🩺 Why Every South African Doctor Needs a Valid Practice Number

In South Africa, a practice number isn’t just a formality—it’s your legal gateway to private healthcare billing. Issued by the Board of Healthcare Funders (BHF) via the Practice Code Numbering System (PCNS), this unique identifier confirms your registration with a statutory health council and enables claims processing with medical schemes.

A valid practice number signifies professional legitimacy, regulatory compliance, and eligibility to operate independently. Without it, practitioners cannot legally invoice patients or insurers.

To apply:

• Register with your relevant council (e.g., HPCSA or AHPCSA)
• Download and submit the correct PCNS application form
• Provide supporting documents within 30 days
• Await BHF accreditation and issuance

💰 The 2025 annual subscription fee is R472.00, payable to maintain your listing.

✅ To verify any practitioner’s number, visit PCNS Verify.

Stay compliant. Stay credible. Your practice number is your professional passport.

Rising Mega Gap Claims Signal Growing Healthcare Funding Woes

The South African private healthcare sector is experiencing a worsening funding crisis, highlighted by a surge in mega gap claims (exceeding R50,000). Between 2020 and 2024, these claims increased by 512% in volume and 437% in value, with the average large loss gap claim reaching R63,000. This escalation is attributed to medical schemes reducing benefits, transferring risk to members, and provider costs outpacing inflation. Specialists’ charges can be over 500% higher than medical scheme reimbursements.

Key Trends and Statistics

• Increase in Claims: From 2022 to 2024, large loss claims volumes increased by an average of 35% year-on-year.
• Cost Drivers: Covid-19 and deferred surgeries significantly contributed to a 118% increase in claims value paid in 2021 compared to 2020.
• Age Distribution: While the highest claims (over R200,000) were for ischaemic heart disease in the 50+ age group, the under-49 age group accounts for 23% of large loss claims.
• Claim Distribution:
  • 62% of claims fall between R40,000-R60,000
  • 30% fall between R61,000-R100,000
  • 6% fall between R101,000-R150,000
  • 2% fall between R151,000-R210,000* Condition Types: Musculoskeletal conditions account for over 51% of claims, with spinal stenosis being the most common. Cancer and circulatory conditions each represent 10% of large loss claims.

Challenges and Implications

Gap insurance is facing exploitation, with healthcare providers potentially inflating charges upon learning of gap coverage. This threatens the sustainability of gap insurance and could lead to unaffordable premiums. Despite these issues, gap cover remains vital due to deductibles, co-payments, and reimbursement limits in medical schemes. Addressing unregulated provider pricing, benefit erosion, and gap insurance exploitation is crucial to prevent further deepening of the healthcare funding crisis.

Sources:
https://www.bizcommunity.com/article/rising-mega-gap-claims-signal-growing-healthcare-funding-woes-391118a#more

PAIA Requirement for Healthcare Practitioners

Refer to PAIA Memo 29 May 2025, on the Notice from the Information Regulator(IR) to register and submit a section 83(4) PAIA report before 30 June 2025.

Based on the Information Regulator the requirements are that Healthcare Practices, Sole Proprietor and Incorporated, need to submit the Section 83(4) report before the above date.

The objective of the submissions is to determine whether you are receiving and recording requests for access to information in your practice. The report requires you to also indicate whether the requests for information that were received were responded to within the time frames stipulated in PAIA and whether there were any internal appeals and the outcomes of those appeals.

Please take note of important points:

• All practices need to complete their registration on the IR portal
• Healthcare information is categorised in POPIA as special personal information.
• All practices will need to register or migrate their current registration to the new E-service with the IR (Your practice’s appointed Information Officer will be required to register on the IR portal.)

You will require the following information for this registration, as per the addendum.

1. Incorporated practices – CIPC registration
2. Sole Proprietor details
3. Information Officer (IO) and Deputy Information Officer(DIO) – ID numbers (new requirement)

Note that submission of access to information Annual Reports will close on 30 June 2025.

Additionally, you will not be able to submit your annual report unless your IO, HPB and DIOs are registered with the Regulator.

Do whatsapp us if you need assistance: 082 688 9610, or have us fulfill this mandatory  service for you.

