Archive for the ‘News’ Category

SASES 2018 talks & photos

Wednesday, February 6th, 2019

Access to saved presentations is available online. Talks have been made available where the presenter has given permission for online publication to SASES members.

Congress site presentations

 

Memorable photos are available on the site:

Congress photos

 

 

 



Live Bariatric Workshop

Thursday, January 24th, 2019

Department of Surgery

Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University/Dr George Mukhari Hospital Faculty Management and Staff: Prof. Zac Koto, Prof. Heine van der Walt, Dr. Anel Lengton

Date:                      Friday 15th February 2019

Time:                     7:00am to close of day

Venue:                   S113, 1st floor, Clin path building, SMU campus.



Bariatric accreditation

Sunday, January 13th, 2019

SASES has been involved in the development of accreditation for bariatric surgeons in South Africa.

There are now 2 possible ways for a surgeon to achieve accreditation for performing bariatric surgery.

Please visit this page for further details.

http://sases.org/for-doctors/bariatric-accreditation/



‘NHI will be an unmitigated disaster’

Sunday, September 2nd, 2018

 

“Despite its proven incompetence at managing public service organisations, the government is determined to create a vast centralised healthcare system. Instead of failing only some South Africans, as it does now, government healthcare will soon fail all South Africans,” wrote Ivo Vegter in Daily Maverick; 27 August 2018.

“The government keeps proving that it is incapable of running large organisations. South African Airways, Eskom, Transnet, the Post Office, the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, Portnet, and a host of other state-owned enterprises are beset with critical problems.

“This reality has not, however, given government officials any pause in forging ahead with a proposed National Health Insurance (NHI) scheme.

 

“Minister of Health, Aaron Motsoaledi, is sure the government is capable of running universal healthcare, but the primary government website, www.gov.za, on which these bills are supposed to be available, was down and returning '502: Bad Gateway' errors at the time of writing.

 

"Almost no aspect of healthcare will remain outside the centralised control of the NHI Fund. Its scale and complexity will be simply enormous. This vast new bureaucracy will have power to contract for and procure virtually all medical products and services in the country.

“Such a bureaucracy will likely employ hundreds of thousands of people, and far from reducing costs, will layer additional costs on top of existing private and public healthcare spending. It will inevitably be inefficient, as government bureaucracies always are, and will present significant new opportunities for patronage and corruption,” wrote Vegter.

 

Practitioners likely to leave - study

 

Health practitioners in South Africa are very sceptical about government’s proposed National Health Insurance (NHI) plan, with many considering migrating to other countries if the ambitious project is implemented - according to a report released by trade union Solidarity.

Nicolien Welthagen, a senior researcher at the Solidarity Research Institute, said the research found that practitioners feel there has not been sufficient consultation with them on the government’s plans to implement the NHI.

72,6% of practitioners indicated that they have not been consulted during the process, while only 38,8% of general practitioners feel that they have sufficient knowledge of the NHI.

 

More than 80% of healthcare workers believe that health practitioners will leave SA if government steams ahead with the roll-out of the NHI and 81,7% of the respondents indicated that they believe the NHI will destabilise the health sector.

Solidarity cautioned that the concern about healthcare in SA, in light of the NHI, must not be regarded lightly.

This was the reason why Solidarity Occupational Guild for Healthcare Practitioners organised “a crisis summit” involving experts from the healthcare environment and economists.

According to Dirk Hermann, chief operations officer of Solidarity, healthcare practitioners now need support.

 

NHI will ‘nationalise’ healthcare

The proposed NHI legislation will effectively lead to the nationalisation of health services if doctors and other providers are forced to contract to the NHI - Michael Settas (Free Market Foundation) a consultant specialising in the health market industry at a media briefing in Sandton on 15 August. While universal health coverage is a laudable objective, the need for an NHI is questionable, as South Africa’s spending on healthcare is already high, and the public service should be improved to deliver better care. 

 

 

 



SASES AGM Notice 14 September 2018

Monday, July 30th, 2018

 

Enquiries:
Susan Parkes
Tel: 011-717-2601
Fax: 086-662-4320
info@sases.org

Postnet Suite 199, P/Bag X2600
Houghton 2041 Website: www.sases.org

 


 

NOTICE IS GIVEN FOR THE SASES AGM TO BE HELD ON FRIDAY 14 SEPTEMBER 2018
AT SASES 2018 – VINEYARD HOTEL, NEWLANDS, CAPE TOWN AT 11H30 - 12H30

 

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome and Apologies
2. Confirmation of minutes of AGM held on 7 August 2017
3. Matters arising (if any)
4. President’s Report
5. Report back from Travelling Fellows
6. Treasurer’s Report
7. General
8. Date of next Meeting

As this is a voting year, we welcome nominations for members of the Executive Committee.

