Discovery Health Medical Scheme (DHMS) will engage with the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) to assess the impact of a recent ARB decision on the broader Discovery business and the medical schemes sector.
Last week, the ARB found a DHMS advert claiming “comprehensive chronic cover” to be misleading. The ruling, prompted by a complaint from Grant Pattison, the former chief executive of Massmart Holdings and Edcon, stated that the term “comprehensive” led consumers to believe DHMS covered most or all chronic conditions.
DHMS argued it complies with the Medical Schemes Act and its Regulations, covering 27 prescribed chronic conditions, and additional conditions on certain plans.
The ARB concluded the advert falsely implied DHMS provided coverage beyond legal requirements, deeming it misleading under advertising guidelines. DHMS was instructed to amend the advert to qualify the claim “within a reasonable timeframe”.
Read: Regulator finds ‘comprehensive chronic cover’ advert misleading
The advert, which appeared on DHMS’s X (formerly Twitter) account, stated “Comprehensive chronic cover for Discovery Health Medical Scheme members” in its opening line.
DHMS told Moonstone this week that the advert was part of a broader medical scheme campaign and was coming to an end.
“Our messages on digital advertising platforms are refreshed and amended at various points during the year and the subsequent campaigns no longer include this particular message,” DHMS said.
The medical scheme added that it has invited the ARB to engage with medical schemes and other companies to discuss the use of the word “comprehensive” as it applies across products, benefits, and offerings in the medical schemes industry.
“We will be engaging with the ARB in the coming days and weeks to understand the impact of this decision on the broader Discovery business and the entire medical aid sector as a whole.”
DHMS stated that although the ruling of the ARB was “relevant to ensure that there is no confusion among members, emanating from the scheme communications”, it was important to note that the ARB ruling did not appear to consider the accepted use of terminology within the medical scheme industry specifically.
According to the medical scheme, the term “comprehensive” is widely used and understood across the entire industry.
“The medical scheme regulator – namely the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS) – itself uses the term ‘comprehensive’ to describe medical scheme benefits, and the level of cover available to members across the industry. In relation to this, the benefits offered by DHMS to members living with a chronic illness significantly exceed the minimum standard required by the Medical Schemes Act,” DHMS stated.
It added that the medical schemes industry was highly complex, “with many nuances and product differences”.
“It is consequently a ‘high-advice’ environment wherein expert advisors are required to guide the general health consumer to ensure adequate understanding, and optimal financial and health choices,” DHMS stated.
