Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 22, 2026

Minimum Burning Pressures of Water-based Emulsion Explosives
Published on: October 31, 2017
Agreeing on the minimum: An 11-year review of Prescribed Minimum Benefits appeals
P Mngadi1, J Wolvaardt, E Thsehla
1School of Health Systems and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Academy of Science of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. phakamile@assaf.org.za.
Insights
Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMBs) appeals in South Africa often involve medical aid schemes disputing liability. Cancers and emergency conditions are frequent reasons for these disputes, highlighting a need for clearer guidelines.
Area of Science:
- Health Policy Research
- Medical Scheme Regulation
- Healthcare Access and Affordability
Background:
- Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMBs) guarantee essential healthcare services for all South African medical aid members.
- Despite PMB provisions, approximately 40% of complaints to the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) concern PMBs.
- Appeals are permitted for stakeholders dissatisfied with CMS judgments on PMB complaints.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze and describe the trends in Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMB) appeals.
- To cover the period from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2016.
Main Methods:
- A descriptive, cross-sectional study design was employed.
- Data were extracted from the CMS Judgments on Appeals database, including PMB details, appeal levels, judgments, parties involved, and medical scheme types.
- Scheme categorization (open vs. restricted) was based on CMS lists, with data analysis performed using Stata v.14.
Main Results:
- Out of 340 retrieved reports, 123 PMB appeals (36.2%) were analyzed.
- Open medical schemes constituted 82.1% of all PMB appeals.
- Medical schemes appealed their payment liability in 50.4% of cases, with members winning 69.4% of these; members appealed scheme liability in 49.6% of cases, winning 80.3% against schemes.
Conclusions:
- A significant portion of PMB appeals (one-quarter) involved various cancers and emergency conditions.
- Medical schemes need to review and clarify payment guidelines, policies, and criteria for these services.
- Enhanced communication between medical schemes, healthcare providers, and members is crucial to reduce disputes.
Background:
Prescribed Minimum Benefits (PMBs) in South Africa (SA) are a set of minimum health services that all members of medical aid schemes have access to regardless of their benefit options or depleted funds. Medical aid schemes are liable to pay for these services. However, ~40% of all complaints received by the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) are in relation to PMBs. Individuals/stakeholders who are unsatisfied with judgments on their complaints are allowed to appeal.
Objectives:
To determine and describe the pattern of PMB appeals from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2016.
Methods:
This was a descriptive cross-sectional study that utilised the CMS Judgments on Appeals database. Data for PMBs, levels of appeal, judgments, appellants, respondents and medical scheme types were extracted. The CMS's lists of chronic conditions, PMBs and registered schemes were used to confirm PMBs and to categorise schemes as either open (i.e. to all South Africans) or restricted (i.e. only open to members of specific organisations). Data were extracted and frequencies were calculated using Stata software, version 14.
Results:
All eligible appeal reports (N=340) were retrieved and 123 PMB appeals were included in the study (36.2%). The median number of PMB appeals per year was 11 (interquartile range 9 - 27). Open schemes accounted for 82.1% of all the PMB appeals. Half of the total appeals (50.4%, 62/123) were by medical aid schemes appealing their liability to pay for PMBs, and of these 69.4% (43/62) were found in favour of members. The remaining half (49.6%, 61/123) were appeals by members appealing that schemes were liable to pay, and of these 80.3% (49/61) were found in favour of the medical aid schemes. Treatment options that were scheme exclusions constituted 34.4% (21/61) of reasons why schemes were found not liable to pay. Various types of cancers and emergency conditions constituted one-quarter of all PMB appeals.
Conclusions:
While the pattern is unclear and the extent of the problem is masked, this study shows that a quarter of the conflict resulting in PMB appeals was due to various types of cancers and emergency conditions. Medical schemes should revise their guidelines, policies and criteria for payment of these two services and improve their communication with healthcare providers and members.
Related Concept Videos
Determination of Multiple Dosing Parameters: Steady-State, Minimum and Maximum Concentrations
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Review and Preview
Benefits of Self-Esteem
Ethics in Research
Polygenic Traits