The closing date for submission of your vote is
FRIDAY 7 SEPTEMBER 2018 and should be sent by email to the Secretariat at info@sases.org or susanparkes@mweb.co.za.

The successful candidates will be announced at the SASES AGM during the Congress in September 2018.

 

 

SASES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2017/18

PRESIDENT: Dr D Brombacher PAST PRESIDENT: Dr M Naidoo, VICE PRESIDENT: Prof E Panieri
TREASURER: Dr D Sofianos, SECRETARIAT: Dr E Coetzee
MEMBERS: Dr H Bougard, Dr M Brand, Prof Z Koto, Dr R Oodit, Prof A Numanoglu, Dr G Reimers

 

Downloads:

 

 

 

 

 



Update on the Medscheme – Appendectomy Pilot Study has ended

Sunday, December 25th, 2016

 

Aim: To make MAS affordable

Role Players: Medscheme and the Medical Aids they manage SASES members who join the pilot study

Essentials of the Study: No Letters of Motivation (LOM) for Laparoscopic Appendectomies

Surgeon to stay within financial parameters placed on the basket for disposables

The choice of disposables within that basket as per the Surgeon

The supplier of the disposables as per the Surgeon

Timeline: First SASES Medscheme meeting 6 June 2014

Presentation to SASES members – 8 August 2015

Press release 10 August 2015

Commencement date: 1 May 2016

To do: Get the Medscheme Medical Aids on board individually

Get the major hospital groups on board

Review: 6 months after commencement

Goal: If successful to then take on the Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia

Attached: 1) Press release 10 August

2) Response to questions raised by a SASES member on the viability of this Pilot Study

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

Medscheme and South African Society of Endoscopic Surgeons (SASES) reveal plans to pilot a new funding model for laparoscopic surgery.

 

In a joint presentation between Medscheme and SASES a new plan was revealed to address the challenges associated with funding laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery. The concept and a proposed pilot project which will address the high cost of consumables was presented at the prestigious ASSA SAGES congress held at the Durban International convention centre over the weekend. It was attended by surgeons and gastroenterologists in the public and private sector. Mr Simon Dreyer, a senior actuary at Medscheme and Dr Dick Brombacher, Vice-President of SASES outlined the project in a joint presentation.

 

Dreyer outlined the longstanding challenges of funding laparoscopic surgery in an environment where financial resources are limited. He went on to indicate that as an example a laparoscopic appendectomy can cost nearly 50% more than an open appendectomy. “It is because of this that we currently have interventions in place to restrict the funding of a number of endoscopic procedures, these include protocols allowing funding when certain criteria are met, letters of motivation from surgeons and co-payments” Dreyer indicated.

One of the key issues driving the price of laparoscopic surgery was the cost of the additional consumables that are used by surgeons to perform laparoscopic surgery.   Dreyer illustrated this using laparoscopic appendectomy as an example. The average cost of the consumables was just over R4600 per case, but there was a large range in the cost of the consumables used in this procedure. Dreyer illustrated examples where in some cases the cost of consumables used by surgeons approached R20 000 and in other cases surgeons were able to do the same procedure using consumables costing less R2000.

 

Dr Brombacher indicated that the current funding interventions in laparoscopic surgery, especially where surgeons were expected to write a motivation was not only an additional administrative burden but also intrusive on clinical autonomy. “As a society we wanted to work with Medscheme to understand what was driving the costs and then work together to find new solutions to address the funding and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery. We chose to start with laparoscopic appendectomy as a pilot with the intention of expanding the learnings to other procedures” stated Brombacher. Brombacher went on to state that the large variation in the use of and cost of laparoscopic consumables came as a surprise “and I wanted to share this information with all laparoscopic surgeons”.

