Category Legal Affairs

Doctors cautioned not to allow agreements with medical schemes to influence patient care decisions

03 April 2013 Anton van Loggerenberg, Bowman Gilfillan

Healthcare practitioners should be cautious when concluding designated service provider (DSP) agreements with medical aid schemes if the possibility exists that the quality of patient care is dictated by the agreement.

According to Anton van Loggerenberg, candidate attorney at Bowman Gilfillan, the pan-African legal services group, practitioners who conclude DSP agreements are at risk of breaching Regulation 7(3) of the Ethical Rules of Conduct for practitioners registered under the Health Professions Act of 1974.

This legislation stipulates that practitioners “shall not offer or accept any payment, benefit or material consideration which is calculated to induce him or her to act or not to act in a particular way not scientifically, professionally or medically indicated or to under-service, over-service or over-charge patients”.

Mr van Loggerenberg commented: “In essence, the acceptance of any payment, benefit or material consideration by a practitioner from either a medical scheme or patient in circumstances where the practitioner’s treatment or management of the patient amounts to ‘under-servicing’ is prohibited.”

In a recent media release, the Health professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) urged practitioners not to conclude agreements that may compromise the quality of patient care.

The HPCSA said that it was concerned that in certain circumstances medical aid schemes attempted to reduce costs by applying pressure on practitioners within a DSP network to prescribe medication or recommend treatment options, when other more appropriate, albeit more expensive, options were medically indicated and readily available.

“While medical schemes have in the past been able to control patient care, the HPCSA’s recently stated position will no doubt be welcomed by the medical profession,” said Mr van Loggerenberg.

For example, conduct may be found to be unprofessional should a practitioner in compliance with a DSP agreement, recommend a laparoscopy to a patient diagnosed with colon cancer, without recommending or discussion the option of a laparotomy when this is a treatment option.

Mr van Loggerenberg said: “It is advisable for all practitioners, despite the existence of a DSP agreement, to safeguard themselves from acting unprofessionally by always discussing all available treatment options with their patients, and similarly, not to allow an agreement to influence their professional opinion in the treatment and management of a patient.”

Quick Polls


In navigating the dynamic landscape of financial intermediaries in 2024, which strategy do you believe is most crucial for success?


Prioritising client needs
Embracing technological advancements
Staying abreast of regulatory developments
All of the above
fanews magazine
FAnews February 2024 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

On the insurance industry’s radar in 2024
Insurers, risk managers unsure of AI’s judgement credentials
Is offshore the place to be in 2024?
Gap claims: erosion of medical benefits, soaring specialist fees
Investments and retirement… is conventional wisdom under threat?
Subscribe now