by: Gerald Giam/

Ms Sangeetha Bysheim wrote in to the TODAY newspaper on 7 July appealing for her 75-year old diabetic father to be allowed to use his Medisave to pay his full bills for his regular check-ups and medication. Currently only about 20 per cent of his bill can be charged to Medisave and the rest has to be paid in cash. She explained that her father has a lifetime’s worth of savings in his Medisave and argued that this was a perfect age to start tapping fully on the funds.

In their reply today (July 9th), the Ministry of Health reiterated the government’s long-standing position that they want to “manage the extended use of Medisave funds carefully to prevent the premature depletion of members’ funds”.

The Workers’ Party (WP) had in fact proposed in its 2011 Manifesto that “Medisave withdrawals for outpatient medical treatment should be further facilitated (e.g., for specialist and major outpatient services), subject to a cap on usage” and that “patients above 75 years old should be allowed to use Medisave for medical treatment without restriction” (Healthcare chapter, pg 37).

I had also raised this proposal during my General Election Rally speech on May 2nd at Moulmein-Kallang GRC. The proposal came at the tail end of a long list of other proposals on public housing and healthcare that I had expounded on in my speech.

At the time, I thought that it might have been a more niche issue that wouldn’t find much resonance with the crowd. To my surprise, when I read out that line, there was a huge cheer from the crowd (even though I didn’t exactly deliver it with much emotion or emphasis).

I believe the liberalisation of the use of Medisave for elderly folks is an important issue to many Singaporeans. I share Ms Sangeetha’s sentiments that 75 is a perfect age to start fully tapping on Medisave funds.

The life expectancy at birth in Singapore is now 79 years for males. How much longer does the government want to “extend the use of Medisave funds” for these elderly folks? Until they die?

In my opinion, a 75-year old drawing down on his Medisave funds is in no way “depleting it prematurely”. Even if a 75-year old were to live until 85 and deplete all his Medisave funds, there are other sources of funding like family support or Medifund that can kick in.

However, if an elderly person were to pass away before using up all his Medisave funds, what could have been used to relieve his financial burden and that of his children would effectively be wasted. Ironically, it is even possible to tap on Medifund if the expense doesn’t meet the Medisave withdrawal criteria, and one is destitute enough to qualify. This puts an unnecessary burden on the State, which is exactly what the government is trying to avoid — not that I don’t think the State should pick up a bigger tab for healthcare, but I’ll leave that for another debate.

Even though the balance is passed to his family (or whoever he nominates), the Medisave still has not served its intended purpose at the time when it was most needed. Therefore, restricting the use of Medisave for people over 75 years not just burdens the patient and his family, but is a poor allocation of resources.


This article first appeared on Gerald Giam‘s blog. We thank him for allowing us to reproduce it in full here.

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

Sinovac CEO caught for bribing Chinese regulator remains unscathed and continues to oversee COVID-19 vaccine development

The Washington Post published a news article last month highlighting that Sinovac…

手术预估费高昂、一份医疗报告100元? 樟宜医院发文解释

一名市民揶揄,公共医院似乎并不鼓励病患看病,不仅开出比实际费用高六倍的预估费用,交给保险公司的医药报告,也跟病患收100新元,令他感到不可理喻。 市民周晋国(译音)曾于2月26日在海峡时报论坛(ST Forum)上,非议樟宜综合医院的收费。 周先生的女佣,日前到樟宜医院动手术。女佣入院时院方告知,住C级病房的五天费用,估计高达1万5000到1万8000新元。不过最终女佣仅住院两天,费用仅2千930.70新元。 他对何以设定高昂的预估费用感到不解:“预估费用比实际费用高出六倍,有什么意义?” 他补充,“病患可能被高昂的预估费用吓着,打退堂鼓而选择不接受治疗”。 索赔医疗报告收100新元 此外,在所有收费中,他发现樟宜医院也向他征收100新元,用于付还职总英康( NTUC Income)要求下的的医疗报告。 “既然已经有一份住院病患的出院表格,清楚列明病患的医疗状况和程序,为什么保险公司还要一份医疗报告?”他认为,撰写医疗报告不像很复杂的任务,何以要征收100元?即便专科看诊也没那么贵。 他呼吁政府管制这些医院对于医疗报告的收费数额。…

鄞义林以香港公民社会为鉴 吁新加坡人莫忘为自己权益抗争

香港抗议游行造成了全球的连锁效应,甚至在我国也引发了热烈的讨论。 2019年,香港特别行政区政府提交香港立法会审议的一法律草案,以向中国大陆、澳门和台湾等司法管辖区移交嫌疑人和进行法律协助。此提案源于潘晓颖命案,现时香港法律无法向台湾移交疑犯,同时特区政府宣称原有逃犯移交条例不包括中国大陆及澳门亦是「法律缺陷及漏洞」。草案甫经提出,便招致社会各方质疑和关切香港作为独立司法管辖区的独立性或遭削弱,甚至批评草案是对“一国两制”致命的冲击。 而目前旅居台湾的维权人士鄞义林,周一(17日)在脸书上,表达对香港抗议活动的看法,以及它对于新加坡的启示。 文中指出,香港反送中集会,反而促使港人同仇敌忾。远在香港发生的大事,也引起了新加坡人对示威的关注与非议,大致分为两派:忧虑新加坡是否会在未来发生动荡,又或者希望本土人民也能团结站出来抗争。 他写道,“ 一派的看法,非常忧虑示威行动所带来的骨牌效应,担心新加坡也会发生同样的示威行动。而这一派的留言者,通常都是新加坡政治制度下的受惠者,你会从他们的留言中听到”新加坡是非常好的地方、新加坡非常长稳定,我们不应该在如此美好的国家发生这样的暴动。“ 另一方面,他指出,“ 另一派的看法,则来自于被新加坡政治制度遗忘的人,这些人他们觉得被抛弃,或曾经被新加坡所伤害过。他续指,“这些人从香港示威行动中再次燃起希望,为自己的权益和自主抗争到底。” 鄞义林阐述,此次示威行动成功,不仅仅是对香港人民非常重要,更是给与那些对专制制度感到无力的人新希望,认为我们也有可能走向这一步。 他解释,那些所谓要保住“新加坡良好制度”的人,无疑都是受惠的一方,他们想要守住在这个制度下所获得的威望与利益。他们也知道,如果新加坡变成更平等的国家,他们的利益和威望也相对不保。 他也在文中说道,他仅仅是简单撰述示威行动的现况,但他表示香港的示威行动也引起了两端的争议,“受惠者的恐惧,以及边缘化者的希望“,并认为这是去向更平等的世界有必要经历的过程。 然而,他感慨认为,人民无法从香港示威行动中得到学习,也没有意愿将新加坡变成更接近平等的地方。鄞义林说,“…