FANews
FANews
RELATED CATEGORIES
SUB CATEGORIES Featured Story |  Straight Talk |  The Stage | 

Discovery voices its concerns regarding Bobroff

05 November 2014 Jonathan Faurie
Jonathan Faurie, FAnews Journalist

Jonathan Faurie, FAnews Journalist

It is often said the calmest times happen moments before a major storm. After being out of the public eye for some time, the war of attrition between Ronald Bobroff, Director of Ronald Bobroff and Partners (RBP), and Discovery Health has resurfaced. Bobroff recently published an article on his website with a number of allegations against Discovery Health.

Following the article which we published on the Bobroff allegations, FAnews spoke to Jonathan Broomberg, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Discovery Health. Broomberg points out that Bobroff failed to point outsome of the facts on his website and there is a lot of misinformation.

What Bobroff did not say

“Discovery Health has never, and will never, force a policyholder to make a claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF). The majority of our policyholders have never made a claim against the RAF, and have not been forced to. The medical scheme has funded claims of over R2bn for over 25 000 policyholders who have been involved in accidents since 2006,” says Broomberg.

He expanded on this by pointing out that since 2006, 4 547 claims for road accidents have been submitted to the company and have been settled. The average cost per claim currently amounts to R60 268. The claims for the 25 000 policyholders amounted to almost R2bn, this is a significant amount to pay out for a return of only R308m. This means that Discovery Health has failed to claim back R1.3bn.

Broomberg points out that in 2013 alone, Discovery Health spent R233m on vehicle accident injuries.

The case against Discovery

“I am not aware of any Discovery Health employee who is forcing policyholders to sign the type of documentation that Bobroff is referring to. If Discovery Health was forcing policyholders to sign this documentation, would it not have been exposed in the media long ago? This is all smoke and mirror tactics from Bobroff to deflect the attention away from the legal predicament that RBP has found itself in,” says Broomberg.

There has only been one case where a policyholder has taken Discovery Health to the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS), and it was not because Discovery Health made them sign any of the documentation that Bobroff describes. Discovery Health was taken to the CMS by Mark and Jody Bellon following the accident which we highlighted in our last newsletter.

“Mark claimed from the RAF, and was paid out R6m between 2008 and 2010 of which less than R900 000 was in respect of medical expenses paid out by Discovery Health. On advice from Bobroff, Mark refused to refund Discovery Health for the medical expenses the scheme had already paid out for his medical claims. As a result of his refusal to reimburse the medical scheme, the Bellon’s membership was terminated. Bobroff advised the Bellon’s to lay a complaint with the CMS. The CMS ruled in favour of Discovery Health in 2011, confirming that Mark must refund the medical scheme the medical expenses he had received from the RAF,” says Broomberg.

Editor’s Thoughts:
While Bobroff has always been vocal about Discovery Health’s practices, the point that Broomberg made about this issue never being raised before in the media is a valid point and it is surprising that the only complaints against Discovery Health are from Bobroff. Please comment below, interact with us on Twitter at @fanews_online or email me your thoughts jonathan@fanews.co.za.

Comments

Added by Jerry, 05 Nov 2014
This is rich. Discovery accusing someone else of using "smoke and mirror tactics".
There is one company in the Financial Services industry in SA that stands out as using "smoke & mirrors" and that is Discovery. I recently was invited to a Research Survey meeting where I was one of 9 or 10 Brokers, invited to discuss their perceptions about SA Assurance & medical aid companies. We were not allowed to know which company it was that had commissioned the research. Discovery's name came up in the discussions and only 2 of the 9 brokers had anything good to say about them. The phrases "devious, deceptive, smoke & mirrors" were strongly attributed to Discovery by the majority of brokers present. It seemed to be agreed that they weren't necessarily doing anything illegal but their ethics left a lot to be desired. Many of the brokers told dealings with Discovery which had subsequent negative results for their clients and had caused them to cease placing business with them. I had personally spent about 9 months doing Due Dillegence on Discovery after I was approached by them to move my book over to them. My eventual decision was that I would not be doing the ethical thing for my clients. The final test was "would I do it to one of my children ? No"
"Would I be happy using one of the products myself? Not likely".
Discovery says nobody has brought it up before; the problem is how do you fight "Ethics" with the "Law". Like so many of our politicians, when they are caught benefiting themselves or their families unfairly - the simply say "there's no law against it".
Report Abuse
Added by Pino Pitacco, 05 Nov 2014
Do we really have to be exposed to this p*ss*ng match ?
Report Abuse
Added by Discovery member, 05 Nov 2014
"There has only been one case where a policyholder has taken Discovery Health to the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS)"

Maybe true for a RAF claim but surely not true to other issues as we have complained and just won a case against Discovery!
Report Abuse
Added by Cynic, 05 Nov 2014
Are RBF not subject to review by their own profession & the courts for overcharging RAF clients?. If this is true, then there campaign must be the ultimate Chutzpah; namely to use the media to paint yourself as the fighting for the poor by confronting Discovery. What great free advertising to supplement their TV campaigns
Report Abuse

Comment on this post

Name*
Email Address*
Comment
Security Check *
   
Quick Polls

QUESTION

The South African authorities are hard at work to ensure the country is removed from the global Financial Action Task Force grey-list by February or June 2025. What do you think about their ongoing efforts?

ANSWER

But what about the BRICS?
Compliance burden remains, grey-list or not.
End-2025 exit is too optimistic.
Grey-list is the new normal.
Too little, too late.
fanews magazine
FAnews October 2024 Get the latest issue of FAnews

This month's headlines

The township economy: an overlooked insurance market
FSCA regulates crypto assets: a new era for investors
Building trust: one epic client experience at a time
Two-Pot System rollout underlines the value of financial advice
The future looks bright for construction
Subscribe now