Dr Brombacher went on to propose a solution to the members of SASES whereby a network of interested surgeons will be contracted who agree to keep the cost of laparoscopic consumables within a determined price. In addition consideration would be given to one tariff for appendectomy irrespective of whether it is done laparoscopically or open removing any financial incentive to do the procedure laparoscopically. “Surgeons who participate in this pilot will not be required to motivate to do a laparoscopic appendectomy. Their clinical outcomes and costs would be monitored and where indicated, outliers will be subject to peer management from SASES. Surgeons will be completely free to use whatever consumables they want as long as they keep within the determined cost for consumables and their clinical outcomes where good. SASES will support them and we have already had some discussions with the device companies.” stated Brombacher.

 

Dreyer went on to indicate that this initiative will reduce the cost of current laparoscopic appendectomies, allow for more of these procedures and still be cost neutral for medical schemes. Dreyer stated that “it is critical that the hospital groups and device companies also review their pricing and there have already been discussions with some of the major hospital groups and device companies”. Ultimately the member will benefit and this initiative could be expanded to other procedures going forward.

“We wanted to test this proposal with our surgeons before Medscheme engaged their client medical schemes on this.   The ASSA SAGES conference was the ideal platform and I am delighted that there was an overwhelming positive response from surgeons on this joint initiative” stated Brombacher.

 

Kevin Aron, the Chief Executive Officer of Medscheme states “Ongoing confrontation and litigation are unlikely to solve the current healthcare challenges we are facing as an industry. This is a great example illustrating how funders and healthcare professionals can work together to find solutions. By engaging and sharing information we were able to understand their challenges as surgeons and they were able to understand ours as funders. It is when common ground is found that new and innovative solutions can be formulated jointly. We can now take a mutually agreed solution to our client medical schemes for the benefit of their members.”

 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 

<www.sases.org.png>

From: SASES MEMBER

Sent: 27 August 2015 10:30

To: info@sases.org

Subject: Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Attention Dr D Brombacher

Whilst I applaud your attempts to work with medical aids to reduce the administrative burden I wish to remind you of the following:

Back in the day Surgicom had a similar agreement with Discovery for surgeons to reduce the costs of consumables.  It turned out that in fact most surgeons do not have much say in the final hospital costs, and it is the hospital that drives up the cost of each operation.  Certainly, working at a Life Hospital, there is very strong pressure to use certain sutures, ports etc. as they have cost agreements in place with various companies, and obviously they are intent on maximising profits.  As you know medical doctors have no executive power in the private hospitals, and management will thwart any “interference” in their financial affairs.  The end result of the Discovery / Surgicom initiative was that no savings were evident after 1 year, so the scheme was terminated.

 

When it comes to global fees for certain operations, as in DRG’s (diagnosis related group) there has to be complete co-operation between hospital management and the doctors doing the operations, and both must reap benefits from the resultant savings.  To date the private hospitals have totally excluded medical doctors from these discussions as they wish to keep any additional profit to themselves, and studiously exclude doctors.  So what is the underlying motivation for us to help save the medical aids money??

I still do not understand the need for a “motivation letter”?  The information is clearly contained in the codes that are submitted – these give the type of doctor (practice number), the diagnosis (reason for operation), and the actual operation to be done.  If the medical aids wish to be informed in writing, why the need for coding??

Regards

 

SASES MEMBER FRCS

 

Dear SASES MEMBER

Many thanks for your email and constructive points

I together with many others remember only too well previous projects / undertakings partnered with Medical Aids and the setbacks these undertakings had

The Discovery CPT4 Coding agreement of 1998 comes to  mind.

Despite this the SASES Exco took the line of re opening channels of communication with Medscheme to find common ground

I am not sure whether you attended the detailed resume' of all this work which Simon Dreyer ( Senior Actuary Medscheme) and I presented at the ASSA/SAGES meeting in Durban on Saturday 8 August

At this talk I walked you through the SASES website  ( sases.org)

We looked at

1) Position Statement on the use of Equipment and Medical Devices in surgical settings

Published 1 July 2014

Elsabe Klink was tasked with addressing the issue of the Surgeons autonomy re choice of devices and the suppliers of the same

It is a fantastic legal document which at the time we advised our membership to use as the 'trump card" for if and when Private Hospital Groups or their Pharmacists dictate the Surgeons choice in equipment selection

Regular and more frequent use of this position statement should alleviate the situation you allude to with Life and their dictatorial style

 

2) Consensus Document on Appendectomies

This document together with supporting letter from Prof. Eugenio Panieri-Dept of Surgery Groote Schuur Hospital; Prof. Alp Numanoglu - Dept of Paediatric Surgery Red Cross Children's Hospital; Prof. Zach Koto - University of Limpopo Medunsa campus Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital - support Laparoscopic Appendectomy as

- the Standard of care both in the Private and Public Sector.

