Claims Hound

28/02/2026

Is spinal surgery for elderly patients simply a money-making racket that ultimately destroys both the patient and their family's quality of life, bankrupting them and their medical schemes? Who stands to gain when these procedures are performed and go wrong?

It is said that with age comes wisdom. For some of the fortunate “chronologically gifted”, financial freedom or comfort also comes with age. Sadly, one thing that rarely comes with age, is improved back and neck health! This leads to Laminectomies and Fusions increasingly being performed to treat stenosis in elderly patients. Unfortunately, we at Claims Hound have dealt with numerous of these cases.

All the patients that we assisted were aged between 69 and 81, and each one faced significant additional health issues.

Each of these patients had, regrettably, experienced extremely poor outcomes, which impacted not only themselves but also their families and medical schemes.

All these patients followed the correct authorisation procedures.

Quotes were received from neurosurgeons, orthopaedic surgeons and their assistants, prosthetic suppliers (billed through the hospital), and last but NEVER LEAST, the anaesthetists.

Surprisingly the Anaesthetists involved billed the highest percentages above scheme tariffs! (Our regular Facebook followers are now nodding knowingly, they are of course NOT surprised.)

As to the expected hospital stay, the unrealistic, rosy promise is around 5 days.

Once the medical schemes responded regarding the authorisation of procedures, and since they did not cover the full costs, the practitioners and institutions involved were ready to present their payment options to the overwhelmed patient and their concerned family. (In some instances, there were GAP cover companies that would pick up some of the shortfalls.)

One doctor offered a discount on shortfall payments made UPFRONT, with varying discount rates for EFT (electronic transfer) or credit card payments. (Not sure how this work in terms of the Consumer Protection Act.)

At this point, one would be permitted to wonder, are we still discussing the care of a someone’s beloved grandmother or grandfather? Or are we securing the next instalment on the doctor’s Porche?

The hospital handles the supply of the prostheses, presumably so that they could add a handling fee and/or add a profit margin to the items.

If our readers are watching and waiting for the speeding train to run off the rails, keep reading!

The reality turned out to be completely different:

1. One patient spent 4 days in hospital following the procedure, only to end up back in hospital shortly afterwards because of infection. She is still in hospital!

2. All the other patients were hospitalised for significantly longer periods, one was in hospital for a continuous period of 57 days due to complications and infection.

3. Non-Designated Service Providers (DSPs) needed to be involved including general surgeons and physicians resulting in large outstanding account balances.

4. Because of the investigations that needed to be done, pathology and radiology costs skyrocketed.

5. All the patients were bed-ridden for extended periods following the procedures and required extensive rehabilitation treatments at huge cost, alas without any significant improvement.

6. Because of payments that needed to be made and demanded by the service providers involved, several families lost their financial independence. As retirees, this is the greatest cost to pay!

7. Less affluent families had to get family members to quit their jobs to stay at home to look after the patients.

Claims Hound was successful in getting some of the service providers to reduce or write of the outstanding amounts not paid by the medical schemes and GAP cover companies.

In one instance the Orthopaedic surgeon paid for the prostheses used after both the hospital and supplier of the items discounted their invoices.

One of the hospitals involved was not a DSP and as such there was a 20% co-payment for which the patient was liable. They generously wrote off the amount.

Maybe they were concerned that they may be held liable for what appears to be a hospital acquired infection?

Perhaps the time has come to hold DOCTORS and HOSPITALS accountable for their actions.

If you are an elderly patient or know an elderly patient who had successful spinal surgery, please let us know who the doctors were and where the surgery was performed so that others may benefit.

If you had one of these procedures done and it went wrong, please let us know what you would do differently?

Please Comment on, SHARE and LIKE our post and FOLLOW the Claims Hound page.

For assistance, contact Claims Hound via:

Facebook Messenger or [email protected]

19/02/2026

Do the Designated Service Providers (DSPs), that your medical scheme FORCES you to use, ACTUALLY EXIST? Can your scheme tell you who they are? Are the DSPs qualified to treat your specific condition? Are they ANY GOOD? Are the DSPs timeously available to treat you? Does your scheme take responsibility for the work they do?

To ensure that your medical scheme covers your treatment in full, they often require you to use specific medical service providers, even in the event of non-emergency Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMBs).

These providers are often referred to as Network Providers or Designated Service Providers.

So, what happens if you use other service providers? In this case, your benefits are usually limited to scheme rates and out-of-pocket co-payments may apply.

