A supreme Court of Appeal ruling has given South Africans more protection from medical aid schemes that try to force them to use state hospitals if patients want certain treatments paid for. The court case centred on the legal interpretation of prescribed minimum benefits, which refers to 26 chronic conditions and 270 diseases that have to be paid for by schemes no matter the cost.These were put in law to ensure medical aid members get sufficient coverage and don't burden the state, according to the ruling.Medical scheme Genesis had refused to pay for the third temporary prosthetic device given to a young girl to help her badly injured leg heal correctly.The condition is a prescribed minimum benefit, meaning the cost has to be covered in full.Genesis contended that if she wanted this paid for it had to be provided for by the state, as per the scheme rules. The high court ruled in its favour.But on Monday the SCA ruled that the Medical Schemes Act trumped the contract between members and medical aid schemes. It said medical schemes must provide care in both private and public sector.The judgment found that Genesis was "shifting the costs of treating patients' prescribed minimum conditions to the state".The law allows medical aid schemes to mitigate costs of paying for services in full by appointing designated service providers - certain doctors and hospitals that the member has to use if they want certain treatments covered.Genesis had not done this, said the judgment.The Council for Medical Schemes said yesterday: "This is a very important victory. It protects medical scheme members against catastrophic health events in addition to preventing the overburdening of the public sector."Genesis declined to comment.Werksmans attorney Neil Kirby, who was not involved in the case, said: "South Africans have better private healthcare protection following the judgment that the law obliges medical schemes to pay in full for prescribed minimum benefits in terms of the law. The situation is now beyond debate."..