Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has moved to end a long-running row over the extent to which medical schemes are liable for their members’ bills‚ flighting a set of proposals that appears to appease funders at the expense of patients.
Critics say the minister’s proposed amendments to Regulation 8 of the Medical Schemes Act‚ published for comment last Tuesday‚ effectively roll back consumers’ rights and leave them vulnerable to potentially catastrophic medical expenses.
“Patients will no longer have certainty that their emergency‚ chronic conditions or cancer will be paid in full‚” said Umunyana Rugege‚ an attorney with lobby group Section 27‚ questioning why the minister’s far-reaching proposals had not been accompanied by any policy documents or analysis of the medical schemes industry.
Regulation 8 currently says medical schemes must cover the full cost of members’ bills for prescribed minimum benefits‚ regardless of what their healthcare providers charge.
Prescribed minimum benefits are a basket of healthcare services that all medical schemes must provide to their members‚ no matter which benefit package they buy.
It has been a fiercely contested aspect of healthcare legislation for several years and is being challenged in the High Court in Cape Town by Cape-based medical scheme Genesis.
The proposed amendments‚ if accepted in their current form‚ will limit medical schemes’ liabilities to the rates set out in a 2006 tariff guide called the National Health Reference Price List‚ adjusted for consumer price inflation. Amendments say medical schemes could negotiate higher tariffs with healthcare providers to protect members from co-payments if they wished‚ but they were not legally obliged to.
In effect‚ the draft regulations reduce some financial risk medical schemes face for prescribed minimum benefits and shift the burden to consumers‚ who have virtually no power to negotiate with healthcare providers‚ said Alex van den Heever‚ chair of social security system administration and management studies at the University of the Witwatersrand School of Governance.
“No country in the world expects consumers to fight at the point of service about a price (for healthcare).
“These regulations are a gift to vested interests. The people who are going to be most harmed are those who face exorbitant out-of-pocket bills that are beyond their assets.”
Van den Heever said the amendments proposed a withdrawal of healthcare rights which was at odds with Section 27 of the Constitution‚ predicting they would be challenged in court if they were promulgated in their current form.
The health department’s head of regulation and compliance‚ Anban Pillay‚ said the aim of the draft regulations was to protect medical schemes from open-ended liability for prescribed minimum benefit conditions claims.
“There is an unequal balance between medical schemes and providers‚ who have a blank cheque to charge what they like.”
The cost of prescribed minimum benefits was pushing up the costs of private healthcare and making the medical scheme industry unsustainable‚ he said.
The Council for Medical Schemes would help protect consumers because it would not approve medical schemes’ benefit packages if they failed to make adequate provision for their members‚ said Pillay. He conceded that patients might face co-payments and advised them to familiarise themselves with their medical schemes’ rules. It is understood the council was not consulted either.
The Board of Healthcare Funders‚ an association of medical schemes and administrators‚ welcomed the proposals. “It is a step in the right direction‚” said managing director Humphrey Zokufa‚ insisting patients would not face co-payments.
Van den Heever took issue with the department’s claim that prescribed minimum benefits had made the private healthcare market unsustainable by pushing up costs‚ arguing that most medical schemes were not paying out the full costs of those conditions and were effectively cheating their members out of benefits due to them. — BDLive
Medical schemes’ liability move
Critics say the minister’s proposed amendments to Regulation 8 of the Medical Schemes Act‚ published for comment last Tuesday‚ effectively roll back consumers’ rights and leave them vulnerable to potentially catastrophic medical expenses.
“Patients will no longer have certainty that their emergency‚ chronic conditions or cancer will be paid in full‚” said Umunyana Rugege‚ an attorney with lobby group Section 27‚ questioning why the minister’s far-reaching proposals had not been accompanied by any policy documents or analysis of the medical schemes industry.
Regulation 8 currently says medical schemes must cover the full cost of members’ bills for prescribed minimum benefits‚ regardless of what their healthcare providers charge.
Prescribed minimum benefits are a basket of healthcare services that all medical schemes must provide to their members‚ no matter which benefit package they buy.
It has been a fiercely contested aspect of healthcare legislation for several years and is being challenged in the High Court in Cape Town by Cape-based medical scheme Genesis.
The proposed amendments‚ if accepted in their current form‚ will limit medical schemes’ liabilities to the rates set out in a 2006 tariff guide called the National Health Reference Price List‚ adjusted for consumer price inflation. Amendments say medical schemes could negotiate higher tariffs with healthcare providers to protect members from co-payments if they wished‚ but they were not legally obliged to.
In effect‚ the draft regulations reduce some financial risk medical schemes face for prescribed minimum benefits and shift the burden to consumers‚ who have virtually no power to negotiate with healthcare providers‚ said Alex van den Heever‚ chair of social security system administration and management studies at the University of the Witwatersrand School of Governance.
“No country in the world expects consumers to fight at the point of service about a price (for healthcare).
“These regulations are a gift to vested interests. The people who are going to be most harmed are those who face exorbitant out-of-pocket bills that are beyond their assets.”
Van den Heever said the amendments proposed a withdrawal of healthcare rights which was at odds with Section 27 of the Constitution‚ predicting they would be challenged in court if they were promulgated in their current form.
The health department’s head of regulation and compliance‚ Anban Pillay‚ said the aim of the draft regulations was to protect medical schemes from open-ended liability for prescribed minimum benefit conditions claims.
“There is an unequal balance between medical schemes and providers‚ who have a blank cheque to charge what they like.”
The cost of prescribed minimum benefits was pushing up the costs of private healthcare and making the medical scheme industry unsustainable‚ he said.
The Council for Medical Schemes would help protect consumers because it would not approve medical schemes’ benefit packages if they failed to make adequate provision for their members‚ said Pillay. He conceded that patients might face co-payments and advised them to familiarise themselves with their medical schemes’ rules. It is understood the council was not consulted either.
The Board of Healthcare Funders‚ an association of medical schemes and administrators‚ welcomed the proposals. “It is a step in the right direction‚” said managing director Humphrey Zokufa‚ insisting patients would not face co-payments.
Van den Heever took issue with the department’s claim that prescribed minimum benefits had made the private healthcare market unsustainable by pushing up costs‚ arguing that most medical schemes were not paying out the full costs of those conditions and were effectively cheating their members out of benefits due to them. — BDLive
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos