a community of singaporeans

Singapore’s healthcare system – uniquely Singapore? F1 or F9? (Part 1)

Posted by theonlinecitizen on May 18, 2007

By Leong Sze Hian

This is part one of a three-parts chronological treatise on healthcare issues over the last 2 years or so, like means-testing, non-priority for subsidised rates healthcare, wards down-grading, medical fees competition, costs of medicines and alternatives, healthcare spending, MediShield, ElderShield, implications for foreigners, PRs and Singaporeans, etc.

What will the future of healthcare be like for Singaporeans? What are some issues that we may need to be concerned with? What are your fears? What sort of healthcare system do you want? How do we compare with other countries?

Here are the first 3 issues with our healthcare system.


I went to the Travellers’ Health and Vaccination Clinic at Tan Tock Seng Hospital for a Yellow Fever vaccination recently. The charge was $130.20, compared to just $15 for the same vaccination I had at the same clinic 10 years ago. This is an increase of 768 per cent or a 24 per cent compounded increase per annum.

The clinic was furnished lavishly with leather sofas, leather chairs, paintings on the walls, flowers in vases, etc, like a five-star hotel. The same vaccination costs about HK$200 (S$39), A$50 (S$63) and 35 euros (S$72) in Hong Kong, Australia and Ireland, respectively.

Why has the cost of vaccination increased by so much over the last 10 years, when inflation in Singapore was less than 2 per cent per annum?

When I paid the $130.20 fee, the staff gave me a brochure and said that if I had a platinum credit card, I would receive a 12 per cent discount for health screening.

Why do the more affluent who qualify for a platinum card get a discount of 12 per cent, whereas the lower income have to pay 13.6 per cent more, in a government restructured hospital?

Is this not, in a way, like reverse means testing – the rich pay less, the poor pay more?


F2. April 2007 – ELDERSHIELD:

The MOH has announced that the two insurers of ElderShield will give a one-time rebate to policyholders because of low claims relative to the premiums collected, since the scheme started.

Why pay a rebate, and increase premiums at the same time? Why not just use the excess funding accumulated to reduce future premiums or increase benefits?

At the end of last year, there were about 750,000 policyholders, with a total of 2,366 successful claims. About 16 per cent of claims declined. The claims payout last year was about $8.5 million (2,366 claims x $300 monthly x 12 months).

Even if we assume all 750,000 policyholders paid the lowest premiums at age 40 of $169.74 (male $148.84 + female $190.63 divided by 2), premiums per year were $127.3 million ($169.74 x 750,000 policyholders).

This means the claims ratio was only about 6.7 per cent ($8.5 million in claims but $127.3 million in premiums).

As the 2,366 claims were the cumulative total for the four years since the scheme started, the claims payout over premiums per year is actually much lower.

What was the claims ratio for each of the four years of the scheme? I believe this may be the most profitable insurance scheme in the history of insurance in any country.

How much profit has been made since the scheme started?

Notwithstanding the proposal to increase the monthly payout by $100 and the payout period from five to six years, in view of the above, how is it possible that the proposal now is to have existing policyholders pay a one-off adjustment to make up for lower premiums paid in earlier years under the current ElderShield scheme, increase premiums of about $10 a month for the older age group, and have policyholders registered automatically for the new scheme after September pay premiums of $1 to $2 more a month?

As to the opt-out rate having gone down steadily from 38 per cent when the scheme was launched to 14 per cent last year, there are 1.26 million residents (Singaporeans and PRs) aged 40 to 64, according to the Department of Statistics’ ‘key statistics demography Singapore residents by age group end June 2006’.

So, isn’t the opt-out rate about 40 per cent (with about 750,000 policyholders among 1.26 million residents)?

Does the Ministry of Health’s study on the opt-out rate refer to the current opt-out rate of new entrants who reach age 40, or the overall opt-out rate of those eligible?



The Health Minister clarified in Parliament on April 10 that downgrading to subsidised wards is a two-day process and his plans to introduce means testing in hospitals within a year.

Some Singaporeans who can afford higher class wards might be reluctant to opt for them, fearing that their hospital stay might be prolonged due to unexpected complications and the charges incurred might exceed their Medisave account balance, medical insurance and cash reserves.

Thus, higher-income Singaporeans might opt for Class C or B2 subsidised wards if, for example, they believe that they could be required to stay in hospital for longer than, say, five days. The logic is that if it’s five days or less, they might think that they can afford the luxury of higher class ward facilities. But, since there is always the possibility of them staying for an indefinite period, they might think it is better not to risk opting for a higher class ward.

