Bupa has seen member complaints increase by 50% as PMI complaints have jumped to a two-year high for a number of major insurers, The Competition Commission has revealed.
These figures were released as part of the watchdog's wider investigation into the UK PMI market.
The Commission found complaints reported to the Financial Services Authority (FSA) concerning Bupa had increased by 50% to 12,165, over a two-year period.
Meanwhile, complaints about Aviva had risen by 87% to 3,544. Complaints concerning Prudential Health Services Ltd had increased by a third (36%) to 1,878. However, AXA PPP saw complaints fall from 3,339 to 2,729 between 2011 and 2012.
The Commission's working paper also said although the number of complaints notified by Bupa to the FSA was 20% higher in 2011 than in 2010, when the rules around reporting complaints to the FSA had changed, this did not explain why it would have risen again by 20% in 2012.
"The number of complaints notified by other PMIs does not appear to increase at the time the FSA rules changed. AXA PPP's level of complaints, which were about a quarter of Bupa's in 2012 remained fairly constant throughout. The number of complaints by Aviva [did] show a sharp increase but in 2012, quite a long time after the change to the FSA rules."
The Commission was unable to pinpoint a reason for the jump in complaints regarding Bupa. It said the timing of this increase had coincided with Bupa's adoption of a new consultant contract during 2010. However it was not until Q1 2012 that open referral became the default option for corporate clients, so this was not a contributing factor.
A possible explanation offered was "the media coverage surrounding the PPI scandal and its effects on people's propensity to make complaints about insurance products, but it is not clear why Bupa in particular would be affected by this."
Meanwhile, a common concern raised by members was where their PMI had reduced the fee maxima for certain procedures.
In many cases it had done so without notifying the member, leaving the member to either make up the shortfall or switch medical professional for the relevant procedure.
Other concerns included the consultant available was less experienced than their consultant of choice and not being able to switch insurer for fear of losing coverage of pre-existing conditions.
