They sold the idea of increasing the minimum number of required gym visits from 24 - 36 as a health benefit to members and thus Vitality came across as the concerned medical aid.
There is no evidence that 36 days per annum makes you more healthier than 24, I questioned their motive for increasing the minimum number of days and was finally shut down by Jurell Naidoo invoking Claus 10 of the Vitality Rules, and I quote:
"We may change these rules and the benefit rules from time to time. Generally, changes take effect from 1 January, although we occasionally implement changes to the rules during the calendar year. We will give you advance notice of any intended changes to benefits and fees within a reasonable time."
My opinion is that by increasing the days to 36 will enable Vitality to cancel more gym memberships and will therefore gain a financial benefit at the cost of the Client. I just feel that this is wrong, since our medical aid premium is increasing at a rate far beyond the inflation and we receive less benefit year after year.
0 comments