Experiences of physiotherapists audited by South African medical funding schemes.

Only 14 physiotherapists took part, and they volunteered. The authors say many colleagues were too scared to come forward, so those who did are likely to be the ones most willing to speak out. Only the physiotherapists' side is heard. No medical scheme was interviewed, so the schemes' account of these audits does not appear anywhere in the paper. Almost everyone had been audited by the same medical scheme, with only one person audited by a second scheme, so this may describe one scheme's practice rather than audits in general. These are 14 people's recollections rather than scheme records, so details such as the fine amounts have not been checked against the paperwork. A qualitative study of 14 accounts cannot say how common these experiences are, or that the audits caused the distress, the stroke or the miscarriage described; the authors state that no direct causal link could be established.

The paper states that the research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. No other funding or competing-interest declaration appears in the text supplied.

Do not read this as proof that medical schemes broke the law. It reports what 14 physiotherapists said about their own audits, nearly all involving one scheme, with no scheme interviewed and the accounts not checked against scheme records. The stroke and miscarriage mentioned are not attributed to the audits by the authors themselves.