
Other aspects of the reforms have attracted criticism from the medical aid sector, particularly provisions affecting medical aid societies’ ownership of healthcare facilities.
Industry representatives warned that the measures could disrupt healthcare financing and increase costs, while government has maintained they are intended to eliminate conflicts of interest and strengthen regulation of the health sector.
Supporters of the new law say it marks a significant step towards enforcing the constitutional right to emergency medical treatment and ensuring that no person is denied life-saving healthcare because of financial hardship.
Critics, however, argue that its long-term success will depend on consistent Government funding, timely reimbursement of private healthcare providers and broader investment in Zimbabwe’s healthcare system.
