Four years ago in Jan 2015 when Health Minister Gan Kim Yong introduced the MediShield Life Scheme Bill in Parliament, he said that MediShield Life would enable all Singaporeans to “come together as a nation to build this healthcare safety net, so that no one is left behind”. It would extend help to the vulnerable and the needy, he said.

“I would like to reiterate that this Bill goes beyond providing the legislative framework for the operation of a national Scheme. It is a Bill that provides many firsts in the Government’s efforts to help Singaporeans fulfil their aspiration,” he said.

“Like many first steps, there will be lessons to learn from and things to improve on. We will work with Singaporeans to bring the Scheme closer to our vision as we move forward.”

“If there are hiccups along the way, I’m sure there will be, please bear with us as we do our best to fix them as quickly as we can,” he added.

20 per cent of medical subsidised bills were above Medishield Life claim limits

However, recently, cases have surfaced that some public hospitals are charging certain medical procedures more than what MediShield Life is allowed to cover. In a recent story which shocked many Singaporeans, Mr Seow Ban Yam, 82, was asked to fork out most of his $4,477 post-subsidy bill for an eye operation when MediShield Life was only allowed to pay $4.50 for the bill.

In light of the public furor over the case, MOH replied on ST Forum on Tues (8 Jan) that eight in 10 subsidised bills were within the Medishield Life claim limits. That means to say, 20% of the subsidised bills, like the one billed to Mr Seow, were not.

MOH explained that in Mr Seow’s case, the procedure he had to undergo is uncommon and complex, and was performed by a senior consultant. However, it shared that there is an ongoing review of claim limits to ensure that MediShield Life’s coverage remains broad-based and sustainable.

“The review will be completed by end 2020. In the meantime, patients who face financial difficulties can apply for assistance such as Medifund to ensure that healthcare remains affordable,” it added.

Health consultant: Public confidence in MediShield Life shaken

With regard to Mr Seow’s case, Dr Jeremy Lim, a health consultant with Oliver Wyman wrote an opinion piece which was published on ST today (‘MediShield Life payouts: For true peace of mind, limit patients’ exposure to big bills‘, 10 Jan).

Dr Lim opined that the fracas involving Mr Seow’s negligible insurance payout for a complex eye operation has shone the spotlight on the adequacy of Singapore’s MediShield Life scheme.

He argued that while claim limits protect MediShield Life from excessive claims, he would like to see the policy enhanced to also protect patients from making excessive cash outlay, like in Mr Seow’s case. In addition, he proposed also capping the patient’s co-payment instead of leaving it “open-ended”.

In particular, he was critical of MOH not fixing the issue fast enough. “MOH has said it would conduct a review by the end of next year, but with more than $1.5 billion already paid out to over 200,000 Singaporeans, surely there is enough experience to start identifying gaps and improving the scheme?” Dr Lim asked.

“Health Minister Gan Kim Yong previously assured Singaporeans that while ‘hiccups’ were unavoidable, MOH would ‘do our best to fix them as quickly as we can’. Asking the public to wait two years may not be palatable,” he added.

“Like it or not, public confidence in MediShield Life has been shaken by this episode (of Mr Seow’s case).”

He hopes the government would move decisively to restore confidence in the public with regard to the MediShield Life scheme.

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

Dengue cases hiked in past 5 weeks, over 200 cases reported each week

According to the National Environment Agency (NEA), dengue cases have been increasing…

八市民揭武汉疫情被指“造谣” 人民法院:若民众听信“谣言”戴口罩 可能更好防控

去年12月31日,中国湖北省武汉市卫生健康委员会,发布关于肺炎疫情的情况通报。 随后,有人举报网上传发“不实信息”。其中有八人,分别传发“X医院已有多例SARS确诊病例”、“确诊了七例SARS”、“Y医院接收了一家三口从某洲回来的,然后就疑似非典了”等未经核实的信息。 当时,当地公安分别对八名网民进行了教育、批评,均未给予警告、罚款、拘留的处罚。 然而,中国最高人民法院,在拥有1千760万粉丝的官方微博发表文章,似乎为上述八位传出“假消息”的市民“正名”,也非议执法机构,对一切不完全符合事实的信息,都进行法律打击并无法律上必要。 文章认为,之所以产生谣言,是因为认知局限,“不同个体基于认知水平的差异,对同一事物,完全可能产生不同程度的虚假信息,我们应该理解法律对个体的适度宽容态度。” 若民众听信“谣言”立即戴口罩,可能更好管控 文章指尽管当初谣传是SARS,属于编造不实信息,若造成社会秩序混乱,就符合法律规定传播假消息的信息,给予惩处是适当的。 “…事实证明,尽管新型肺炎并不是SARS,但是信息发布者发布的内容,并非完全捏造。如果社会公众当时听信了这个“谣言”,并且基于对SARS的恐慌而采取了佩戴口罩、严格消毒、避免再去野生动物市场等措施,这对我们今天更好地防控新型肺炎,可能是一件幸事。” 故此,该法院认为,执法机关面对虚假信息,应充分考虑信息发布者、传播者在主观上的恶性程度,及其对事物的认知能力。 “试图对一切不完全符合事实的信息都进行法律打击,既无法律上的必要,更无制度上的可能,甚至会让我们对谣言的打击走向法律正义价值的反面,成为削弱政府公信力的反面教材。” 该文章也重申,“谣言止于公开”,若信息及时、全面公开,群众的疑虑自然会削减。  …

Malaysia’s repatriation of over 1,000 Myanmar nationals just weeks after coup “inhumane”, “devastating”: Amnesty International

Malaysia’s move to deport over 1,000 Myanmar nationals back to their homeland…

32 GCE scripts go missing in the UK – again

Once again, national examination scripts sent to the UK for grading have…