 

Despite all this work having been done and being downloadable from the SASES Website - to use in correspondence with funders - the membership still needed constant Letters of Motivation (LOM's) to justify/ defend / get payment for the aforementioned operation

The initial meetings with Medscheme were to try and get around the members perception of unreasonable demands of LOM's and from these meetings we developed a mutual understanding of each other’s needs and concerns. Very early on it was evident that the :

- Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

- Laparoscopic Hiatus Hernia repair and

- Laparoscopic Colectomy were agreed on as Laparoscopic procedures.

 

The debate was the Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia repair and the Laparoscopic Appendectomy

As Simon Dreyer shared with the attendees at the talk is the old truth that there are 2 sides to every story. We the SASES members feel aggrieved that our autonomy is compromised however the schemes do have to balance the books and as long as there are surgeons using up to R20 000 in disposables - routinely for a Lap Appendix - there was and is no way they would ever role out a blanket ruling of allowing all appendectomies to be done laparoscopically without T's and C's. These T's and C's sadly currently are and will remain LOM's and lots of very frustrating paperwork

One could argue that the code we supply is enough - the need for LOM's then falls away. Sadly that is not going to happen while the differential on costs is so large and varied. There is a surgeon whose total cost of "disposables" is R795 per case. He /she is the lowest dot on the scattergram. The scattergram is however very wide and varied for the same procedure done by different surgeons.

 

Simon Dreyer and SASES then  sat down and teased out all the statistics. We looked at reasonable disposable needs. The model of 3 Trocars/ Haemolocks or Endoloops et al was used. Quotes from Covidien / Purple Surgical and Ethicon Endo Surgery were procured by SASES. The average price was just under R3000 for the aforementioned.

Medscheme then looked at what they could afford for disposables per case to make it work. Their number independently worked out was R3870. This leaves space for that extra Trocar if needed / that Endo bag where a No 8 glove's thumb just is not big enough etc.

This "basket price" for disposables (R3870) will then be what the surgeon may use per case. The disposables chosen and the supplier used remain wholly and solely the choice of the attending surgeon (hence the reference to the Elsabe Klink document).

 

The pilot study will be for a limited 6 months period.

The surgeons taking part will have to be SASES members

After 6 months both SASES and or Medscheme have the right to cancel the agreement

Bob like any working group we accept:

- this pilot study may not be perfect

- there will be stumbling blocks along the way

But we as the SASES Exco who have worked hard and long on this with Mike Marshall's team at Medscheme hope that it may be a step in the right direction

 

I hope this explains it all a bit better and hopefully answers some of your very justified concerns

 

Kind Regards

Dick Brombacher

 

Vice President

SASES Exco



Laparoscopic Colorectal Workshop

Thursday, October 22nd, 2015

You are invited to a Workshop with Prof Tim Rockall (MATTU – Guildford)

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON SPONSORED COLORECTAL TRAINING in conjunction with STORZ and endorsed by SASES

 

Date: 02 November 2015

Location: Wits Donald Gordon Medical Centre, Max Price Learning Centre

Date: 3rd November 2015

Location: Coastlands on the Ridge, Durban

Date: 04 November 2015

Location: Groote Schuur Hospital, Tafelberg Seminar Room, E-Floor, Main Building

 

AGENDA

Arrival and welcome

Case presentation

Live Surgery

Lunch

Presentation: Advances in Lap Colorectal Surgery with special emphasis on ERAS.

Discussion

Close

 

The course is intended to provide insight and training in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. It will be in the format of live surgery and presentation by Prof Tim Rockall, director of the renowned MATTU Institute and the Royal Surrey County Hospital.

RSVP by 30th OCTOBER 2015 to Khabo Malema: imalema@its.jnj.com

Or

011 265 1116/1046

 

Invitation-Prof-Rockall-WShop-Donald-Gordon-2nd-Nov.pdf (249 downloads)

 

Invitation-Prof-Rockall-WShop-Durban-3rd-Nov1.pdf (235 downloads)

 

Invitation-Prof-Rockall-WShop-GSH-4th-Nov1.pdf (312 downloads)

 



Medscheme and SASES appendectomy-funding pilot study has ended

Monday, August 24th, 2015

In a joint presentation between Medscheme and the SA Society of Endoscopic Surgeons (SASES) a new plan was revealed to address the challenges associated with funding laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery.  The concept and a proposed pilot project which will address the high cost of consumables was presented at the prestigious ASSA SAGES congress held at the Durban International Convention Centre earlier in the month.