READ SUMMARY

In a typical visit to your primary care doctor or nurse practitioner, you can expect a mere 10–12 minutes of face time with your doctor, who interrupts you within about 18 seconds and never fully listens to you. They do not have time to listen fully or think appropriately about each of the 20 or more patients they see every day.

After 55 years as a physician, I recognize that 12 minutes is fine for some problems or checkups, but it is not enough time to listen to a complicated history, give it real thought, and then develop an appropriate action plan. It is not enough time to deal with anxiety, which is the inciting cause or result of about 40% of doctor visits. It is not enough time for a patient with two chronic diseases and taking a half-dozen prescription medications who comes in with a new problem. It is certainly not enough time for an older patient with mobility, vision, hearing, or cognitive impairments.

This short shrift causes additional follow-on problems: excessive laboratory testing, sometimes unnecessary and expensive imaging, and referrals to specialists when more time with the history would suffice to make a diagnosis and decide on a treatment plan. All of this leads to increased healthcare costs for insurers and patients.

The numbers behind those numbers might shock you.

Most primary care physicians (PCPs) have a “panel” of 2,000 to 2,500 patients, meaning the number of people who utilize this PCP for their primary care. A rough rule of thumb for a patient panel ranging from young and healthy to older and frail with multiple issues is that about 1% per day will need an appointment. This equates to 20–25 visits per day and, therefore, brief visits.

Here’s an out-of-the box solution

This crisis in patient care has spawned a new approach called direct primary care (DPC) or concierge practice. In either of these, the doctor has a panel size of 400 to 800 individuals so that the PCP has the time needed with each patient to give top-level care.

It’s essentially like hiring a private doctor, but sharing the costs with a few hundred other patients.

Each offers superior care, greater patient satisfaction, and less physician burnout. Much better care results in fewer referrals for tests, imaging, or specialists, fewer visits to the ER, and fewer hospitalizations. The patient is more satisfied, the doctor is less stressed, you have many fewer copays, and the total care costs are much lower.

Perhaps not necessary for everyone, but certainly highly appropriate for those with any level of chronic illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, or lung disease or the dysfunctions of aging like reduced mobility or cognition. And with added attention to maintaining wellness, the likelihood of developing a chronic disease later is greatly reduced.

A frequent criticism is that DPC or concierge care requires out-of-pocket expenditures above insurance costs. This is an important issue, a tradeoff of dollars versus health. I will delve into these competing forces below.

Here is a true story that reflects many of the issues

My wife and I were having lunch with some friends. The lady, I will call her Susan, asked if I knew a particular neurologist. I did not, but I wondered why she had asked. “Well, if you knew him, maybe you could get me an earlier appointment. Right now, I must wait nearly two months to see him.”

I was gratified that she thought I had that kind of pull (which I did not), but I was curious and asked why she needed to see him. That prompted this story.

Susan was 64, married, insured, a successful professional, and in generally good health. She began to have a strange sensation in her right chest, described as a shooting sensation, almost electrical or vibrational. It stretched from high up in her right chest down to a narrow line over her rib cage and onto her abdomen. It seemed to be immediately under the skin, starting intermittently and ending at no set time.

She visited her primary care physician (PCP) and described this sensation, adding that she was concerned that it might be her heart. The doctor asked additional questions and performed an exam and electrocardiogram. All were normal except for the description of the sensation.

Her PCP was now running out of time for this fifteen-minute visit. Here was a fork in the road with two paths. One path would be to spend more time with her and search for the underlying cause. Given that Susan indicated a concern about her heart, the PCP chose the path of sending her to a cardiologist for further evaluation.

The cardiologist did a history and exam related to her heart and found nothing abnormal but suggested a stress test and an echocardiogram. (Do you hear the healthcare cash register ringing?) Both were normal. The cardiologist said it was not Susan’s heart that caused the problem, but since the sensation crossed over to the upper abdomen, it may be a good idea to see a gastroenterologist. (Check the cash register again, plus think of her increased anxiety.)

The GI doctor also took a history and exam and found nothing. Nevertheless, among many other tests, the doctor ordered a CT scan of the abdomen. Everything was normal except for a small cyst in her uterus. The radiologist read it as a benign cyst but — feeling the need to be cautious — recommended Susan visit a gynecologist. (Now, the cash register went into overdrive.)

