AA
Aneesa A
Active since Jul 2016
135
Reviews
0
Industries
Reviews
135 reviews1 month ago
UNFAIR PMB RESTRICTIONS
Dear Sir/Madam, RE: BUHLE MTHEMBU & Percy from PFA i WANT THESE CALL LISTENED TO! Authorisation Number: 117625 Pacemaker Insertion Date: 03/12/2024 Reference: Percy – 2153212 I wish to formally raise my concern regarding the difficulties experienced in accessing ongoing Prescribed Minimum Benefit (PMB) level of care following my mother’s pacemaker insertion on 03 December 2024. From a clinical and PMB management perspective, once Boncap authorised and funded the pacemaker implantation procedure, it would be reasonable to expect that the standard post-pacemaker PMB management codes and follow-up care requirements would automatically flow through onto the patient’s care plan. Post-cardiac device management and follow-up are clinically indicated and form part of the standard continuum of care to ensure appropriate monitoring of device function, cardiac stability, and patient safety. The requested PMB-related codes: • 1268 • 1269 • 1270 are not unreasonable requests, but rather align with standard post-pacemaker clinical management protocols and PMB level care requirements. Unfortunately, despite my mother being an elderly dementia patient with multiple comorbidities and a documented history of significant cardiac instability, unnecessary administrative barriers continue to delay access to clinically appropriate benefits. Patients in vulnerable categories should not be required to repeatedly “jump through hoops” to access benefits that are clinically justified and directly related to approved PMB treatment pathways. I would specifically like to acknowledge Ayanda from Hospital Authorisations, who was the only individual who demonstrated genuine interest in assisting us. She took the time to review my mother’s clinical history holistically and understood the severity of her condition and the challenges surrounding her ongoing care needs. I have been assisting my mother with all correspondence and telephonic engagements with Bonitas since the ProSano days, and my details have historically been associated with her profile for care coordination purposes. It is therefore concerning that additional consent and repeated administrative requirements are now being requested despite the extensive historical correspondence already available on record. It is deeply concerning that pensioners and medically vulnerable members continue to encounter increasing administrative burdens when attempting to access clinically necessary benefits, despite consistently contributing towards their medical scheme membership over many years. I kindly request that this matter be urgently reviewed from both a clinical risk management and PMB governance perspective to ensure continuity of care and appropriate access to post-pacemaker management benefits. Kind regards,
2 replies
1 month ago
UNFAIR PMB practice for elderly
PFA – My mother is on Boncap. She had a hip replacement five years ago and is currently dependent on a walker, which has now broken. The scheme allows a benefit of R7,900 for this item; however, they will not accept a referral from a GP. Instead, they require a specialist to confirm the need for a walker. This requirement is unreasonable given the current economic climate. As a state pensioner with limited financial means, my mother cannot afford the additional cost of a specialist consultation—especially considering that the scheme does not cover the specialist visit. This results in us having to spend thousands of rands just to access a benefit that is already approved. A GP is fully capable of assessing and confirming the medical necessity for a walker in this case. Requiring a specialist referral places an unnecessary financial burden on vulnerable members. During calls with both Client Services and Pre-Authorisation, I was informed that this policy is due to benefit abuse. However, applying a blanket rule penalises genuine cases like my mother’s, where the need is both clear and medically justified. This approach is not aligned with fair and accessible healthcare and creates barriers for members who are already financially strained.
1 reply
4 months ago
POOR SERVICE
My daughter was admitted to hospital on 13/02/2026 for the surgical removal of three wisdom teeth. I was required to pay an upfront co-payment at the time of admission. When we contacted Discovery beforehand, we were informed that no authorisation was required and were only provided with a reference number. Danray from the day hospital has now advised that the practitioner who administered the anaesthetic is a GP and that he must amend his account. I do not understand this reasoning. A GP is able to act under a valid PR number during a procedure. Why should the provider now be required to change his billing? The entire account has been processed from my Medical Savings Account (MSA), which has now been depleted. I urgently need to consult a GP this afternoon, and there are no funds available in my MSA as a result of this processing. There should be a system link reflecting an in-hospital dental admission. Danray has indicated that the claim was paid this way because no hospital account appears on the system and that the provider should have waited. This is extremely concerning. I require this matter to be investigated and corrected as a matter of urgency.