The congress was attended by surgeons and gastroenterologists in the public and private sector.  Simon Dreyer, a senior actuary at Medscheme and Dr Dick Brombacher, chairperson of SASES outlined the project in joint presentation.

Dreyer outlined the longstanding challenges of funding laparoscopic surgery in an environment where financial resources are limited.  He went on to indicate that as an example a laparoscopic appendectomy can cost nearly 50% more than an open appendectomy.  “It is because of this that we currently have interventions in place to restrict the funding of a number of endoscopic procedures, these include protocols allowing funding when certain criteria are met, letters of motivation from surgeons and co-payments,” Dreyer indicated.

One of the key issues driving the price of laparoscopic surgery was the cost of the additional consumables that are used by surgeons to perform laparoscopic surgery. Dreyer illustrated this using laparoscopic appendicectomy as an example. The average cost of the consumables was just over R4,600 per case but there was a large range in the cost of the consumables used in this procedure.  Dreyer illustrated examples where in some cases the cost of consumables used by surgeons approached R20,000 and in other cases surgeons were able to do the same procedure using consumables costing less than R2,000.

Dr Brombacher indicated that the current funding interventions in laparoscopic surgery, especially where surgeons were expected to write a motivation were not only an additional administrative burden but also intrusive on clinical autonomy. “As a society we wanted to work with Medscheme to understand what was driving the costs and then work together to find new solutions to address the funding and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic surgery. We chose to start with laparoscopic appendectomy as a pilot with the intention of expanding the learnings to other procedures,” stated Brombacher. He went on to state that the large variation in the use of and cost of laparoscopic consumables came as a surprise and he added, “I wanted to share this information with all laparoscopic surgeons”.

Dr Brombacher went on to propose a solution to the members of SASES whereby a network of interested surgeons will be contracted who agree to keep the cost of laparoscopic consumables below a determined price.  In addition there will be one tariff for appendicectomy irrespective of whether it is done laparoscopically or open, removing any financial incentive to do the procedure laparoscopically.  “Surgeons who participate in this pilot will not be required to motivate to do a laparoscopic appendicectomy. Their clinical outcomes and costs would be monitored and where indicated outliers will be subject to peer management from SASES. Surgeons will be completely free to use whatever consumables they want as long as they keep within the determined cost for consumables and their clinical outcomes where good.  SASES will support them and we have already had some discussions with the device companies,” stated Brombacher.

Dreyer went on to indicate that this initiative will reduce the cost of current laparoscopic appendicectomies, allow for more of these procedures and still be cost neutral for medical schemes.  Dreyer said, “it is critical that the hospital groups and device companies also review their pricing and there have already been discussions with some of the major hospital groups and device companies”.  Ultimately the member will benefit and this initiative could be expanded to other procedures going forward.

“We wanted to test this proposal with our surgeons before Medscheme engaged their client medical schemes on this. The ASSA SAGES conference was the ideal platform and I am delighted that there was an overwhelmingly positive response from surgeons on this joint initiative,” stated Brombacher.

Kevin Aron, the Chief Executive Officer of Medscheme said, “Ongoing confrontation and litigation are unlikely to solve the current healthcare challenges we are facing as an industry. This is a great example illustrating how funders and healthcare professionals can work together to find solutions. By engaging and sharing information we were able to understand their challenges as surgeons and they were able to understand ours as funders. It is when common ground is found that new and innovative solutions can be formulated jointly. We can now take a mutually agreed solution to our client medical schemes for the benefit of their members.”

 

January 2017

This pilot phase of this study has closed and further enrollment of patients is no longer possible.

Data will be analysed and the various role-players will decide on how to proceed.

Further information will follow.

 

 

Source



Soaring medical malpractice claims

Saturday, October 11th, 2014

Soaring Medical Malpractice Claims Demand Statutory Intervention       (Article supplied by AON insurance)

 

Medical malpractice claims in South Africa are soaring as South Africa becomes an increasingly litigious society as awareness of rights grows under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), as well as a growing number of legal professionals who are heavily marketing medical malpractice litigation services.

