Court orders RAF to pay medical scheme members’ claims
Another attempt by the Road Accident Fund to contest liability based on the ‘majority decision’ against Discovery Health has fallen through.
#medicalexpenses
Majority judgment ‘does not alter’ RAF’s liability for medical scheme members’ claims
The High Court in Cape Town rejects the Road Accident Fund’s contention that the Mlambo judgment has altered the legal landscape.
Discovery vs RAF: CMS executive says High Court got it wrong
A regulatory expert believes the judgment misinterpreted key legal principles in its ruling on the RAF’s obligation to reimburse medical schemes.
Discovery to appeal ‘far-reaching’ judgment in favour of RAF
The High Court says Discovery Health misconstrued the scope of the judgment that set aside the RAF’s first directive on the payment of medical scheme members’ claims.
How the dispute between the RAF and Discovery unfolded
Discovery Health’s quest for reimbursement from the RAF for medical expenses incurred by road accident victims has faced multiple legal hurdles, with new RAF directives complicating the situation.
Why financial planners shouldn’t overlook gap cover in clients’ strategies
Gap cover can protect your clients’ retirement savings and long-term goals from unexpected medical expenses.
Strategies for brokers to address common misconceptions around gap cover
How to show your clients that gap cover can be the missing piece in their overall healthcare and financial protection strategy.
Medical scheme contribution hikes for 2025: what’s driving the surge?
Contribution increases in 2025 are exceeding CPI, with some medical schemes aiming to rebuild reserves and ensure long-term sustainability.
RAF makes noise while silence reigns on draft Road Accident Amendment Bill
Judgment is ‘forthcoming’ in the contempt of court case against the Road Accident Fund and its CEO, as Discovery Health seeks the enforcement of court rulings regarding unpaid claims.
Discovery Health says Road Accident Fund is in breach of court order
In 2022, the High Court ruled that the fund could not withhold payments for past medical expenses covered by medical schemes.