The gynecologist also said it looked benign, but “to be on the safe side,” she could remove it laparoscopically. Susan would be “out of the hospital the same day and feeling fine in a day or so.” The cyst was just that, a benign cyst, but not before being told that it was “unusual,” so it was sent to a specialty pathology lab for confirmation. It took a week for the result; imagine her rising anxiety as she waited.

Susan still had the strange sensation in her chest, and no one had found an answer for her. But given that it seemed to have an electrical feeling, the gynecologist suggested it could be a nerve issue. So, after that long wait, she visited the neurologist, who found nothing, commenting that “in freshman medical school anatomy, we learn that nerves run around the chest, not up and down.” She left without an answer to her concern.

PCPs have too little time per patient

Susan’s story illustrates the problem that is so common today in primary care: insufficient time resulting in excess referrals to specialists and overuse of laboratory testing and imaging. Twenty-five years ago, about 5% of PCP visits resulted in a specialty referral. Today, it is nearly 20%. I doubt the patients are different; the doctors’ time is different. Lack of time also means most PCPs don’t help with getting specialist appointments, as happened with Susan and the neurologist.

Primary care is often thought of as being for the “simple stuff.” However, PCPs are trained and experienced to deal with most problems that cause a person to need medical care. When they do have time, PCPs can treat the vast majority of issues brought to them by their patients without the need for specialist referrals or excessive testing.

They can — and do — give superb preventive care. This care will reduce serious chronic illnesses in the future, especially for the diseases that account for 75–85 percent of all medical costs today. When PCPs have time, they can handle 90 percent (or more) of the care needs of those with chronic illnesses without a specialist referral. They can coordinate the care of patients who need to be referred, ensuring high levels of quality in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. By doing this, they can develop a trusting relationship and be true healers.

The primary care physician should be the backbone of the American healthcare system. But primary care is in crisis — a severe crisis. In this story, the PCP did not truly listen to his patient. He did not stop and think the issue out carefully. He had no time to delve into what might be causing Susan’s discomfort since there was a waiting room full of patients, and he needed to see about 24 that day. So, instead, he took the easier path and referred the patient to a cardiologist since this seemed like a logical choice given her stated concern.

Had he followed the other side of the fork in the road, listened long enough, and then thought about it, he would have concluded that Susan was hypersensitive to minor — albeit real — sensations. He would have offered reassurance that it did not represent a life-threatening ailment, that it was real but of no concern. He might have provided a few weeks of a low-dose anti-anxiety medication such as alprazolam (Xanax), offered further reassurance, and told her to return soon for a follow-up.

At the follow-up, he might have explored the issues producing anxiety or stress in her life — finances, marital relationship, a disruptive child, or an overbearing in-law. If he had done so, he would have learned that she was overcome with guilt that her grown son had become addicted to alcohol and narcotics. What Susan really needed was assistance to overcome her stress, not months of specialist hopping, which was unnecessary, expensive, and only increased her stress.

Specialists are too focused on their “organ,” not the whole patient

Susan was shipped from doctor to doctor, test to test, and even had an operation with no one listening enough to figure out her problem. All each specialist could do was say it was not in their “organ system” and leave her without a sense of closure. Each said it was not the heart, the stomach, or the nerves. The surgery “went fine,” but she still had the unpleasant sensation. This resulted in far less than adequate medical care and cost a king’s ransom — nearly $18,000, which, fortunately, was mostly paid by insurance.

That is what happens today. All that was needed was for the PCP to spend some more time — time to listen, time to think, and then time to counsel. That is not expensive at all, maybe a few hundred bucks. But “the system” doesn’t allow that.

Susan’s story is not at all uncommon. I could give you many similar examples. Her travails with the medical system illustrate how deep the problem goes. Her journey highlights the issues that need to be addressed.

Why so little time per patient?

Why do primary care physicians have so little time? The short answer is our insurance system, which attempts to manage costs through price controls. As a result, reimbursement has grown slowly while office costs have risen dramatically to cope with insurance requirements, preauthorizations, and malpractice, to name a few.

