Perhaps Stan Eiser was right after all:
"
Anayst Stan Eiser has continually questioned the sustainability of three of the Discovery schemes being deeply in the red. He says DHMS is “dangerously dependant on 30% of its members.
He points to the three weakest schemes: Executive, Classic Comprehensive and Key Care Plus.
Eiser writes: “The loss per average beneficiary has climbed on average 16% in the Executive Option from R6 048 in 2007 to R9 839 in 2011 and by a staggering 44% in Classic Comprehensive from R567 in 2007 to R1 568 in 2011. Key Care has moved from a profit of R264 in 2008 to a loss of R1 077 in 2011.”
And also this article , esp the comments (scrool down) by Stan Eiser , is of interest. It essentially means that the high options are loss making and "sponsored" by the low options.
http://www.moneyweb....r266bn-fee-for-
However :
Medical Aids for the low income is becoming unaffordable--if you earn 20 000 and less per month you pay up to 20 % of your salary towards a low cost option.
They are forced to pay for PMBs--the medical aids--on the low cost options .The doctors can charge higher and they are forced to pay the full fee. This is a (3 years ago ) unforeseen drain on their resources
So--perhaps there is some rot deep in the core