According to a CMS appeal ruling, the aim of appointing DSPs is set out in Regulation 15E (2) (b) which states that, “The selection of participating health care providers must be based upon a clearly defined and reasonable policy which furthers the objectives of affordability, cost-effectiveness, quality of care and member access to health services.”

Our readers will recall that we have dealt with several cases where benefits for Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMBs) have been limited on the basis that the member used a non-DSP.

Claims Hound’s investigations have revealed the following:

1. Some Service Providers listed on the scheme provider search engines and websites as DSPs ARE NOT DSPs. (They may have been in the distant past.)

2. Some DSPs listed no longer practice or only practice part time (way past normal retirement age).

3. Some DSPs are only DSPs for specific benefit options.

4. Some DSPs have been involved in malpractice suits. (One settled a R4,8 million claim because the patient lost his leg after a botched operation.)

5. Some DSPs specialise in specific procedures only and cannot be used for all procedures, for example knee or shoulder operations.

6. Some DSP contact details are incorrect.

7. Some DSPs have moved offices and are no longer in the area for which they are listed. (One relocated from Johannesburg to Namibia but was still listed as practicing in Johannesburg!)

8. Sometimes NONE of the listed DSPs were available to perform the required procedures timeously.

9. Sometimes the lead surgeon is a DSP but none of the anaesthetists that he works with are.

10. Some schemes effectively contract their DSPs for a period of 1 month, yet their members can only change benefit options once a year!

11. Some schemes stipulate Government medical facilities as the only DSPs. (Do they have agreements with these facilities?)

12. One medical scheme sent a list of Network Hospitals to their members in November 2025 and then informed the members that some of the hospitals on the list were no longer Network Providers on 16 January 2026!

We have been able to obtain significant additional benefits for medical scheme members AND medical service providers from schemes where:

a. A suitably qualified DSP was not available within a reasonable distance from the patient’s place of residence or work.

b. A suitably qualified DSP was not timeously available to provide the required treatment.

So, what should you do the next time your medical scheme gives you a treatment authorisation, but your preferred service providers are not DSPs?

Ask your scheme to provide, in writing, a list of DSPs that are available and qualified to timeously do the treatment they have authorised.

You will likely be UNPLEASANTLY surprised by your scheme’s unwillingness, or rather INABILITY, to do so!

It appears that the main reason for listing DSPs may be to limit what schemes pay rather than to provide access to quality health care at affordable cost to scheme members and that schemes do not take any responsibility for the performance of the DSPs on their lists.

One scheme, when specifically asked stated that the performance of their DSPs is the responsibility of the Health Professions Council not theirs!

Please let us know what your experience has been in finding a scheme DSP for your specific treatment.

In closing, we believe that many DSPs listed by Medical Schemes are in fact NOT DSPs and that some of the schemes have not updated these details in many years.

We encourage you to log onto your scheme’s member portal, find a listed DSP and then contact, or rather try and contact, the specific DSP using the contact information provided by your scheme.

You may also want to GOOGLE the listed DSP to see if there are any published malpractice cases involving them.

We and the rest of the country would love to hear what you find!

Please Comment on, SHARE and LIKE our post and FOLLOW the Claims Hound page.

For assistance, contact Claims Hound via:

Facebook Messenger or [email protected]

07/02/2026

Has your medical scheme paid claims from your Medical Savings Account (MSA) that should have been paid from scheme funds as Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMBs)? Don’t let them get away with this! Stop running out of day-to-day benefits halfway through the year!

Certain schemes PRETEND not to know that a treatment was for a PMB, despite the diagnostic code on the doctor’s invoice clearly identifying it as such.

Some even have rules that require you to APPLY for out-of-hospital PMBs, EVEN WHEN the treatment forms part of their OWN pre- and post-operative PMB protocols.

The medical service provider invoice contains a Diagnostic Code, called an ICD-10 code.

If the specific code used indicates that the treatment was in respect of a PMB, your scheme is, by law, NOT allowed to pay the claim using funds from your MSA. It MUST pay the claims from scheme funds!

Sometimes, the ICD-10 code does not clearly indicate whether all treatments given are considered part of the PMB.

If this happens, your scheme should ask for more details to find out if the treatment qualifies as a PMB.

Classifying pathology and radiology claims as PMBs can be challenging because the general diagnostic code provided during invoicing does not specify an exact diagnosis.

This diagnosis can only be done once the test results are known.

The specific procedure codes DO however indicate what the tests were for.

