Ad description
Two ads for Bupa health insurance:
a. A TV ad that featured a voice-over that stated, "Growing up my family always had Bupa health insurance. It probably saved my life. At 27 I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Straight away a specialist Bupa team were there for me. They found a hospital to be near mum and dad. The consultant suggested Tomotherapy, an advanced treatment. That was seven years ago and Bupa's still here for me today". Throughout the ad was on-screen text that stated "Specialist support teams Access to latest proven drugs and treatments Supporting you through your treatment".
b. A VOD ad that was identical to ad (a).
Issue
Twenty-five complainants challenged whether the ad was misleading because it implied that there was a higher chance of survival for cancer patients who received private healthcare.
Response
Bupa Insurance Ltd believed that the ad did not imply that there was a higher chance of survival for cancer patients who received private healthcare. They stated that the ad addressed a difficult and complex area of great interest to their current and future customers in a clear, accessible and balanced way. The ad was based on a customer's testimonial who shared their personal experience of Bupa's support following their diagnosis of cancer seven years ago. They shared their view of the support and care they received from Bupa, which covered a range of areas including advice and flexible options on diagnosis, treatment and ongoing support post treatment.
In regards to the on-screen text "Access to latest proven drugs and treatments", Bupa stated that they offered a range of clinically proven cancer drugs that were not provided as standard treatment on the NHS nor by every private healthcare provider. They believed that this distinction could be vital depending on the type and stage of a customer's cancer. Bupa stated that their customers would receive immediate access to all the drugs set out on the Cancer Drugs Fund (CGF) list as well as receiving funding for those drugs that were not approved on the list when requested by their oncologist. They also stated that they would fund drugs that were approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in accordance to whatever types of cancer it was licensed to treat, even if it was found to be more cost effective in treating one type of cancer over another. Furthermore, they would fund 'out of license' drugs in cases where their medical director agreed with the oncologist that there would be a beneficial outcome for the patient.
Bupa stated that at the time the patient received their initial treatment, Tomotherapy was an advanced treatment that had first been made available in the UK in 2006 at Bupa Cromwell Hospital, and was part of the customer's successful treatment and recovery. Furthermore, it remained the only private hospital in the country to offer this type of treatment for cancer patients.
Bupa stated that the NHS faced challenges in providing consistent cancer services across the UK and referred to the National Audit Office review, which stated that "the Committee was concerned that there remained wide, unexplained variations in performance across the country ...". Furthermore, they referred to news articles of this year which detailed how the NHS had faced financial constraints in the administration of advanced radiotherapies, despite already having the facilities.
Bupa stated that the claim "Straight away a specialist Bupa team were there for me" and the on-screen text "Specialist support teams", referred to their range of specialist support teams. They stated that each customer was given their own oncology nurse whose role was to act as their primary point of contact and help the patient though the process.
Bupa stated that the ad did not draw any direct comparisons with the NHS or other private medical providers. They believed that the information featured in the ad was factually correct and did not seek in any way to state that Bupa's services were exclusive or unique. In contrast, they stated that Bupa offered a service which provided value to cancer patients who required treatment that was not generally available on the NHS nor through some private healthcare providers. They believed that the ad as a whole portrayed their customer's contentment with Bupa based on the combination of care, advice and flexibility around treatment that they received.
Clearcast stated that they scrutinised the precise wording of the ad. They had received a signed testimonial from the customer featured in the ad, and as such, were satisfied that the customer's comments and opinion of the service they received were their own. Furthermore, Clearcast believed that the distinction between the subjective opinion expressed by the patient and Bupa's sales message was clear. Clearcast stated that despite the emotive subject matter, the script was presented objectively and factually and referred to the on-screen text setting out the benefits of having health insurance with Bupa, which stated "Specialist support teams" and "Access to latest proven drugs and treatments".
Clearcast believed that the ad did not exaggerate the effectiveness of Bupa's treatment services, since it did not address the likelihood of success or the rate of recovery for Bupa's cancer patients. At no point did the ad state or imply that the customer's life would not have been saved had they received treatment elsewhere, nor did it claim that in general Bupa's patients had a higher chance of surviving cancer. Instead, the claim was about the speed of the treatment received, access to certain advanced treatments that were not readily available elsewhere at the time and the extra benefits the customer received as a Bupa member, such as being admitted to a hospital located close to her parents. Furthermore, at no point during the ad were there any indications that competitors might not offer a similar service as Bupa. There were no comparisons, made either directly or indirectly, with identifiable competitors such as the NHS.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA acknowledged that the ad was based on a customer's testimonial, who reflected on her own personal experience of Bupa's services following the cancer diagnosis, including the speed with which they were treated, the access to certain advanced treatments and admittance to a hospital that was close to her family. We noted that the ad did not explicitly state that Bupa's patients had a higher chance of surviving cancer or directly compare the likelihood of success or the rate of recovery for their treatment services with other private hospitals or the NHS.
However, while we acknowledged that the claim "It probably saved my life" was the customer's opinion on the services they had received from Bupa, we considered it was a very prominent claim. Furthermore, we noted that the ad then referred to the beneficial services offered by Bupa and included the statement "Straight away a specialist Bupa team were there for me", and the on-screen text "Specialist support teams" and "Access to latest proven drugs and treatments". With regard to the latter statement, we acknowledged that Bupa had referred to the CDF, which we understood was money the Government had set aside to pay for cancer drugs that had not been approved by NICE and were not available within the NHS. We noted that if NHS patients requested funding for a cancer drug that did not appear on the approved CDF list they faced the possibility of being denied that form of treatment, whereas Bupa customers would have access to all the drugs that appeared on the list, including those that were not approved.
Although we acknowledged the ad's references to the benefits of the services the advertiser offered, we considered that they were made in conjunction with the customer's prominent claim "It probably saved my life". They suggested that Bupa's services for cancer patients were superior in those respects to those offered by the NHS or other providers, and that cancer patients who received private healthcare through BUPA consequentially had a better chance of survival. Furthermore, although we acknowledged that one of Bupa's hospitals remained the only private hospital in the country to offer Tomotherapy for cancer patients, we understood that it was currently available as a radiotherapy treatment under the NHS.
Therefore, we concluded that the ad implied that there was a higher chance of survival for cancer patients who received treatment through the advertiser and because that was not the case, the ad was likely to mislead consumers.
Ad (a) breached BCAP Code rules
3.1
3.1
Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
and
3.5
3.5
Subjective claims must not mislead the audience; advertisements must not imply that expressions of opinion are objective claims.
(Misleading Advertising),
3.12
3.12
Advertisements must not mislead by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product or service.
(Exaggeration) and
3.33
3.33
Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service.
(Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Ad (b) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. and 3.6 3.6 Subjective claims must not mislead the consumer; marketing communications must not imply that expressions of opinion are objective claims. (Misleading Advertising), 3.1 3.1 Advertisements must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Exaggeration) and 3.33 3.33 Advertisements that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers about either the advertised product or service or the competing product or service. (Comparisons with Identifiable Competitors).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Bupa Insurance Ltd that their future advertising must not state or suggest that there is a higher chance of survival for patients who received private healthcare unless they held evidence to support the claim.