The bulk of medical malpractice claims arise from orthopaedics, neurology and obstetrics/gynaecology.  Since 2009, claims in excess of R5million have increased by 900% and on average, one in every five claims are in excess of R1million, representing a 550% increase in the last decade.  A few landmark claims have topped the R25million mark. The Gauteng health department alone is facing negligence claims amounting to R1.28-billion for the 2012/2013 financial year.

“A contributing factor to the higher awards of many of these claims is the fact that many relate to children/infants where the repercussions and damages suffered are long-term.  The need for professional indemnity (PI) insurance for private medical practitioners has never been greater, not only to protect the medical professional, but also patients in the event that something does go wrong,” explains Malcolm Padayachee , Manager of Professional Risks at Aon South Africa, a leading risk advisory and insurance brokerage.

“However, herein lies the double-edged sword whereby certain classes of medical specialists, notably in obstetrics, are fast becoming uninsurable due to the high number of claims and settlements, leaving a huge percentage of practitioners either unwilling or unable to pay the high premiums for their PI cover, and commercial insurers declining to take on the higher risk.  In fact a number of local commercial insurers have withdrawn entirely from the PI market based on a reduced appetite for the growing risk in the medical malpractice space,” adds Malcolm.

PI insurance essentially provides the named insured in the policy with indemnity in respect of legal liability arising out of the practice of their profession.  Indemnity cover will include the professional’s own legal costs, as well as any compensation and legal costs that are due to the claimant up to the limit of indemnity of the policy, providing all parties with peace of mind and financial protection in the event of a malpractice claim.  A medical practitioner without PI protection would be personally liable for these costs and would run the risk of having all their assets attached, facing financial ruin, and leaving their patients financially uncompensated.

“The problem of patient vulnerability is further exacerbated by the fact that South Africa currently has no legislation that makes it compulsory for medical professionals to take out PI cover.  Although there were moves afoot in 2010/11 to make PI cover a statutory requirement by the end of 2012, this has not materialised. With an average annual premium cost of between R220 000 to R250 000 for a maximum of R30million liability cover adding to the running costs of an already cost-intensive medical practice for certain specialists, current estimates are that between 30-40% of medical specialists are practicing without cover.  This means they are operating at high risk, and more importantly, leaving their patients exposed in the event that they suffer a loss as a result of negligence on the part of the doctor,” he warns.  “It would be remiss to think that cases of malpractice only occur in the ailing public healthcare system where skills and resources are severely curtailed.  Medical negligence also happens in private practice and while it is obviously not as rampant, it is nevertheless a reality,” he says. 

Growing concerns about legal liability and the cost of PI cover are also having a negative impact on much needed specialist medical skills in South Africa, and consumers are going to end up carrying the brunt of it.  Firstly, the fear of litigation is seeing some doctors calling for more tests, many of them unnecessary, out of concerns of being sued, and in turn driving up costs.  Some specialist areas such as obstetrics, trauma, plastics, spinal/orthopedic and even pediatrics are also experiencing skills shortages as graduates choose not to specialise in fields that are seen to have high levels of litigation and risk.  The Consumer Protection Act has also brought additional liability for doctors, including the fact that doctors can even be sued for faulty equipment which they have no control over – the CPA essentially means that a patient can institute a claim against anyone in the supply chain, including the doctor, and not just the manufacturer of the faulty equipment.

While there are no comprehensive long terms statistics in SA on malpractice, stats out of the US show that only about 5% of claims ended up in court, and of these doctors won in 90% of the cases.  This would suggest that a very high number of frivolous claims are filed based on the hopes of high payouts in successful claims – and South Africa seems to be following suit.  It appears that medical professionals have a lot to be concerned about with more consumers suing simply because they can.

“It’s a lose-lose situation for all concerned.  Aon’s view is that a statutory solution is urgently needed whereby government caps the limit of liability to an injured party to a certain level, as it has been done in the US and various European countries and in fact, this is exactly what was done with the South African Road Accident Fund.  This will ensure that PI cover for medical practitioners remains sustainable and affordable, and that consumers are protected financially in the event of a successful malpractice claim.   Ultimately, if the current situation persists the consumer stands the most to lose as the number of medical professionals will dwindle, consultation costs will increase dramatically as a result, and where a claimant has a legitimate malpractice claim, they could walk away without any compensation or a dramatically reduced settlement if their doctor has no PI cover in place,” concludes Malcolm.



Position Statement 3 July 2014

Friday, July 4th, 2014

Click Here to download the Position Statement on the use of Equipment and Medical Devices in surgical settings



Latest News