With costs rising and income steady, PCPs are forced to make up the difference through volume. This means seeing more patients per day. To see those 20–25 patients, the PCP shortens the time per visit to 20 minutes with about 10–12 minutes of actual “face time” with the patient.

In inflation-adjusted dollars, a PCP earns somewhat less today than in 1970 yet sees about twice as many patients per day. PCPs have been forced to focus on quantity when they should focus on quality.

I recently interviewed a PCP in an affluent small town in Maryland who is employed by a large primary care practice company. His employer requires that he see 24 patients daily, which he finds uncomfortable and stressful. He does not believe he is giving the level of care many of his patients require. Now, they want him to increase that number to 27. He plans to refuse and, if necessary, resign.

This crisis is the most pressing and urgent issue in healthcare delivery today. Healthcare delivery must be restructured now so that everyone, especially older adults with multiple chronic illnesses, can obtain quality, compassionate, and cost-effective care. This means having a committed primary care doctor with the time, knowledge, and experience to deliver the care needed. This will require both a change in how primary care is delivered and how it is purchased.

Among other high-income countries, Americans are the least likely to have a long-standing relationship with their PCP. Home visits are very uncommon, and Americans are the least likely to connect with their PCP after hours. On the “sort of” plus side, at 30%, American PCPs are more likely than those of other countries to screen for social needs such as housing, finances, marital discord, abuse, and food insecurity, according to an analysis by the Commonwealth Fund.

Direct primary care and concierge practices are the future

PCPs must change the paradigm and become direct primary care or concierge physicians. This means reducing the number of patients in the panel from their usual 2,000 -2,500 to around 600, even less if the practice is mostly elderly.

They give their cellphone number to patients to use 24/7, respond to texts and emails, and offer telemedicine. Appointments are the same or the next day and as long as needed. An annual evaluation is comprehensive, with a high focus on wellness preservation. The doctor does not accept insurance; the patient pays a monthly or yearly fee, usually ranging from $1000 to $2,000+ per year.

A slightly different model is used by, among others, MDVIP-affiliated doctors. Here, the PCP keeps the practice to about 500 or fewer patients. They accept insurance but also charge an annual fee for extensive wellness attention. Otherwise, the practice operates similarly to DPC or concierge practices.

A common criticism of direct primary care or concierge practices is the added out-of-pocket expense above already hefty insurance payments — “Isn’t it too expensive?” They are not. I encourage you to check out my earlier article on DPC costs versus benefits. Most DPC practices charge a reasonable fee given the attention given and often include free or wholesale costs of common generic medications and reduced-fee laboratory testing and imaging.

The results are stellar

Not only will you be on track to be healthier, which is the most essential value, but you will also save money with fewer visits and co-pays to specialists, tests, and prescriptions.

“A 2022 analysis by Hint Health found that DPC practices led to a 35% reduction in emergency room visits and a 50% decrease in hospital admissions. This shift can be attributed to the proactive nature of DPC, which emphasizes better access to care, routine screenings, and the management of chronic conditions,” as reviewed by Luis Cisneros in a wide-ranging article on DPC.

In Alaska, the Nuka Healthcare System, which uses a team approach to care with limited patients per team, has had stellar results as measured by patient and provider satisfaction, easy access to care, improved quality measures, reduced use of tests and specialists, fewer ER visits, and fewer hospitalizations.

When looked at from the totality of healthcare costs to America, the dollars spent on primary care will be more than the current approximately 5% of America’s nearly $5 trillion total health expenditures, perhaps about 7–9 percent. However, the result will be better care — by far — with greater satisfaction for patients and doctors alike. Importantly, with many fewer referrals, tests, and hospitalizations, there will be a major reduction in the total costs of care. This resolution does not add money to the system but reallocates it, ultimately reducing total expenditures.

It works. My wife and I both use DPC/concierge-style physicians. We find the care far superior and have each benefited from being able to call anytime, if necessary. We also get practical coaching to exercise, eat well, manage stress, and sleep enough. Yes, it costs money, but we believe it is worth the out-of-pocket expenditures.

I encourage you to give DPC a good look. Most DPC and concierge physicians will do a “meet and greet” at no charge. Take advantage and see for yourself.