3 replies
4 months ago
Poor Service
I would like to commend Novela for the excellent service he provided. He listened patiently and allowed me to express my frustration regarding the service failures I experienced. He assured me that he would follow up, and he kept his word by proactively updating me via WhatsApp. This initiative was extremely helpful, as it prevented me from having to call repeatedly. His level of service was professional, empathetic, and appreciated. However, despite Novela’s efforts, the overall service from your company has been deeply disappointing. Due to operational errors and a lack of accountability, I have suffered a financial loss of approximately R4,000. I will no longer be using the Paxi Home Bag service. No one took ownership of the issues, and I was not refunded for the three (3) Paxi Home Bags that I had to resend due to mismatched waybills. These errors were not caused by me, yet I carried the financial impact. This reflects a serious breakdown in process control, customer support, and accountability. As a result of this experience, I am moving my business to Courier Guy. While Novela’s service was commendable and helped to ease the situation, it is not sufficient to retain me as a customer when the broader organisation fails to provide adequate support and resolution. I trust this feedback will be taken seriously and used to address the service and accountability gaps that led to this outcome.
1 reply
5 months ago
******** pricing on poor areas
I stay in Mitchells plain and twenty to buy a certain product but both stores sell it at different prices. When asked the lady responded it's about where u buy? Is this allowed?
0 replies
5 months ago
Poor service
The courier company did a label swop and I'm still waiting on paxi to find my bag Nosipho who is supposed to be a manger promised to call then does not I call spend hours on calls still no bag these people don't care
0 replies
6 months ago
Concern Regarding Standing Policies for Retail Staff
Subject: Concern Regarding Standing Policies for Retail Staff This is not a service complaint, but a serious concern about the working conditions of staff particularly women employed at Pep, Ackermans, and other retailers in the same group. Many employees are required to stand on their feet for entire shifts, including pregnant women, older staff, and individuals with chronic health conditions. Extended standing for long hours places unnecessary strain on the body and can lead to long-term health issues. In contrast, a number of other retailers have adopted a more modern and humane approach by providing high bar stools or supportive seating that allows employees to remain efficient while still serving customers professionally. In 2025, expecting staff to stand for excessively long periods—while managers are seated in offices is outdated and unfair. It impacts morale, wellness, and productivity. I am requesting that management urgently review these standing-only policies and consider practical solutions, including: Providing high stools or supportive seating at tills and service points. Implementing rotation systems to reduce continuous standing hours. Allowing pregnant employees or those with medical conditions reasonable accommodation without fear of penalisation. Updating health and safety guidelines to align with modern workplace wellbeing standards. Conducting a formal ergonomic assessment to identify risks and improvements. This is about dignity, fairness, and responsible leadership. Staff are the face of the brand, and supporting their welfare will only improve service delivery and customer experience. I hope this matter will receive the attention it deserves.
0 replies
6 months ago
poor service always
My state pensioner mum is on Boncap, I have sent her 3 month bank statement and completed form as well as attach sassa letter. 5 weeks later still not resolved this PHA is a problem I have been doing this for many years and never had a issue, they keep saying docs not received but if you got one then you should have all its all on the same EMAIL - 2 x hello peter escalations no resolution from medscheme either
0 replies
6 months ago
INCOME VERIFY FOR 70 YEAR OLD STATE PENSIONER
Boncap income submitted 54 times and counting Hello petter complaint lodged not a care in the world to try and resolve ,
0 replies
7 months ago
POOR PHA SERVICE
How many times musty I send my moms 3 month bank statement 4 times why is it soi hard to get my mom on the proper band for 2026 She is a South African state pensioner why must we stand in lines at 5am with pensioner who cant walk to get a letter ? A bank statement shows income, all she does is pay Bonita's medical aid and R1500 for medication you don't cover, so please man just do ur job 4 EMAILS WITH SUPPORTIMNG DOCS SENT
1 reply
Review Distribution
5 Star
18 (13.333333333333334%)
4 Star
1 (0.7407407407407407%)
3 Star
0 (0%)
2 Star
2 (1.4814814814814814%)
1 Star
114 (84.44444444444444%)