The heading of the newspaper article reads: "Plan to replace doctors' ethical tariff comes under fire"
It was proposed that as from April patients sign a document agreeing that they are prepared to pay a doctor more than the medical aid is prepared to charge. This means that people struggling for money will have to suffer their illness and possibly die, or go into dept.
It may also mean that we may have to join another medical aid fund to pay the amount the doctors do not cover. Already I have to pay my doctor fifty rand upfront every time I visit her even if it is only for ten minutes to write out a script, she would then claim from the medical aid scheme what they are prepared to pay for the treatment.
I am a sixty year old woman, and my medical aid covers me for pregnancies, prostate cancer, miscarriages, and a host of other problems I do not need coverage for at this stage of my life.
If medical aids cover individuals according to heir needs, perhaps patients have the necessary coverage for their health requirements.
Paying into a medical aid scheme should mean peace of mind when one is ill. At this rate it is more viable for the majority of people to just put that money into a bank savings account for the purpose to use it only for medical expenses. If the employers will agree to pay their portion into such a bank account also, it would be a better option for most people. Then they can just join an emergency hospital and accident scheme for peace of mind.
Medical aid schemes should look at what they pay their executives and see if the money drain does not lie there. How much does the executive earn compared to the doctor? Who works the hardest? What does the patient deserve? Both the medical aid schemes and the doctor should serve the patient. Currently they both function like parasites sucking the patients' emotional and financial health.
It is time that companies learn to create a balance between the payment of executive staff, the profits the company incurs and the service they provide.
