Last month (21 Dec), a member of the public Ian Lee Chi Meng wrote to ST Forum relating that his mother was charged with high bill by National University Hospital (NUH), despite being referred through a polyclinic (‘Forum: Stuck with high bill for cataract operation and follow-up visits‘).

His mother, Madam Song Yuen Han, had earlier obtained referrals from Queenstown Polyclinic to benefit from subsidised treatment at NUH for her cataract. Mr Lee said, “My father has been very upset over what he says is overcharging by NUH. When I looked into the issue, I was shocked to learn that they had incurred more than $23,000 for my mother’s cataract operation and subsequent clinical follow-up.”

“NUH told us that my mother had lost her subsidised patient status when she selected a higher-grade lens – which she was advised to, to avoid the need for reading glasses after the operation – and when she elected to choose her own doctor,” he said.

Mr Lee wondered since his mother was referred by a polyclinic for her first visit to NUH, how she would know which doctor to choose? NUH told Mr Lee that financial counselling was adequately conducted, with all consent forms duly signed by his mother.

“We thought the forms signed were routine indemnity forms for the operation. My mother would not have knowingly signed forms to exclude herself as a subsidised patient and be treated as a full-paying private patient instead,” Mr Lee explained.

“What was not addressed was how much every subsequent follow-up visit to NUH would cost, and at private patient rates too.”

Miscommunication

As it turns out, Mdm Song was overcharged due to a “simple miscommunication” as reported in the media last Thursday (‘More clarity needed on polyclinic referrals and accessing subsidised care‘, 16 Jan).

When Mdm Song went to NUH for treatment, she was asked at the point of admission if she wanted to stick with the same doctor who had seen her before, even though she had a referral letter from polyclinic in her hand. The 72-year-old replied that she did. However, she did not know this would mean that the hospital would treat her as a private patient and not as a subsidised one from then on. That is because subsidised patients are not allowed to choose their doctor.

According to the media, a reply from Dr Loon Seng Chee, acting head of NUH’s Department of Ophthalmology, explained that Mdm Song had chosen her doctor and had been given financial counseling and knew she would not be subsidised.

“Did she knowingly agree to forgo her subsidised status, or did she not fully understand what her response about sticking with the same doctor would mean for her eventual bills?” asked health journalist Salma Khalik.

Ms Salma opined that it’s important that elderly be given clear, unambiguous information about the medical treatments they opt for, and the difference in cost between opting for private versus subsidised care, so that they would not be surprised by the bills later.

Even though Mdm Song did go through financial counseling and sign papers, Mdm Song admitted she was quite “blur” about the whole process. Ms Salma further argued that since Mdm Song had a referral letter from a polyclinic, it should have been implicit that she wanted subsidised treatment.

Ms Salma said, “In fact, the first thing its (NUH) staff should have checked was if Madam Song wanted subsidised care. If the answer was yes, then she should not even have been asked about her choice of doctor.”

“Staff need to have clear standard operating procedures on their interactions with patients, especially when doing financial counseling or admissions. This should include clearly asking patients if they want to be treated as subsidised patients; and shown how much they would likely pay as a private patient as opposed to being a subsidised one,” she added.

In the case of Mdm Song, her bill for cataract surgery was triple what it would have been as a subsidised patient. She also had to pay private rates for follow-up checks at NUH, which is about double the subsidised rate.

Quality of financial counseling sessions at public hospitals

In her job as a healthcare journalist, Ms Salma revealed that she would sometimes listen in at a number of financial counseling sessions at different public hospitals.

“Some are exemplary in the advice they give,” she said. “But I have also heard patients being advised by staff that there was no bed available in C class, but if they were willing to choose B2, they could be taken to the ward immediately. The staff tell the patients that both ward classes are subsidised and payment can be covered by MediShield Life and Medisave.”

“What they omit mentioning is the difference in subsidy between C and B2 wards. The subsidy is 65 to 80 per cent in C class, and 50 to 65 per cent in B2. The patient’s share of a B2 bill would likely be much higher,” she pointed out.

“Another point to note is that a patient choosing C class would be placed in a B2 ward if there is no C class bed available, but charged C class rates. So there is no need to upgrade to get an available bed.”

Ms Salma also recalled that patients were sometimes told that if they want a good doctor, they need to choose their doctor. Otherwise they could be treated by a “trainee”. Fearing poorer treatment, or wanting a bed immediately, patients thus advised may then opt for private care.

Ms Salma opined, “This kind of behaviour to nudge patients into choosing a more expensive option would amount to a kind of upselling by hospital staff, which is not ethical for a public sector hospital.”

NUH overlooks polyclinic referral

Yesterday, Group Director Chan Beng Seng from the Ministry of Health (MOH) replied in response to Ms Salma’s ST article (‘Forum: Woman treated as private patient in error‘, 21 Jan).

