RSS Feeds RSS | Views on ITInews | contact | terms of use | privacy 

Editorial Categories:


Forthcoming Events:

No Upcoming Events

Save by getting insurance quotes

Proudly South AfricanInforming Consumers and Financial Advisors since 1988 | Click Here to Advertise
Car, household, life and business insurance quotes

News Article : Victory for regulator, members of medical schemes
Category: Healthcare Insurance : Medical Schemes
Author:Edited by ITInews
Email:[email protected]
Posted:07 Nov 2011

 Email this article Comment on this Article  Print this article

The prescribed minimum benefits (PMBs) which protect members of medical schemes remain in place

And the law which prescribes them stands. The North Gauteng High Court handed down the ruling earlier today.

The ruling came as a result of the Board of Healthcare Funders of Southern Africa (BHF), a body representing a number of medical schemes and administrators, later joined by the South African Municipal Workers’ Union National Medical Scheme (SAMWUMed), challenging Regulation 8 of the Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998 and asking the court to pronounce on it.

Regulation 8 states that medical schemes must pay for the diagnosis, treatment and care of all PMB conditions in full, or at the price charged by the healthcare provider.

The Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) was the first respondent in the matter; there were 12 others. The CMS is the custodian of the Medical Schemes Act and has always stood by a straightforward interpretation and implementation of the provisions on PMBs.

But, in a legal process that took almost a year, the BHF and SAMWUMed were seeking to have Regulation 8 interpreted to mean that schemes must pay for PMB conditions only up to the scheme tariff, effectively changing the meaning and purpose of the PMB provisions in the Act.

“We are delighted with this ruling,” said Dr Monwabisi Gantsho, Registrar of Medical Schemes and Chief Executive of the CMS who made time in his busy schedule to attend the court proceedings this morning.

“PMBs are a cornerstone of the Medical Schemes Act and they were included in legislation for a good reason: to protect beneficiaries against unforeseen ill health that may prove financially catastrophic for them."

"As the regulator tasked with looking after the best interests of medical scheme beneficiaries, we are happy that our courts have confirmed the need for such protection in law.”

The ruling is available on the CMS website ( here.

What this means for members of medical schemes

Today’s ruling effectively reaffirms the need for PMBs and the protection they offer to members of medical schemes. The Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998 and its provisions on PMBs remain unchanged.

Reminder: What are PMBs?

Prescribed minimum benefits (PMBs) are defined in the Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998.

They are the minimum, as opposed to maximum, level of diagnosis, treatment and care that your medical scheme is obliged by law to cover – and it must pay for all PMB conditions in full and from its risk pool, not from your savings account.

There are medical interventions over and above those prescribed for PMB conditions but your scheme may choose not to pay for them.

PMBs go hand in hand with DSPs. A designated service provider (DSP) is a healthcare provider (e.g. doctor, pharmacist, hospital) that is your medical scheme’s first choice when you need treatment or care for a PMB condition.

You can use a non-DSP voluntarily or involuntarily but be aware that when you choose to use a non-DSP, you may have to pay a portion of the bill as a copayment.

PMBs include 270 serious health conditions such as tuberculosis and cancer, any emergency condition, and 25 chronic diseases, including epilepsy, asthma and hypertension.

The CMS publishes an electronic newsletter on members’ rights to PMBs; CMScript is available on our website (

There are no comments at this stage. Be the first to comment!
Please Login To Comment On an Article - Click here To Login

ITInews invites comments at the foot of each of its articles in which readers can respond freely - anonymously if they wish - to various topical issues and industry debates. However, comments submitted by readers that are defamatory or deemed, by the editors, to be racist or obscene will be deleted from the database. Furthermore, ITInews's editor would like to caution potential posters on its websites that while it welcomes robust debate, it will not hesitate to make the IP addresses of the authors of such defamatory statements available to the authorities, in the event of a court order compelling them to do so.

Get car, home, life and business insurance quotes in 3 easy steps

Join us today

Insurance Quotes

Car Insurance Quotes
Household Insurance Quotes
Business Insurance Quotes
Funeral Insurance Quotes
Life Insurance Quotes

Read the InsuranceQuotes Blog

Healthcare Insurance - Medical Schemes
Medical Schemes
State Healthcare

More in Healthcare Insurance : Medical Schemes
The healthy decline of South African Medical Aid Schemes
Raising contributions while reducing benefits is not sustainable
Regulation 8 – Do we really think this is our only problem?
A rights based medical scheme framework with voluntary membership requirements
Discovery Health response to Stan Eiser
It is unclear why Mr. Eiser chooses to persist with these unfounded allegations
Discovery’s probable loss of control over Discovery Health Medical Scheme
By now Gore should have reduced Limited’s cash dependency on DHMS
Medical aids "need to demystify themselves"
Medical aids are offering less value for money
Regulator of medical schemes concerned over false advertising, high administration fees
"The public is being misled"
High Court dismissal of BHF application has profound implications for medical schemes industry
Triumph of a fanciful ideology on healthcare financing that lacks sustainability
I found your article on the court ruling regarding PMBs to be misleading
The uncertainty with regards to pricing of healthcare will be allowed to continue
Regulator deregisters GetMed Medical Scheme
Complaints received from its members
There are 2 realities about private medical cover in SA
Firstly it is expensive and secondly, benefit structures are complex
The latest on Bonitas Medical Fund
Postponement of the special general meeting and elections to 28 May 2011
Regulator wants curator for Sizwe Medical Fund
Investigation points to material irregularities
Bonitas in new hands
Costs awarded on a punitive basis
Regulator wants curator for Bonitas Medical Fund
... the third-largest medical scheme
Resolution no longer an administrator and managed care organisation
Flagrant contravention of the provisions contained in Regulation 23 of the Medical Schemes Act
How to choose your medical aid
I’m often asked by patients to
SAG Response to SAMA
Reduce the power of administrators
Specialist Advocacy Group overview
Particularly concerned for the safety of the patient in the current environment
Nonsense, says Discovery Health, we’ve never been better - response to newsletter
DHMS continues to enjoy the highest rating of any medical scheme in South Africa
Public or private practice?
Healthcare is a monopolistic business

Join ITInews in supporting

Available Recruitment:
No Vacancies Listed...

ITM Website Design Cape Town
Copyright © 2005 - 2015 ITInews Online Publications (Pty) Ltd. All rights reserved Insurance Times & Investments Online and ITInews. ..::ISSN 1995-1256::.. No part of the materials including graphics or logos, available in this Web site may be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated or reduced to any electronic medium or machine-readable form, in whole or in part, without specific permission from ITInews Online Publications (Pty) Ltd. Distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited.