A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but for Centriq Insurance Company and Dis-Chem, a product rebrand could prove costly. While white labelling is permitted under South Africa’s insurance framework, the Council for Medical Schemes has found that Centriq’s decision to market its products under the Dis-Chem name amounted to an unauthorised name change, in breach of the Medical Schemes Act – a contravention that could unwind the parties’ commercial arrangement, with retrospective effect.
The dispute resurfaced quietly while much of the industry was on holiday, following the Appeals Board’s dismissal of Centriq’s appeal against a CMS directive issued in 2024. That directive required Centriq to cease its arrangement with Dis-Chem Pharmacies, under which Centriq’s insurance products – most notably its MyHealth offering – were marketed using the Dis-Chem brand.
Before the branding exercise, the products were sold as “MyHealth Core” and “MyHealth Vital”. Under the white labelling arrangement, they were marketed as “Dis-Chem MyHealth Core” and “Dis-Chem MyHealth Vital”. The Appeals Board found that this amounted to a name change that triggered regulatory obligations Centriq failed to meet.
White labelling, as defined in the Policyholder Protection Rules under the Short-term Insurance Act, refers to “the marketing or offering of a specific policy of an insurer under the brand of another person who is not the insurer in terms of an arrangement between the insurer and that other person”. In simple terms, the insurer remains responsible for underwriting the product, while another brand lends its name for marketing purposes.
In its ruling, the Board confirmed that the CMS acted within its powers under sections 8(k) and 45 of the MSA when it investigated the arrangement and issued directives. It held that exemptions granted to Centriq under section 8(h) did not allow branding or marketing changes without prior notification to, and approval from, the CMS. The addition of Dis-Chem branding to exempted products therefore constituted non-compliance with both the Act and the Exemption Framework.
CMS’s Circular 48 of 2025 issued on 22 December said as much, confirming that the appeal was dismissed, and the CMS directive stands: “to cease its commercial arrangement with Dischem Pharmacies Limited concerning the practice known as ‘white labelling’.”
Despite the ruling and Circular 48, the relationship between Centriq and Dis-Chem appears, at least superficially, to continue. A visit to Dis-Chem.Health’s website shows the MyHealth products still being marketed, although the “Dis-Chem” prefix has been removed from their names.
Circular 48 makes it clear that the CMS will take firm action against entities that breach exemption conditions. Possible enforcement measures include directives to halt unlawful practices, administrative penalties under section 66 of the MSA, and the revocation of exemptions granted under section 8(h).
Centriq has indicated that it is engaging with the regulator and does not expect policyholders to be negatively affected. Responding to questions about compliance steps taken after the appeal was dismissed, and the potential impact on holders of MyHealth Core and MyHealth Plus policies, Marika Mattheus, head of risk and compliance at Centriq, said:
“Centriq has noted Circular 48 of 2025. We had a constructive engagement with CMS in December 2025 and continue to engage with CMS regarding our approved products.
“We do not anticipate a material impact on our policyholders and will continue to co-operate and work with CMS going forward.”
The CMS confirmed that it has received Centriq’s response and said it remains under consideration. It added that further enforcement action remains possible, depending on the facts.
The regulator also said it has considered the potential impact on policyholders should the Centriq–Dis-Chem relationship be fully unwound. In similar cases, it noted, members were transferred to an exempted entity and product to ensure continuity of cover.
Circular 48 emphasises that exempted insurers are expected to maintain robust governance and compliance frameworks, and that failure to do so may result in exemptions being withdrawn.
Whether Centriq could ultimately face the withdrawal of its exemption should the directive not be fully adhered to will depend on the facts of the case, the CMS said.
“For example, where an entity wilfully disregards the Appeals Board’s ruling.”
How the dispute arose
The dispute stems from a white-labeling agreement signed on 4 March 2022 between Centriq, Kaelo and Dis-Chem. The arrangement was designed to expand the reach of Centriq’s existing insurance products by marketing them to Dis-Chem’s customer base.
Centriq acted as the insurer and underwriter of the MyHealth products, holding the regulatory exemption required to offer them outside the medical schemes framework. Kaelo, a health administration and services group, was involved in product support and administration-related functions. Dis-Chem’s role was limited to marketing and branding.
As a pharmacy group, Dis-Chem is not authorised to underwrite, distribute or administer insurance products. Its involvement was confined to allowing its name, reputation and goodwill to be associated with Centriq’s products under the white labelling arrangement.
Regulatory scrutiny followed shortly thereafter. On 9 March 2022, BusinessTech published an article referencing the white labelling agreement, prompting the CMS to launch a section 45 inquiry.
The regulator said the branding could mislead the public into thinking that Dis-Chem was operating a medical scheme. It also pointed out that, although an exemption had been applied for and granted for the MyHealth products, no application had been made for an exemption for the Dis-Chem-branded MyHealth products.
One of the conditions attached to the exemption of the MyHealth products required the insurer to notify the CMS of any name change. The CMS concluded that this condition had not been met.
Dis-Chem responded to the CMS in March 2022, arguing that key information about the relationship between Centriq, Kaelo and Dis-Chem had been omitted from the BusinessTech article and requesting republication. That republication never took place.
The outcome of the section 45 inquiry was communicated to the parties in November 2022. The CMS found that while Dis-Chem was not operating as a medical scheme, it had no exemption to offer Dis-Chem-branded MyHealth products. The only exemption in place was held by Centriq, and no application had been made to approve the white labelling of the exempted products.
The CMS issued its final decision in March 2024, setting out its position on the continued offering of the Dis-Chem-branded products. That decision ultimately led to Centriq’s unsuccessful appeal.
Appeals Board’s reasoning
In its analysis, the Appeals Board drew a clear distinction between lawful white labelling and regulatory non-compliance. It rejected the CMS’s initial position that the white labelling agreement itself was unlawful.
Judge Thokozile Masipa, chairperson of the Appeals Board, noted that white labelling is expressly contemplated and permitted under the regulatory framework governing exempted insurance products – a point the CMS ultimately conceded.
The decisive issue, however, was whether the exempted products had undergone a name change without regulatory approval. From the perspective of the end consumer, the Board found, the products were Dis-Chem products bearing the names “Dis-Chem MyHealth Core” and “Dis-Chem MyHealth Vital”.
Centriq argued that the underlying nature of the products had not changed and that the branding was merely cosmetic. The Board accepted that the benefits may have remained the same, but said this was not the test. What mattered was consumer perception. Customers were not party to the white labelling agreement and would reasonably understand the products to have been renamed.
On that basis, the Board concluded that a name change had occurred and that Centriq was required to notify the CMS and apply for approval. Its failure to do so amounted to non-compliance with the conditions attached to the original exemption and with the broader regulatory framework.
Warning to the market
Circular 48 does more than relay the Appeals Board’s ruling. It serves as a clear warning to insurers operating under exemptions. The CMS flags ongoing non-compliance across the market, including unauthorised branding, improper marketing arrangements, and failures to notify the regulator of material changes.
“These practices undermine consumer protection and regulatory integrity in the medical scheme’s environment. CMS wishes to warn in particular, exempted insurers that the medical schemes industry is a highly regulated environment and therefore, they must be careful and seek approval before engaging in practices that are foreign to this environment,” Circular 48 states.
The CMS stressed that compliance is not a box-ticking exercise but a strategic necessity for protecting consumers, maintaining trust and ensuring market stability. Exempted insurers, it said, are expected to implement governance and compliance frameworks capable of identifying and mitigating regulatory risks – failing which, decisive intervention, including the possible withdrawal of exemptions, may follow.
