A University of Pretoria study has revealed troubling ethical and procedural gaps in the way medical schemes conduct forensic audits of physiotherapists, showing how practices intended to prevent billing irregularities are often leaving practitioners fearful, stigmatised and traumatised without proving guilt.
Audits of healthcare professionals are designed to detect billing irregularities and protect medical scheme funds. However, research conducted by Lesley Meyer, an extra-ordinary lecturer at University of Pretoria’s Department of Physiotherapy, explored the lived experiences of physiotherapists who have undergone such audits, and found that the audit practices conducted were experienced as punitive and harmful to practitioners rather than corrective.
Forensic audits in the healthcare sector are, in principle, supposed to protect medical scheme funds and by extension, patients’ contributions. In practice, however, Meyer’s research study, published in the latest edition of The South African Journal of Physiotherapy, found that these audits often extend beyond their legal scope and adversely affect the profession, while pocketing patient’s savings instead of returning these funds to the patients in accordance with the Medical Schemes Act.
Under Section 59(3) of the Medical Schemes Act of 1998, schemes may investigate inconsistencies in claims, but when alleged fraud, waste or abuse exceeds R100 000, the matter should be referred to the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) or the South African Police Service. However, the study found that schemes mistrust these authorities, so they bypass that requirement by reclassifying potential fraud as administrative billing errors. This practice allows them to conduct internal investigations without external oversight, creating a loophole that has opened the door to misuse, coercive practices and a lack of accountability.“
Participants reported feeling unfairly targeted and singled out, describing the audit process as unfairly conducted. Many felt they were subjected to a witch hunt,” Meyer says, who is also a physiotherapist and runs a private outpatient practice with a special interest in chronic pain and trauma management. Participants described being treated as suspects rather than professionals and reported severe distress caused by a process that offers no transparency or recourse.
The study found that the problem is exacerbated by South Africa’s outdated billing system. The gazetted tariff codes, last updated by the Competition Commission in 2006, have remained unchanged. Due to the fact that medical aid schemes don’t accept new, unlisted codes, practitioners are forced to use outdated tariffs to describe modern, evidence-based treatments. In some instances, practitioners leave those treatments unbilled altogether.
The study found that practitioners were sometimes accused of overbilling or coding errors without being given access to the evidence used against them. Some described being pressured to sign an Admission of Debt (AOD) to avoid escalation, leading to payments that varied from R54 000 in a solo practice to R4,5 million for one group practice.
As reported in the study, the investigators’ tactics were perceived as coercive and participants were forced to either sign AODs or face continued blockages on payments, effectively turning them into cash practices. Physiotherapists operating as cash-based practices were blacklisted because scheme administrators could not use offset controls to manage claims.
Meyer explains: “For those who sign the AOD it means they’re admitting that they’re guilty, which is against the Health Professions Act, because if you are guilty, it means you’ve committed fraud, and you can lose your licence. But participants felt like they didn’t have a choice, because they weren’t getting any money from the schemes.”
The impact on clinical care
One of the key problems highlighted in the research is the lack of external oversight over medical schemes’ auditing procedures. While the Health Professions Council of South Africa regulates practitioner conduct, schemes are governed by the Council for Medical Schemes (CMS), however, a physiotherapist who participated in the study, who complained to the CMS received no response. This gap leaves practitioners vulnerable to arbitrary decisions and offers no appeal mechanism when they believe they have been treated unfairly.
Meyer says the distress caused by the audits has clear hallmarks of trauma with participants describing the trauma they experience being akin to post-traumatic stress disorder, triggering physical reactions such as going into a cold sweat when encountering reminders of the medical fund and enduring stigma from being blacklisted.
One participant said: “Seven months of watching my father die was easier than this experience.
”Meyer’s research shows that these experiences aren’t isolated incidents but systemic. Interviews revealed a pattern of practitioners who felt coerced into compliance due to their fear of professional ruin.
The study revealed that physiotherapists perceived the audit process as vindictive rather than beneficial. The physiotherapists also felt that the forensic investigators perceived them as being guilty from the start, without considering alternative reasons for irregular billing patterns.
These hostile auditing processes contradict the principle of procedural fairness, Meyer says, which requires fair treatment, transparency, impartiality and an opportunity to be heard.The way forwardThe study recommends teaching undergraduate and registered physiotherapists about forensic literacy. Therefore, Meyer created five lectures based on her findings’ which have been implemented with the fourth-year physiotherapy students as part of the IHL module at the University of Pretoria, to empower students and increase their resilience when faced with forensic audits in private practice.
Moreover, the study recommends a framework that allows practitioners to be heard and protected while ensuring that accountability remains central. Such a framework includes establishing an independent oversight body, standardising investigative procedures and ensuring audited practitioners can access evidence, respond to allegations and appeal decisions. Meyer will continue with this framework through a PhD.
A significant development since Meyer’s study was completed, is the release of the final report by an independent legal panel that reviewed how Section 59(3) of the Medical Schemes Act is applied in forensic audits of healthcare professionals. Meyer says the report confirmed many of the issues raised in her research, including retrospective audits, a lack of transparency and potential misuse of power by medical schemes.“
The release of this report is an important step toward institutional accountability and reform,” Meyer says. “However, the full implementation of its recommendations remains critical to ensure fair audit practices and to restore trust among healthcare providers.”
“The people I interviewed were not trying to avoid accountability. They wanted fairness. They wanted to be heard. If we don’t address the lack of oversight, we risk losing good practitioners and damaging trust in the healthcare system itself.”
