Legal updates and opinions
News / News
Medical Schemes Act Amendment: COVID-19 declared a PMB
by Neil Kirby, Director and Head of the Healthcare & Life Sciences practice and Zamathiyane Mthiyane, Senior Associate
Pursuant to a circular published by the Council of Medical Schemes (“the CMS”) on 26 March 2020 (“the Circular”), declaring COVID-19 a prescribed minimum benefit, as that term is defined in the Medical Schemes Act No. 131 of 1998 (“the MSA”), the Minister of Health has amended the MSA to align with the Circular (“the amendment”).
In terms of the amendment, published on 7 May 2020:
- the term “COVID-19” is defined as “an acute respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus”; and
- annexure A of the Regulations published in terms of the MSA, which lists prescribed minimum benefits, is amended to include the following illness:
“Respiratory System
TREATMENT: screening, clinically appropriate diagnostic tests, medication, medical management including hospitalisation and treatment of complications, and Rehabilitation of Covid -19.”
The effect of the amendment is that all medical scheme members, regardless of what plan they may be on, in the event that they contract COVID-19 and subsequently suffer respiratory illness due to COVID-19, the medical scheme is obliged to cover all costs associated with treatment complications associated with the respiratoryillness.
Where it may have previously been unclear whether or not medical schemes would cover the costs for the treatment of COVID-19 for members on lower plans, leaving the responsibility for payment on the State, the amendment, arguably, relieves certain financial pressure on the Department of Health in so far as the State is now obliged only to cover the costs of citizens who are not covered by medical schemes.
However, the Amendment is silent in respect of whether or not medical schemes must cover the costs for a member electing a COVID-19 screening as a precautionary measure or only once a member has shown symptoms of COVID-19. The CMS has, however, attempted to provide clarity, discussed below, in this regard.
In response to the amendment, the CMS published on 8 May 2020, an amended version of the “PMB definition guideline” (“the guideline”). In terms of the guideline, inter alia:
- testing of asymptomatic patients will be funded according to scheme rules. Arguably, The CMS contemplates that medical schemes will amend their rules to include a reference to the aforementioned guideline;
- reducing the person-to-person risk of transmission and reducing the number of patients at doctors’ rooms. In this regard, the CMS recommends that telehealth be delivered through online platforms and be reimbursed as PMB level of care in line with the latest Health Professions Council of South Africa communication;
- medical scheme rules must specify whether or not to cover for routine testing of asymptomatic patients who test negative for COVID-19;
- the CMS cannot stipulate the frequency of consults for a COVID-19 cases as this may vary between individuals and on the “case definition”;
- the following is not recommended in the guidelines as PMB level of care:
> follow-up treatment and care for any person (symptomatic) who tests negative for COVID-19; and
> follow-up care for any person (asymptomatic) who tests negative for COVID-19. Arguably, once one has tested negative there is no necessity for any follow-up care.
Arguably, certain of the guidelines may be ultra vires the amendment in so far as the guideline states that payment for screenings may, in certain instances, only be made if a patient tests positive for COVID-19.
In respect of the provisions in the guideline permitting medical schemes to regulate the payment or non-payment of screenings in terms of the applicable rules, we note that, in terms, of the amendment, “screenings”, are included as a prescribed minimum benefit that medical scheme must cover in full.
Latest News
Employer’s threat of criminal and civil proceedings against an employee
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Yusha Davidson, Candidate Attorney ISSUE Can an employer's threat of criminal and civil proceedings [...]
Different sanctions for employees who participated in an unlawful strike
By Jacques van Wyk, Director and Yusha Davidson, Candidate Attorney ISSUE Does the application of different discipline and issuing of [...]
Landmark case on treatment of trading stock
INTRODUCTION At about this time last year I wrote an article in relation to a decision of the Port Elizabeth [...]
Key elements of the Mining Charter, 2018
INTRODUCTION This note is designed to highlight the essential provisions contained in the Mining Charter, 2018 gazetted on 27 September [...]
“What constitutes hate speech?” – the equality court answers
On 5 October 2018, Sutherland J handed down an important judgment in the discourse of what constitutes hate speech in [...]
“So the wolf showed his teeth” – not again Facebook!
by Ahmore Burger-Smidt, Head of Data Privacy Practice "Little pigs! Little pigs! Let me in! Let me in!" "No! No! [...]