Depending on the results, tests for Cholesterol, Blood Sugar Levels and Prostate Antigens, for example are ALL potential qualifiers for payment from schemes funds as PMBs.

If the results of your test indicates that you suffer from high cholesterol, then at least the following should be paid from scheme funds. Any items that were paid from your MSA MUST be REFUNDED to your MSA.

- The doctor’s consultation and related items.
- The cost of the tests.

Next, you must be registered on your scheme's PMB chronic program for cholesterol.

You are also eligible for a whole BASKET OF TREATMENTS, all of which MUST be paid for by scheme funds.

If you use the services of service providers designated by your scheme and your medication is on their formulary ALL these costs MUST be paid from scheme funds.

Sometimes the PMB treatment is NOT for a chronic condition but rather for a specific event where the diagnostic code identifies the treatment as a PMB.

One of our clients was rushed to Private Hospital ER following a severe reaction to food.

The diagnosis was “Anaphylactic shock due to adverse food reaction” with ICD-10 code T78.0, which is a PMB code.

She was treated in the ER facility and fortunately did not require hospitalisation.

Her medical scheme paid ALL the expenses from her MSA, only refunding her MSA when queried by Claims Hound.

Shockingly, not only is T78.0 a PMB code, but by the very nature of the event the treatment qualifies as a Medical Emergency, FULLY payable from scheme funds irrespective of whether a DSP was used or not.

We believe that the systems used by this particular medical scheme are intentionally set up to pay claims from MSA funds, even when the ICD-10 codes show the treatment was for a PMB unless the member queries how the claim was processed!

The only medical scheme we have encountered that notifies its members when they receive a claim that might be eligible for PMB payment is Bestmed.

The process followed by the other schemes we have dealt with, is simply to pay the claims from available MSA funds, hoping that the members don’t know it should be paid from scheme funds.

This results in members running out of benefits halfway through the year. Hardest hit are the pensioners, single parents and families struggling to make ends meet!

After all, the scheme can ease their well-lined conscience with a registered rule, saying you MUST apply for out-of-hospital PMB benefits.

Unless you apply you don’t qualify!

We do not believe that this is allowed in terms of legislation, but these schemes seem to get away with it.

In our experience, when we deal with cases like these, the schemes quickly correct the “error” and pay the claims from scheme funds.

Having an MSA has become hard work for members!

If you have an MSA, you MUST check every single claim that is paid from your MSA!

YOU must ensure that PMBs are not “ACCIDENTLY” paid using your own money rather than the scheme’s money.

Our followers know, in this industry, knowledge is power!

You can find the qualifying PMB ICD-10 codes on the Council for Medical Scheme website, bookmark it, use it!

We at Claims Hound strongly feel that all medical schemes should inform their members whenever claims are received for treatments that potential qualify as PMBs – BEFORE paying these claims from MSA funds.

FURTHER, where the ICD-10 code is a clear indicator of a PMB, such as a Pulmonary embolism, the claim MUST be paid from scheme funds whether or not the treatment is in hospital.

Don’t allow your medical scheme to effectively steal your money!

What is your experience at the hand of your own medical scheme?

Please Comment on, SHARE and LIKE our post and FOLLOW the Claims Hound page.

For assistance, contact Claims Hound via:

Facebook Messenger or [email protected]

23/01/2026

Don't allow your medical scheme to avoid paying for your non-emergency PMB in full, from scheme funds or to use your Medical Savings Account (MSA) to cover shortfalls because their Designated Service Providers (DSPs) or Networks were not available, not able to provide the services you need, or they could not tell you who these providers were.

Most medical schemes require members to use network providers for non-emergency PMB treatment to receive full funding from scheme funds.

Especially on Network restricted options.

When patients “choose” to use the services of doctors and other medical service providers who are not on their medical scheme’s DSP lists, and charge more than scheme tariffs, claims are either short paid or paid from Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).

While this seems to be allowed in terms of the Medical Schemes Act and related legislation, there are however some requirements to be met.

• The scheme needs to inform the member/patient who these service providers are and where they are situated.
• The service providers must be qualified and skilled to perform the specific procedures that the patient is required to have.
• The service providers must be timeously available.
• The service providers must be situated in proximity to the patient’s residence or place of work (currently it appears as if the criteria are within a 50 km range).
• In the case of Network Hospitals, a theatre and a bed must be timeously available.

Schemes typically state some version of the following in their Benefit Authorisation letters:

- A co-payment will apply if a NON-Network hospital is used.
Typically, this varies between 20% and 30%.

