Catch-22: A patient’s right to informational determination and the rendering of accounts by medical schemes
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Many people who have reached the age of majority still qualify as financial dependents of their parents, and may be registered as dependents on their parents’ medical schemes. This poses a practical conundrum, because major persons enjoy complete autonomy over their bodies to choose healthcare services as they please, including informational determination. However, their sensitive health information may end up being disclosed in the accounts rendered to their parents, as main members of medical schemes, thereby breaching their informational privacy, medical confidentiality and possibly also damaging personal relationships. On the other hand, medical schemes must ensure that they strictly manage the business of their hospitalisation to ensure that they can adhere to their contractual and legal medical insurance obligations. Both major but financially dependent patients and medical schemes have good legal grounds to defend their respective positions. In this article, we will analyse and clarify the applicable legal and ethical grounds by considering medical confidentiality, the Protection of Personal Information Act, the Consumer Protection Act and the Medical Schemes Act and rules. We shall conclude with recommendations to accommodate the interests of both parties.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The SAJBL is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
How to Cite
References
South Africa. Medical Schemes Act No. 131 of 1998.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision.
ICD-11. The global standard for diagnostic health information. Geneva: WHO, 2022. https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/classification-of-diseases (accessed 4 April 2023).
Parbhoo T. Understanding ICD-10 coding and its usage. S Afr Dental J 2021;76(2):59-60. https://doi.org/10.10520/ejc-sada-v76-n2-a3.
O’Neill A. Literacy rate in South Africa 2015. Statista. 21 July 2023. https://www. statista.com/statistics/572836/literacy-rate-in-south-africa/ (accessed 4 April 2023).
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. London: Oxford University Press, 2019.
Jansen van Vuuren and Another NNO v Kruger 1993 (4) SA 842 (AD).
South Africa. National Health Act No. 61 of 2003. Regulations: Surveillance and
control of notifiable medical conditions.
Bratt v IBM, 467 N.E.2d 126 (1984); Bratt, et al. v IBM, 785 F.2d 352 (1986).
South African Medical Association. HIV/AIDS guidelines. Pretoria: SAMA, 2014
https://www.samedical.org/images/attachments/guideline-ethical-human-
rights-aspects-on-hiv-aids-2006.pdf (accessed 23 February 2023).
SouthAfricanMedicalAssociation.EthicalandhumanrightsguidelinesonHIVand AIDS. Part A – general principles. Pretoria: SAMA, 2006. https://www.samedical.org/ images/attachments/guideline-ethical-human-rights-aspects-on-hiv-aids-2006.
pdf (accessed 23 February 2023).
South African Medical Association. Guidelines on maintaining patient
confidentiality in wards. Pretoria: SAMA, 2014 https://samedical.org/images/ attachments/guidelines-on-maintaining-confidentiality-in-wards-013.pdf (accessed 23 February 2023).
Skinner D, Mfecane S. Stigma, discrimination, and the implications for people living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa. SAHARA J Soc Aspects HIV/AIDS Res Alliance 2004;1(3):157-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17290376.2004.9724838
South Africa. National Health Act No. 61 of 2033. Section 14.
South Africa. Promotion of Access to Information Act No. 2 of 2000. Section 30. 15. Mallardi V. [Le origini del consenso informato] (The origin of informed consent).
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2005;25(5):312-327.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 12(2).
South Africa. Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 2013.
Campbell A. Relationship marketing in consumer markets: A comparison
of managerial and consumer attitudes about information privacy. J Direct Marketing 1997;11(3):44-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522- 7138(199722)11:3%3C44::AID-DIR7%3E3.0.CO;2-X
South Africa. Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 2013. Sections 26 and 27.
South Africa. Medical Schemes Act No. 131 of 1998. Sections 29(1)(d) and 59.
South Africa. Government Employees Medical Scheme (GEMS). Medical Schemes Rules. GEMS, 2018. Rules 15, 19(25), 21(4), and 21(13). https://www.gems.gov. za/-/media/Project/Documents/scheme-rules/2021/Scheme-rules/a-2021- GEMS-Rules--Main-Body-vFINAL-CMSregistered-on-31-Jan-2018-Effective-from-
-Jan-2018.ashx?la=en (accessed 24 February 2023).
Information Regulator South Africa. Guidance Note on the Processing of
Special Personal Information. 2021. https://inforegulator.org.za/wp-content/ uploads/2020/07/Guidance-Note-Processing-Special-PersonalInformati on-20210628-004.pdf (accessed 17 March 2023).
Pūras D. Human rights and the practice of medicine. Public Health Rev 2017;38:9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-017-0054-7
Rowe K, Moodley K. Patients as consumers of healthcare in South Africa: The ethical and legal implications. BMC Med Ethics 2013;14(1):14-15. https://doi. org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-15
South Africa. Consumer Protection Act No. 68 of 2008. Definitions: ‘consumer’. 26. Goodwin C. Privacy: Recognition of a consumer right. J Pub Pol Marketing
;10(1):149-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569101000111
Eastlick MA, Lotz SL, Warrington P. Understanding online B-to-C relationships: An integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment. J Bus Res
;59(8):877-886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.02.006
MargulisST.Privacyasasocialissueandbehavioralconcept.JSocIss2003;59(2):243-
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00063
Shils E. Privacy: Its constitution and vicissitudes. Law Contemp Problems
;31(2):281- 306.
Simmel G. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe: Free Press, 1950.
Foxman ER, Kilcoyne P. Information technology, marketing practice, and
consumer privacy: Ethical issues. J Pub Pol Marketing 1993;12(1):106-119. https://
doi.org/10.1177/074391569501200111
Sheehan KB, Hoy MG. Dimensions of privacy concern among online consumers. J Pub Pol Marketing 2000;19(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.19.1.62.16949 33. Phelps JE, D’Souza G, Nowak GJ. Antecedents and consequences of consumer
privacy concerns: An empirical investigation. J Interactive Marketing 2001;15(4):2-
https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.1019
Milberg SJ, Smith HJ, Burke SJ. Information privacy: Corporate management
and national regulation. Org Sci 2000;11(January-February):35-57. https://doi. org/10.10520/ejc-sada-v76-n2-a3