White-Labelling in Health Insurance: What the Centriq–Dis-Chem Ruling Means for Insurers

The recent Appeals Board ruling in the matter of Centriq Insurance Company (Pty) Ltd v Council for Medical Schemes has brought renewed focus to the regulatory treatment of white-labelling arrangements in the health insurance space.

The ruling, read together with Circular 48 of 2025 issued by the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS), makes it clear that while white-labelling is not inherently impermissible, insurers operating health insurance products under section 8(h) exemptions must comply strictly with the conditions attached to those exemptions. In particular, branding or presentation changes that alter how a product is identified in the market may trigger regulatory obligations.

For insurers, the decision is significant because it confirms that compliance extends beyond product design to include how products are branded and perceived by consumers.

Statutory and regulatory framework

The appeal was brought in terms of section 50(3) of the Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998 (MSA), which provides for an appeal to the Appeal Board by a person aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar acting with the concurrence of the Council, or by a decision of the Council.

Section 8(h) of the MSA empowers the CMS, in exceptional cases and subject to conditions, to grant exemptions from certain provisions of the Act. Insurers offering health insurance products within the demarcation framework often rely on such exemptions.

The case therefore turned not on whether the underlying product was lawful, but on whether the conditions attached to the exemption had been complied with.

The CMS’s oversight role must also be understood within the broader demarcation framework, which regulates the boundary between medical schemes and insurance products. Protecting the integrity of the medical schemes environment remains a central regulatory objective.

Factual background

Centriq had obtained an exemption under section 8(h) in respect of its MyHealth insurance products, subject to certain conditions. One of the relevant conditions, according to the CMS, required notification of any name change.

In March 2022, Centriq, together with Kaelo Risk and Dis-Chem, entered into a white-labelling arrangement in terms of which Centriq’s products were marketed using Dis-Chem branding.

Following media reports on the arrangement, the CMS initiated an inquiry. The issue was not whether Centriq had a valid exemption, but whether the branding and presentation of the products as Dis-Chem-branded products constituted a material change requiring notification or approval under the exemption conditions.

The issue on appeal

Centriq challenged the CMS directive, contending that the white-labelling arrangement did not result in a different product and did not breach the Medical Schemes Act, the demarcation framework or the exemption conditions. The appeal was dismissed.

Circular 48 of 2025 confirms that the CMS’s directive stands, including the requirement that Centriq cease the relevant commercial arrangement.

White-labelling and its lawfulness

A key clarification emerging from the matter is that white-labelling itself was not treated as unlawful.

The difficulty arose from the manner in which the products were branded and presented in the market. The regulatory concern was that the addition of Dis-Chem branding altered the way in which the products were identified by consumers.

This meant that the issue was not the permissibility of the commercial arrangement in principle, but whether the implementation of that arrangement triggered obligations under the exemption framework.

Why branding mattered

Prior to the arrangement, the products were marketed as “MyHealth Core” and “MyHealth Vital”. Following the implementation of the agreement, they were marketed as “Dis-Chem MyHealth Core” and “Dis-Chem MyHealth Vital”.

From a regulatory perspective, this was treated as more than a superficial branding exercise. The addition of “Dis-Chem” changed how the products were presented and understood in the market.

The effect was that what may have been intended as a marketing exercise was regarded as a material change requiring notification in terms of the exemption conditions.

Importantly, the analysis did not depend on whether there had been changes to underwriting, benefits or administration. The focus was on the identity of the product as presented to consumers.

Regulatory significance

Circular 48 of 2025 confirms the outcome of the appeal and reinforces the CMS’s position that exemption conditions must be strictly complied with.
The circular makes it clear that non-compliance with exemption conditions may result in regulatory action, including directives, penalties and potentially the withdrawal of the exemption.

The message from the regulator is that exemption conditions are not administrative formalities, but form part of the regulatory framework governing the product.

Implications for insurers

The ruling has a number of important implications for insurers.

First, it confirms that branding and market presentation can themselves trigger regulatory obligations. Changes that appear commercial or marketing-driven may nevertheless constitute material regulatory events.

Second, it reinforces that exemptions are conditional. Insurers cannot assume that, because the underlying product remains unchanged, associated branding or partnership arrangements fall outside the scope of the exemption conditions.

Third, it highlights the need for stronger governance. White-labelling arrangements, affinity partnerships and retail distribution models should be reviewed from a regulatory perspective before implementation.

Exemption conditions should be examined carefully to identify notification or approval requirements, particularly in relation to naming, branding and product presentation.

Conclusion

The Appeals Board ruling does not prohibit white-labelling arrangements in the exempted health insurance space. However, it confirms that such arrangements must be implemented in strict compliance with exemption conditions and regulatory requirements.
For insurers operating under section 8(h) exemptions, the key takeaway is that branding is not merely a marketing consideration. It is a regulatory issue that may trigger compliance obligations.

The decision serves as an important reminder that regulatory compliance extends beyond product design to include how products are positioned, described and perceived in the market.

Download the ruling here...

Download the full CMS Circular here...