By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the report “8,000 needy elderly to benefit from national medical subsidy scheme” (Channel News Asia, Oct 10).

It states that “Come April 1 next year, some 8,000 more needy senior citizens (aged 65 years and above) will stand to benefit from a national medical subsidy scheme that will be extended to five more chronic diseases”.

To qualify for the Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS), you must be either:

  1. A Singapore citizen who is 65 years old or above, with a per capita monthly household income of $800 or below; or
  2. A Singapore citizen who is disabled- i.e. unable to perform at least one of the 6 activities of daily living (ADLs) such as washing/bathing; feeding; toileting; transferring; dressing; and mobility and with a per capita monthly household income of $800 and below and; or
  3. be on the Public Assistance (PA) Scheme.

As “there are some 28,500 PCPS card holders”, does it mean that come April next year, the estimated number of PCPS card holders is estimated to be about 36,500 (28,500 plus 8,000)?

Since the eligibility criteria is quite stringent, I find it rather alarming that so many elderly Singaporeans have the PCPS card. How many elderly Singaporeans who qualify, may not have applied for the card yet?

$1.2 million subsidies – not quite enough

With regard to “The Ministry of Health (MOH) said GPs (General Practitioners) received about $1.2 million in subsidies funded by the Government, reducing the medical expenses of the patients”, what the report does not mention is that the PCPS also applies to Common Medical Illnesses like cough, cold and flu, muscle, bone and joint pains, etc.

Since “Last year, GPs served nearly 60,000 clinic attendances for these patients”, the average subsidy per clinic attendance is about $20 ($1.2 million divided by 60,000 clinic attendances).

But, this statistic looks quite strange, because “for the treatment of chronic conditions, you will be given an annual subsidy of up to $240 or $360 depending upon the number and severity of your condition(s)”.

Why? If just a quarter of the 28,500 PCPS card holders suffer from one of the current three chronic diseases covered under the scheme, the subsidy should already be about $2.1 million (28,500 divided by 4 times $300 ($240 plus $360 divided by 2)).

Add to this a very conservative estimate that each PCPS card holder only sees a participating GP just once a year for a Common Medical Illness, and the sum may be about $285,500 (28,500 card holders times $10 Polyclinic subsidy).

But this is not all of it, as the PCPS also covers Basic Dental Services.

So, if each of the 28.500 goes for just one dental treatment in a year, what would the total amount of subsidy be?

Perhaps the only way to solve this mystery may be for MOH to disclose the subsidy for each of the different services covered, and the breakdown as to how many patients benefited, instead of just giving the number of clinic attendances. For example, 60,000 clinic attendances could be say for just 15,000 patients, if on the average a patient has four clinic attendances in a year.

What the above data appears to indicate, may be that very few PCPS card holders may be benefiting from the Government subsidies under the scheme.

One possible reason could be that since Medifund does not cover Polyclinic fees, or PCPS GP fees, those who can’t afford the $9 Polyclinic fee plus the additional medicine costs, may simply not be able to afford any form of healthcare at all.

Chronic Disease Management Programme – who gets excluded?

According to the article, patients under the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) programme are “getting better health outcomes.”

For example, it has been found that “CDMP patients with diabetes who stayed for a year or more on the programme did not get hospitalised as often as those who were on the programme for less than 12 months.”

What’s glaringly missing is the question of how many needy elderly patients may not even be able to afford to utilise the scheme in the first place.

To illustrate this issue, the “60,000 clinic attendances” statistic, may be similar to what the MOH has been saying all along- that “The (Medifund) approval rate is 99 per cent”.

However, with about 360,000 approved Medifund applications in a year, this refers to the approval of applications, and not the approval rate of patients who apply.

For example, a patient who has 12 medical treatments in a year may be counted as 12 approved applications. Whereas, the approval rate in terms of the number of patients who apply has never been disclosed. It was reported in 2008, that 301,126 approved applications were made by about 20,000 to 30,000 patients.

In this connection, the number of rejections increased dramatically by 2,900 per cent from 210 to 6,456 in 2006, and then declined dramatically by 79 per cent from 6,456 to 1,266 in 2007.

What about those who were told that they do not meet the basic criteria (which is not public information), and thus do not even need to apply? Could this be one of the possible reasons why the rejection rate declined dramatically?

On the same note, why is it that such “rejections” statistics do not seem to have appeared any more?

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

过去两周内曾前往中国,近千师生被要求请假14天

教育部今日(31日)表示,共有967名来自学校、理工学院以及工艺教育学院(Institute of Technical Education)的师生必须休假14天。 此前,当局曾宣布在过去两周,曾前往中国的师生必须申请14天缺席假。 这包括教育部幼儿园、中小学以及初级学院。其中,一名教师与学生曾从湖北省回新,而其他人则前往中国其他地区。 当局表示,该项措施能有效减轻学校与其他机构带来的潜在风险,让学校持续运作。目前休假的学生被安排在家中学习。学生也可以透过网络在线平台进行学习。 当局补充,根据卫生部规定,近期到过湖北并申请缺席假的学生,如果被评估为染病高风险群,可被勒令隔离。 教育部也称日前收到民众的询问,有关曾前往中国的学生未能申报一事,发现有些旅客于去年12月亦曾从中国返新的,但由于已过了潜伏期,因此请假也不适用于他们。 当局也敦促家长与学生应通知学校,并进行必要的检查。 教育部长王乙康表示,“针对此事,我们将采取必要措施,确保人民的安全,但同时也不应让恐惧支配我们的生活,所以要保持弹性与警惕,必须对社会负责,尽可能让生活持续。”

【冠状病毒19】本地添第25死亡病例! 中国籍患者出院三周后病逝

一名中国籍病患(第11714例),在出院三周后,不幸于6月4日病逝,死因证实是与冠病19有关联的大块肺栓塞(massive pulmonary embolism)。 这名41岁患者,是在4月22日确诊,上月17日已康复出院。不料在前日病逝,使得本地冠病19死亡病例已增至25例。 5月31日,一名51岁中国籍冠病确诊患者也因并发症去世,是第24例死亡病例。

A Nostalgic Hari Raya

A poem by Raymond Anthony Fernando/ Photos by Joshua Chiang Listening to…

“坏消息掰成好的” 郑国明抨击官媒报导工伤死亡手法

“坏消息也能掰成好消息,这就是政府操控下媒体做报导的方式。” 人民之声党影子内阁成员郑国明(Cheang Kok Ming)揶揄,即便报导中揭示今年上半年有更多劳工在职场受伤,但官方媒体仍能找到值得“庆贺”的理由,即“职场死亡人数降至七年最低点”。 郑国明是指《海峡时报》在本月1日的报导,据人力部公布的数据显示,今年上半年,有17位劳工在职场不幸身亡。而2018年上半年职场死亡18人;下半年为23人。 “国有媒体怎么能把如此不幸的死亡人数,报导得如此微不足道?” 相比下,今年上半年的职场死亡人数,只比去年同比少一人。人力部在声明强调,这是自2012年一来最低的职场死亡人数。 非致命职场工伤增加 至于死亡意外的致因,高处坠落达四宗,其中两宗发生在建筑领域。而因为架构或机械倒下致死的个案增至三宗;与车辆相关死亡意外则多达四宗。 截至2019年6月底,工伤意外死亡率仍维持每10万名雇员:1.2人的水平。 不过,非致命职场工伤则从去年上半年的6073宗个案,增加至今年上半年的6561宗。 对亡者国籍只字不提…