By Howard Lee
“Hello sir, I’m calling from MCI.”
Uh oh. My mind scrambled. What did I write recently that might have offended the Ministry of Communication and Information? Can’t be this piece on LGBT issues, right? Did I say gays should kiss in concerts, or that the Christians should start a political party?
“We are doing a survey on Medishield Life. Would you be able to spare some time to answer a few questions?”
The immediately sigh of relief was followed just as quickly by puzzlement. Why was MCI doing a job that should belong to the Ministry of Health?
On a scale of one to five, one being strongly disagree, five strongly agree, please rate the following statements:
1. The government is managing Singapore well.
2. The government does the right thing for Singaporeans.
3. Singapore is heading in the right direction.
4. The government made my life better compared to five years ago.
5. The Prime Minister is doing a good job running the country.
Hang on, wasn’t this supposed to be a survey on Medishield Life? Why is MCI conducting a report card assessment on the government, and better yet, a popularity poll for the Prime Minister? Of course, it is his government, his Ministries, his Medishield Life scheme to sell. But to barge into a survey with this as an opening – a little too desperate, perhaps?
6. Singapore has a good healthcare system.
7. Healthcare in Singapore is affordable.

Already one-third through the survey, and still no questions about Medishield Life. No doubt, the scheme is part of the national healthcare plan, but why ask the public about their perceptions on the general health of the healthcare system? Should the survey not focus on the new scheme? Like the first five, these two questions appear to do nothing more than seek affirmation for their subject.
And finally, the actual questions about Medishield Life:
8. Have you heard of the Medishield Life scheme? (Yes/No)
9. How much do you know about Medishield Life? (1: Not at all, 2: A little, 3: A lot)
10. Medishield Life makes healthcare more affordable.

11. Medishield Life gives you peace of mind.
12. Medishield Life makes healthcare affordable for the low income, the middle income and the elderly.
13. Medishield Life premiums are affordable given the coverage it provides.
14. Do you feel that Medishield Life premiums will be affordable down the road?
15. Are you confident that you have sufficient funds in your Medisave account?
16. Are you aware of the costs involved for Medishield Life?
17. Are you currently paying for the healthcare cost of any family members?
18. Are you confident that you an afford healthcare for your family through Medishield Life?
19. Are you confident that you have sufficient funds for your family’s healthcare needs?
The exact wording of the survey is about as accurate as I can remember, with all the noise of a telephone survey to contend with. But clearly the push was to discover the affordable quotient of Medishield Life. This excessive focus on one issue is quite telling – has this been flagged as a concern by citizens?
More significantly, the affordability of Medishield Life is really a matter of individual capability. The less you earn, the more significant the contribution, and hence the less affordable the scheme, even if the premium quantum currently favour low-income households.
In addition, the premiums are now subsidised by the government over the next four years for what appears to be the bulk of the population, and Health Minister Gan Kim Yong has also promised that premiums will not increase in the first five years. What happens after the initial years? Will the government continue to subsidise the scheme to keep it affordable, and will premiums increase thereafter?
The answers are unclear, and hence affordability still remains a big question mark, particularly since healthcare costs will continue to increase. Affordability should not just be an issue with premiums, but with total costs associated with it.
As such, it is difficult to understand what the survey was really trying to discover.
Moreover, what the survey fails to address is the issue of coverage. Question 13, in particular, seems to imply that the increase in coverage, most significantly for the elderly and those with pre-existing illnesses, is taken for granted as sufficient. Has any effort been taken to understand if citizens might have grouses about what it the scheme covers? If not, why the certainty that coverage is sufficient?
Despite its short-comings, this survey is currently being conducted, very likely using tax-payers money. A proper and open evaluation of the results is needed, to properly critique all aspects of Medishield Life. Indeed, while the first five questions are completely different in nature to the rest of the survey, there would be many a Singaporean keen to know the results.

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Chan Chun Sing contradicting with Lee Kuan Yew's meritocracy nation?

By Richard Wan Channel News Asia (CNA) reported on 23 January that…

斯里兰卡遭连环爆炸袭击 近800人伤亡

斯里兰卡在复活节这一天发生连环爆炸案,涉及三所教堂和四家酒店以及该国的拜蒂克洛(Batticaloa)地区,八起爆炸案造成至少290人死亡,包括35名外国人,500人受伤。当局表示,至今已经逮捕了24名嫌疑犯。作案者大部分是自杀袭击者。该国国防部长表示,罪犯是宗教极端分子,但是至目前没有任何团体出面,声称对此爆炸袭击负责。 当地警方也证实,昨晚在科伦坡(Colombo)机场附近拆除了一枚简易炸弹。斯里兰卡国防部长于当天傍晚下令实施戒严,至到今早(4月22日)才解除。该国也已经中断社交媒体和通讯服务,避免散播错误消息。 遇袭的地区多为外国游客的主要出入境点,三家酒店和一所教堂位于斯里兰卡首都科伦坡,另外两所教堂则位于科伦坡附近,以天主教徒为主的城市尼甘布。 据美国《有线电视新闻网》报道指出,发生连环爆炸的教堂有科伦坡的寺庙St. Anthony’s Shrine 、尼甘布(Negombo)的教堂St. Sebastian’s Church及拜蒂克洛的教堂Zion Church;酒店有科伦坡的酒店Cinnamon Grand 、科伦坡的香格里拉酒店Shangri-La…

载送总理儿子李毅鹏涉偷录影 司机被罚款900元

今年三月中旬,网络流传总理长子李毅鹏乘坐私家车时被偷录影,而相关男子也被警方调查。 而根据国家法院的判决,上述32岁男子沈贾勇(Andrew Sim Kay Yong,译音),承认在今年3月15日下午4时许,载送李毅鹏和用手机偷录视频。他被判罚款900元,以及吊销驾照8个月。 当时沈贾勇在行驶中一手握方向盘,一手透露视频,此举触犯公路交通法令。 沈贾勇在当天下午3时48分,发现李毅鹏在艺术中心商场(Esplanade Mall)外的德士等候处,沈贾勇就停下车邀后者上车,起初李毅鹏婉拒,但后来还是上了车后座。 沈贾勇和李毅鹏对话时,也询问他的名字和总理的关系;他也好奇怎么李毅鹏一人外出没有随扈,也问要去哪,后者表示放他在东陵路下车,他可以走路返家。沈贾勇又询问是不是因为那里保安森严,而那里的人是否能认得出他。 在闲聊中李毅鹏则表示对于透露自己的私人生活不是很舒服,司机也不再追问。而后话题则转移到李毅鹏收集唱片的兴趣。过程中李毅鹏不知司机正在录视频。 当时警方表示,需要寻求有关司机协助调查,是因为基于李毅鹏的身份背景,司机的提问有严重的安全顾虑;也指司机曾在2014年,在没有获取车主同意,以及在没有购买保险的情况下取走并驾驶车辆,而被定罪。此外,曾因涉入屋行窃被警方警告。 在审讯时,沈贾勇的辩护律师指沈载送李毅鹏一程是出于“好撒玛利亚人”的善意举动,惟遭法官Lorraine…