It's unclear how they manage this, as Department of Health Notice 214 of 2021 states they can't pay a NON-DSP less than a DSP.
You can find a copy of this overlooked piece of legislation on the Claims Hound website:

https://www.claimshound.co.za/legislation/

- Benefits will be limited to scheme rates and co-payments may apply.

- Payments to NON-DSPs are limited to scheme rates.

WE HAVE NOT COME ACROSS ANY SCHEME THAT ACTUALLY SPECIFIES ON THEIR APPROVAL LETTERS WHICH DSPs ARE AVAILABLE FOR PATIENTS TO USE WHEN THE ONES FOR WHOM APPROVAL IS REQUESTED ARE NOT.

We SUGGEST that patients and/or NON-DSP medical service providers do the following when requesting authorisation from medical schemes for NON-EMERGENCY PMB treatments.

a. Do the normal request for authorisation (usually by the prospective service provider).

b. After authorisation, email the medical scheme to ask which DSPs can and are available to perform the procedure within 50 km of the patient’s home or work.

c. If the information is not received within a reasonable time frame (which depends on how urgent the treatment is), send a follow-up email confirming that the scheme has not provided details of a suitably qualified and available DSP.

Consequently, the patient does not have the option to use a Designated Service Provider (DSP), as the scheme has failed to refer them to one.

This is especially relevant when Public Health Care facilities are the only DSPs listed by the Medical Scheme, as these facilities, including beds, are often unavailable.

Interestingly, GEMS APPEARS to have appointed Public Health Care facilities as the only providers for NON-PMB hospital admissions on their Tanzanite One benefit option.

Is there an effective contractual relationship between GEMS and the Public Health Care providers.

It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the unfortunate members on this benefit option will be able to timeously obtain the services they require.

Council for Medical Schemes (CMS Script October 2008) states:

"When approving scheme rules the Registrar's office requires schemes to demonstrate that they have conducted an assessment of the DSPs and that they have the assurance of the availability of services.

The Council for Medical Schemes has made it clear that DSP arrangements should be more than just a listing of a name, the very reason why DSPs were introduced is mainly for schemes to ensure that their members get proper care at a proper place and at an appropriate cost."

By changing DSPs to State facilities, the Scheme effectively changes the contract between the member and the Scheme.

Alarmingly, this change seems to have been made SHORTLY AFTER the members chose their benefit options! (Was this deliberate and pre-meditated?)

It should be noted that members choose their options considering the accessibility of network providers.

If a member selected a benefit option based on a nearby hospital being a DSP, should they not be allowed to change options if the scheme later removes that hospital from the DSP list?

Life Health Care had a lot to say about this to the medical community. A copy of the correspondence can be found at:

https://www.claimshound.co.za/current-issues/

It would be interesting to know the position of the CMS on this and if this rule change has been registered by the Registrar of Medical Schemes.

Have you been left in the lurch by the “disappearance” of your local DSP from your scheme’s list?

How do you feel about being forced to use a state facility when you are paying contributions to a Medical Scheme?

Please Comment on, SHARE and LIKE our post and FOLLOW the Claims Hound page.

For assistance, contact Claims Hound via:

Facebook Messenger or [email protected]

Current Issues Discovery Health 2026 Increases per Moneyweb Flexicare Retail Brochure 2025 Discovery Trauma Cover Retail Brochure 2025 Stratum 2025 first time cancer diagnosis benefit guide

08/01/2026

Discovery Health Medical Scheme (Independent from Discovery Group) should hold Discovery Health Pty Ltd (FOR PROFIT Administrator in Discovery Group) ACCOUNTABLE for the systemic over-payment of benefits and NOT the Medical Scheme Members.

Funds paid in error to Medical Service Providers should be collected from the Medical Service Providers and NOT the Members, the members did NOT receive the money.

We find it fascinating that the media, including eNCA seem to be unaware that Discovery Health Medical Scheme is COMPLETELY independent from the Discovery Group and that the processing error was made by their appointed Administrator, Discovery Health Pty Ltd.

We have noticed that Moneyweb has now posed the question:
“Should Discovery forgo admin fees for claims-error-affected members?”

Finally, a sensible question, we think that they MUST be held accountable for this error and so MUST the supposedly independent TRUSTEES of the medical scheme for allowing them to attempt to recover the funds from the members of the scheme.

Why Discovery Health Medical Scheme is holding their members liable for a programming error made by their Administrator boggles the mind and is worthy of investigation by the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS).

