Medical Malpractice Insurance. In this blog, we examine the risks of taking malpractice insurance with the current market leader, an international player in South Africa – let’s call them Provider M – and why a South African-based insurance provider, which we name Provider X, is a far better choice.
As a healthcare practitioner, you understand the importance of protecting yourself and your patients from any potential risks that may arise from your practice. One of the essential protections is having professional indemnity insurance to safeguard yourself against medical malpractice claims. However, not all insurance providers are equal in the level of protection and support they offer.
Did you know that Provider X is also a Takaful Product and the fastest growing Malpractice Insurance provider in South Africa?
Provider M – the current market leader in South Africa, is a global organization that offers professional indemnity insurance, medico-legal advice, and ethical guidance to healthcare professionals worldwide, including South Africa. Although it has a presence in South Africa, Provider M falls outside the regulatory authority of the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA), the organization responsible for overseeing and regulating financial services providers in the country.
This means that Provider M operates under its own rules and regulations and is not subject to the same level of scrutiny and oversight as other insurance providers regulated by FSCA.
On the other hand, Provider X is a South African-based insurance provider that is domiciled in the country and falls under the regulatory care of FSCA. This means that Provider X must comply with strict regulatory standards and meet the highest ethical and professional standards. The fact that Provider X is regulated by FSCA means that it offers greater transparency and accountability to its clients, including healthcare practitioners.
Medical Malpractice Insurance: Tabulated Differences
Let us look at some side-by-side comparisons between Providers M and X to help you understand why Provider X is a far better choice:
|Provider M -Market Leader||Provider X|
|Regulatory Oversight||Not regulated by FSCA||Regulated by FSCA|
|Financial Stability||Not rated by any agency||Rated by Global Credit Rating|
|Support and Resources||Limited support||Comprehensive support|
|Risk Management||Limited risk management||Robust risk management|
|Claims Management||Slow and bureaucratic||Efficient and effective|
|Premiums and Coverage||High premiums||Competitive premiums|
From the comparison table, it is clear that Provider X offers a more comprehensive and reliable service to healthcare practitioners. Provider X‘s financial stability is rated by Global Credit Rating, which gives healthcare practitioners greater peace of mind, knowing that their insurer is financially sound.
“X” provides robust risk management services that help practitioners identify and manage risks in their practice, which reduces the likelihood of medical malpractice claims.
Provider X also offers efficient and effective claims management services, which ensures that healthcare practitioners can get the support they need when they need it. In contrast, Provider M’s claims management is often slow and bureaucratic, which can cause additional stress and frustration for practitioners.
Finally, Provider X‘s premiums and coverage are competitive, which makes it an attractive option for healthcare practitioners looking for a high-quality insurance provider that offers value for money.
In conclusion, as a healthcare practitioner, you need a professional indemnity insurance provider that offers comprehensive support, robust risk management, efficient claims management, and competitive premiums. Provider X, as a South African-based insurance provider regulated by FSCA, offers all these benefits and more. It is the ideal choice for healthcare practitioners looking for an insurance provider that prioritizes their needs and is committed to protecting them and their patients.
Aside: Occurrence-based versus a Claims-made Policy
When deciding to switch from one medical malpractice insurer to another, it’s important for medical practitioners to understand the core difference between an occurrence-based policy and a claims-made policy. To ensure there are no gaps in coverage, practitioners should know what to look for and seek advice from their broker.
The core difference between the two types of policies is which insurer will be responsible for a claim, and when they should be responsible. With an occurrence-based policy, the insurer at the time the medical procedure or occurrence that gave rise to the claim took place must cover the medical malpractice claim. With a claims-made policy, the insurer at the time the claim is brought against the practitioner must cover the medical malpractice claim.
Gaps in coverage can arise if a practitioner switches to an occurrence-based policy, as the new insurer will only pay claims for procedures performed after the inception of the new policy. Therefore, any procedures performed historically will not be covered by the new occurrence-based policy. If the practitioner was previously covered by a claims-made policy, they would need to ensure their previous policy has run-off cover for all procedures not covered by the new policy.
While there are advantages and disadvantages to both types of policies, there has been a market trend towards offering medical malpractice insurance on a claims-made basis, which is seen as a more modern approach and is more cost-effective. Moving from an occurrence basis to a claims-made basis does not create any gaps in coverage and is easy and risk-free.
When retiring or ceasing to practice, an occurrence-based policy continues to cover procedures performed during the policy period for a very long time. However, the liability to the insurer continues well beyond the practitioner’s death and, therefore, beyond their liability term. A claims-made policy requires some sort of run-off cover after cancellation, which can be provided by an extended reporting period (ERP). Provider X provides an ERP that allows practitioners to report claims after cancellation of the policy for up to five years, but additional ERP can be purchased on an annual basis thereafter.
In summary, both policy types cover all procedures performed and claims made during the policy period, but gaps in coverage can arise with an occurrence-based policy. Moving from an occurrence basis to a claims-made basis is easy and risk-free, and a claims-made policy gives practitioners better flexibility to only buy cover they think they need.
Provider X’s ERP provides extended cover beyond policy cancellation, and is the claims-made policy’s biggest advantage over the occurrence-based policy.
Who is Provider X?
It’s not EthiQal. 😉
Virtual Adviser is a contracted brokerage for this provider. We, like you, run a business and do not readily publish our competitive advantages. To find out who Provider X is, you will have to set an appointment with one of our insurance specialists.
Set your appointment now! Or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.