You can read more about this crisis and its resolution in my book, Fixing The Primary Care Crisis.

Brought you courtesy of Medinol Medical Billing Software

Pro’s and Con’s of Telemedicine

Telemedicine in South Africa enhances healthcare access but faces significant challenges related to legal, ethical, and diagnostic standards, necessitating clearer regulations.

Key insights:

Improved Access

Telemedicine enhances healthcare access in rural areas, overcoming geographical barriers and improving patient care.

Doctor-Patient Relationship

Remote consultations can weaken the trust and relationship between doctors and patients, potentially leading to misdiagnosis.

Diagnostic Risks

Lack of physical examinations increases the risk of errors and malpractice, especially for conditions with subtle symptoms.

Legal Responsibilities

Healthcare providers share the same duty of care in telemedicine as in traditional settings, with jurisdictional complexities in cross-border cases.

Data Privacy Issues

Telemedicine raises substantial risks concerning data breaches and patient confidentiality, emphasizing compliance with PoPIA.

Regulatory Ambiguities

Current HPCSA guidelines are vague, highlighting a pressing need for clearer and more enforceable regulations.

Transformative Potential

Despite challenges, telemedicine holds significant potential to revolutionize healthcare, necessitating robust ethical and legal frameworks.

Courtesy of Better Practice Management

Why Your Healthcare Practice May Be Targeted by Cyber Hackers

Cybersecurity is a pressing concern for healthcare practitioners of all sizes. Many believe that their smaller practices are less likely to be targeted, but the reality is stark. In 2023, over 343 million individuals fell victim to cybercrimes, indicating that hackers do not discriminate based on size or sector.

Healthcare organizations, including private practices, are particularly vulnerable. In fact, small businesses are targeted 43% of the time, yet only 14% are adequately prepared to defend against these threats. Understanding why your practice might attract cyber attackers is essential for developing effective cybersecurity measures.

### Key Reasons Your Practice Could Be a Target

**1. Financial Gain and Sensitive Information**
Most hackers are motivated by financial gain. They may target your practice due to its financial value or the sensitive patient information it holds. Personal data, such as financial details and health records, can be sold on the dark web, making practices with extensive patient data attractive targets.

**2. Corporate Espionage**
Some hackers aim to steal valuable information like trade secrets or proprietary data. This stolen information can be sold to competitors or used to gain an advantage in the market. In some cases, hackers may even be hired by rival companies to conduct corporate espionage.

**3. Weak Security Measures**
Hackers often exploit vulnerabilities in cybersecurity defenses. Many small and medium-sized healthcare practices may lack robust security protocols, making them easy targets. They may use deceptive tactics, such as impersonating trusted sources or sending enticing offers, to trick employees into clicking malicious links or opening infected attachments.

**4. Disruption and Chaos**
Not all hackers are after money; some seek to create chaos. By targeting interconnected service providers, they can disrupt operations and create a ripple effect across the healthcare network, impacting patient care and services.

**5. Vulnerable Websites**
Websites that utilize platforms like WordPress with multiple plugins can be susceptible to attacks. Hackers may exploit these weaknesses to take down your site and demand a ransom. Often, they prefer multiple smaller payouts rather than one large ransom, making it easier to pressure practices into compliance.

**6. Targeting Executives**
Hackers frequently focus on executives within healthcare organizations due to their access to sensitive information. By breaching personal accounts or devices, they can blackmail these individuals by threatening to release damaging information unless a ransom is paid.

**7. Personal Grievances**
Occasionally, hackers are driven by personal motives against specific individuals or organizations. Protecting your practice involves using strong passwords, enabling two-factor authentication, and being cautious of suspicious emails.

**8. Opportunistic Attacks**
Some cyber attacks are not premeditated; rather, they are opportunistic in nature. Hackers may use automated tools to scan for vulnerable systems and send phishing emails in bulk to trick employees into revealing sensitive information.

In Conclusion

It’s crucial for healthcare practitioners to recognize that cyber threats can affect anyone, regardless of practice size or type. Staying vigilant and implementing strong cybersecurity measures is essential in protecting your practice from potential attacks and ensuring the safety of your patients’ information.

https://docdent.co.za