We have for a long time argued that the Medical Scheme and Administrator CANNOT share the Discovery name since it creates (deliberately) the impression that Discovery Group is in charge of the Medical Scheme, which apparently is the case in this instance.

Perhaps the TRUSTEES of Discovery Health Medical Scheme and their Principal Officer should be held personally accountable for NOT holding Discovery Health Pty Ltd (Administrator) accountable for their administrative error AND, worse for allowing the Administrator to attempt to collect the incorrectly paid benefits from the members of the scheme.

Interestingly they appear to have not requested that the Medical Service providers refund the money that they have received in error.

Perhaps the relationship between Discovery Health Pty Ltd and the funders involved is worthy of investigation.

Hopefully the Council for Medical Schemes will finally take action and instruct that the medical scheme and the Administrator CANNOT have the same name so that it is clear that the Medical Scheme is INDEPENDENT from the Administrator, and this misleading situation can come to an end.

It does appear that the Administrator gives instructions to the Medical Scheme and not the other way round, as it MUST be.

Perhaps the time has come for the members of Discovery Health Medical Scheme to request that the Trustees of the medical scheme consider moving to an independent Administrator outside of the Discovery Group.

We provide links to the eNCA and Moneyweb articles below.

https://www.enca.com/news-top-stories/discovery-clients-face-debts-r80000-after-repayment-demands

https://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-opinion/should-discovery-forgo-admin-fees-for-claims-error-affected-members/

Please Comment on, SHARE and LIKE our post and FOLLOW the Claims Hound page.

For assistance, contact Claims Hound via:

Facebook Messenger or [email protected]

24/12/2025

Premium Escalation clauses and Premium Review dates can result in you losing your Life Insurance Cover because you can NOT afford the premium.

Life Insurance companies use these tools to effectively price you out of your insurance cover as you get older (income tends to decrease after retirement).

Understanding how your Life Insurance policy works is critical to ensure that you are not unknowingly short-changed because of clever policy wordings and that you are able to make informed decisions when presented with different options on premium review dates.

In this post we look at the Liberty Life Lifestyle Penta Plus Policy of one of our clients who needed to choose between alternatives offered when his Premium Guarantee Period ended.

When he took out the policy on 1 Jan 2003 at the age of 36 the premium was R152 per month and provided R700 000 life cover.

The Life cover would remain R700 000 for the duration of the policy and the premium would increase by 5% every year until 1 Jan 2016 (guarantee review date) whereafter Liberty has the right to increase the premium should they feel that it was not sufficient to provide the R700 000 life cover.

There appears to be no limit as to how much Liberty could increase the premium by.

What a fantastic contractual opportunity to effectively terminate his life cover and their liability.

Liberty reviewed his premium on 1 Jan 2016, then R286,63 and advised that the premium was sufficient and extended the premium guarantee period to 1 Jan 2026, at which time he would be 59 years old.

Towards the end of November 2025 Liberty informed him that the premium, now R444,66 would NOT be sufficient to sustain the R700 000 life cover and presented him with 4 options.

We think there are 5 but Liberty chose to not alert him to the 5th one.

• Option 1
The cover remains R700 000 and the monthly Premium increases from R444,66 to R476,34 (7,12%) on 1 Jan 2026. Liberty guarantees this premium for ONE year and would review the premium again on 1 Jan 2027.

• Option 2
Move to an Age based premium structure where the cover would remain at R700 000 for the rest of his life and premiums would increase yearly based on his age.

The Premium would increase from R444,66 to R466,89 (5%) on 1 Jan 2026 and Liberty guarantees that the premium would NOT increase by more than 14% in any given year thereafter.

• Option 3
Increase the monthly Premium from R444,66 to R466,89 (5%), AND reduce the cover from R700 000 to R685 743,04 (2%) until 1 Jan 2027 (One year), whereafter Liberty would review the premium again.

We DON’T know why any parson would choose this option. Option 1 costs R9,45 per month more and your cover would remain at R700 000.

If you choose this option, you will have an annual saving in premiums of R113,40 BUT your life cover would reduce by R14 256,96.

• Option 4
The policy continues as is and any premium shortfalls are funded from the surrender value of the policy, AND the policy ends when the surrender value is exhausted.

The surrender value seems to be a value based on the performance of the Liberty Global Managed Portfolio AND the administration costs related to the policy.

At inception the costs were a monthly policy fee of R12 PLUS 4% of the premium less the policy fee.