Defending the public hospitals, Mr Chan sais that guidelines are in place on how financial counselling should be performed at public hospitals.

“All hospitals are required by law to provide financial counseling to all patients who are admitted for inpatient treatment or day surgery,” he said. “Subsidised patients referred from a subsidised provider are eligible for subsidised care.”

During financial counseling, Mr Chan said that patients are provided with a bill estimate and shown how much of the bill will be covered by subsidies and MediShield Life, and the amount that can be paid through Medisave.

In Mdm Song’s case, Mr Chan explained that NUH had treated her as a private patient for a first condition, as she had requested to be treated by a specific doctor.

“She subsequently had a second unrelated condition for which she had a polyclinic referral. As the second referral was to a specialist in the same department, NUH had overlooked the polyclinic referral and treated her as a private patient in error,” Mr Chan acknowledged.

“This was an oversight which NUH subsequently rectified.”

“The Ministry of Health will continue to work with the public hospitals to review how we can further improve the financial counseling process. Patients who face financial difficulties with their bills can approach the medical social workers at the PHIs for assistance,” he added.

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

行李太多被司机拒载,外国游客与司机发生纠纷

因为行李太多被司机拒载,外国游客与司机发生纠纷,并对司机破口他骂,引发网民关注。 日前,All Singaporean stuff 脸书专页流传一段视频,一团外国游客在我国租用了13人座客车,但由于行李太多,被司机拒载。游客相当不满,并以外语大骂司机,但最终司机仍拒载离开。 从视频内可见,当时一名身穿豹纹衣服的女乘客站在客车后方的行李放置处,一直在用外语大骂司机,现场也站着好几名乘客,年龄有大有小,场面相当混乱。 而视频显示,后车厢上有数个行李,加上一辆折叠轮椅,数量不少。 而根据帖文所说,由于行李过多,司机拒绝超载,但与乘客沟通不果。乘客还要再加一辆轮椅,要求放在行李上。司机认为若在刹车时,很可能让轮椅掉落,因此再次拒绝,于是乘客便对司机开始大吼。 虽然争执过程大部分以外语在沟通,但可以听到乘客在对着司机吼叫,“这是我的车子”。 该名身穿豹纹的女子,一直以英文参杂印度语进行沟通,并称自己是老板,坚持可以将行李放在车上。 虽然现场有人试图要调节纠纷,但女子与其家人直言,“不用沟通,我就是老板。” 而乘客见司机也在用手机拍摄他们,便不甘示弱,也回拍司机,并把司机的车牌号码也照下来。…

WP’s Yee Jenn Jong challenges ESM Goh’s affirmation that GRC and town council systems are “stabilisers” for Singapore

Former Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Yee Jenn Jong disagrees that electoral divisions…

学者回顾2018新加坡处多事之秋 形容“行动党在未知中险航”

放眼踏入2019年,约翰佳博大学政治经济助理教授碧洁薇丝,于去年12月31日在东亚论坛上,发表了题为《行动党在未知中险航》(Singapore’s PAP Managing Uncertainty),形容行动党跟前仍摆着不确定因素,提醒若行动党仍以过去保守行事作风回应,在国家面对更多阻力下,可能曝露在更大的风险中。 文中提及在应对国内诸多课题如贫富不均,行动党显得防御被动;在经济上的改革举措也乏善可陈,仍过度仰赖政府注资和亲移民的模式。至于新马关系恶化,也可能成为行动党政府的棘手负担之一。 碧洁薇丝在去年七月曾于《日经亚洲评论》撰写评论,认为马来西亚变天仿佛是新加坡的一面镜子,“新马来西亚”的崛起,致使新国政府失去了比较优势,反而相形见绌,显得新加坡仍留恋旧制。 以下为碧洁薇丝原文翻译: 2018年的新加坡处多事之秋。但是关键的事态进展,其实和这个城邦国家扮演的亚细安领头羊角色关系不大,反而较多地与执政党人民行动党(PAP),为了回应国内压力和区域发展多面不确定因素有关。 王瑞杰的考验:走出李氏家族阴影 行动党选择以他们熟悉的手段对应,也符合保守政府行事作风。但随着这个国家面对更多的阻力,此举也可能让他曝露在更大的风险中。 政治上新加坡正准备迎接选举。随着财政部长王瑞杰被宣布为总理人选,减少了对行动党第四代领导人的猜测,至少解答了谁将接任李显龙的问题。 王瑞杰是较为安全的选项。内阁称之为团队合作者、完善且经考验的行动党干部,加上也是新加坡最大挑战–经济领域方面的技术专家。…

Thai hospitals short of beds as COVID cases soar: ministry

Thailand’s health ministry sounded the alarm over Bangkok’s dire lack of hospital…