Liberty quoted the surrender value of the policy as R33 144,57 on 24 Dec 2025.

The surrender value is not static, neither does it necessarily increase and it is NOT guaranteed.

Over the period 2015 to 2025 (10 years) it DECREASED by 3,4% in the worst performing year and increased by 24,7% in the best.

Using the 14% annual age based premium cap per option 2, we think that the surrender value will be exhausted round about age 68.

• Option 5 (Not mentioned by Liberty)
He could simply surrender the policy in which event he should receive R33 144,57 from Liberty, his cover would end, and he would not be liable for any further premiums.

Our client decided to go for option 2 for the following reasons:

a. He intends working to the age of 65 at which stage the guaranteed maximum premium he would need to pay would be R1 024,81 which is affordable to him.

b. His spouse is significantly younger than him and would benefit from the Life Cover in the event of his death.

c. His spouse, the beneficiary of the proceeds of the policy is able to and willing to assist with the premium payments.

Let us know which option you would choose and why.

Please Comment on, SHARE and LIKE our post and FOLLOW the Claims Hound page.

For assistance, contact Claims Hound via:

Facebook Messenger or [email protected]

22/11/2025

Cintocare Private Hospital, in Pretoria HAUNTS patient for R4 224,78 after Claims Hound gets Fedhealth to pay them R673 079,46 of an original outstanding amount of R677 304,24.

We were contacted by our client for assistance about 5 months after being treated at Cintocare Private Hospital. There was an outstanding balance owed to the hospital of R677 304,24.

Neither the Hospital nor the patient had any success in getting the medical scheme, Fedhealth to settle the outstanding amount.

The total bill was for a staggering R1 329 112,58!

With the co-operation of one of the treating doctors Claims Hound was successful in getting Fedhealth to settle R673 079,46 of the outstanding amount, leaving a balance of R4 224,78.

Claims Hound send an e-mail to Cintocare requesting that they write off the R4 224,78 in consideration of the additional payment of R673 079,46 that Claims Hound was able to secure for them.

The near immediate response at Debtors Clerk level was that they were grateful for the payment but will not be writing off the R4 224,78 and that the patient would be held liable for the full amount.

Claims Hound escalated the matter to the Chief Financial Officer who advised that she escalated the matter to the Board of Directors.

Interest in who these Directors might be Claims Hound visited the CintoCare website.

https://www.cintocare.com/

Alas, we were unable to find the names of the Directors on the Website, perhaps the readers of this post will have better luck.

The board of Directors responded stating that they were entitled to charge for the outstanding items and as such the patient remains liable for payment.

We didn’t think that they couldn’t charge for the items, we thought that perhaps they shouldn’t and show a bit of empathy.

Being important people, they did however respond on a letterhead listing their Directors as Sarel Botha, Andre Brink, Willem de Jager, Herman Kluge and Johann Kluge.

Clearly BEE requirements do not apply to Cintocare.

Several of the Directors appear to be medical doctors with rooms at the hospital.

Claims Hound further investigated the reasons for the non-payment of the items that made up the R4 224,78.

The items in question were:

• R2,814.24 – MAXNI NEO O2 SENSOR N25 3-40KG (Ward stock)
• R449.29 – CAVILON SPRAY SKIN
• R961.25 – XL DIAPER PULL UP ABRI FLEX

Fedhealth advised that as per the National Hospital Network (NHN), to which Cintocare belongs, only ONE sensor was billable every three weeks and that nappies can only be billed if Gastro was diagnosed.

The hospital invoiced for 9 sensors, and Fedhealth paid for 1. They regarded the use of the other 8 as excessive billing in line with the NHN agreement.

Fedhealth did however indicate that they would contact the hospital and request a motivation for the use of all the items in question.

Fedhealth agreed to pay the R449,29 in respect of the Cavilon spray.

We have unfortunately not received an updated statement of account from Cintocare and it is unclear whether they received any additional payments from Fedhealth.

Cintocare did however GENEROUSLY agree to the patient settling the outstanding amount, whatever it is, interest free over a 3-month period.

We suggest that patients query the non-payment of items on their hospital accounts with their medical schemes before agreeing to pay the outstanding balances.

Some items may NOT be billable in the first instance and others may be payable on providing the necessary motivations.

Have you had a similar experience at THIS or any other hospital?

Please Comment on, SHARE and LIKE our post and FOLLOW the Claims Hound page.

For assistance, contact Claims Hound via:

Facebook Messenger or [email protected]