Now that this worry is being exacerbated by means testing, the problem of overcrowding in Class C wards may get worse.

In any case, when the Class C or B2 ward is full, one can go to a higher class ward and still pay the lower rates. So, why risk opting for a higher class ward in the first place?

In this regard, I would like to suggest that patients and their families be assured that if they opt for a higher class ward, and end up staying for much longer than expected, such as over three weeks, they will automatically be allowed to downgrade to C class or B2.

This may result in fewer people opting for C class or B2 on admission to the hospital.

Currently, those who opt for a higher class ward, and subsequently request for downgrading, are subject to means testing — this I believe is what Singaporeans fear most. Thus, this may be the root cause for many patients opting for subsidised wards.

It was clarified in Parliament that it takes two days or longer to process a ward-downgrading request, if patients are unable to produce the relevant documents to support their applications when means-testing is involved.

Only those with a per capita family income of $1,000 a month or lower can downgrade to Class B2, and $500 or lower to Class C. For outpatients applying to downgrade, it takes an average of two weeks to secure an appointment with a medical social worker to assess whether the patient qualifies.

So, for say a three-person family with a household income of just $1,501 a month, downgrading to Class C is not allowed. Only 1 per cent of patients in Class A or B1 wards who sought to downgrade were successful.

Judging from this, no wonder Singaporeans are opting for lower-class wards — due to the fear of not being able to downgrade.


In part 2, Sze Hian writes about healthcare costs, medical fees competition, licensing of medicines, etc


7 Responses to “Singapore’s healthcare system – uniquely Singapore? F1 or F9? (Part 1)”

  1. Eddie Loh said

    The root of the problem is our Government is spending less and less money on Health Care for Singaporeans. She is more interested on cost recovery and making huge profit out of Singaporeans by sucking our CPF money dry so that Singaporeans will work to death.

  2. Health care is personal but people like to blame the government for their problem.

    If you like to smoke and later get lung cancer, you still want to blame the government for your illness ? If you have a sweet tooth, later you get diebeties, you still want to blame the government for your illness ? If you like salty food and later get high blood pressure, you still want to blame the government for your illness ?

    As for accident, it is unavoidable. This is fate.

    The problem with the government it that they do not want to really promote healthy living. Have you seen any minister or MP coming out to promote vegetarian food ? What they want to do is to solve the present problem they face. They don’t foresee future problems. Like obesity, it was not a problem 30 years ago, but now it is the very problem in primary and secondary schools. The culprit is the promotion of milk drinking in primary school. Asian don’t drink milk as a beverage like coffee and tea, but in the West, it is their diet. So once Asians get used to milk, they either get fat or thin. Thin is for those who have reaction to drinking milk.

    By changing habit of diet to suit Western culture, you can turn your body system upside down, unless you take it from baby to adulthood. Then the body system is tuned to the new diet.

    I hope each individual should take upon himself to take care of himself instead of relying on the government for support.

  3. anonymous said

    “I hope each individual should take upon himself to take care of himself instead of relying on the government for support.”

    It’s a question of whether the government is providing support when the individual needs it, not how the individual can avoid being ill…

  4. Y K Lim said

    In all fairness, over the years the government has tried to improve the overall healthcare system, however in recent years there appears to be much more emphasis placed on revenue and profit as opposed to its obligation to provide adequate subsidy for its citizens. The government has a moral obligation to spend where necessary and maintain its level of subsidy if not more but certainly NOT less as the population ages.

    We cannot blame the government if we are overweight, develop lung cancer as a result of smoking etc but what is obligatory on the part of the government is to ensure its people who elect them into office is given due medical care.
    No corners should be cut and no economic value should be placed as national healthcare is one of the most important pillars of society.

    The government has introduced numerous insurance schemes for its citizens and kudos to the Health Ministers past and present but, the upcoming “means testing” is a troubling thought. According to various quarters of explanation and reasoning, it is aimed at not encouraging the “upper class” people in society to abuse the subsidy. The question is what is the percentage of such abuses as opposed to the damaged done to the broader society. Remember, not all who live in HDB apartments are poor and not all who live in landed properties or private apartments are rich. There are multiple factors to look into.

    A message to the Health Minister is while the different Ministries may try to outshine one another in cutting costs and generating revenue and profit, to have this same philosophy in healthcare, is very dangerous as the overall population is much better educated and they can see what’s between the line.

  5. betterment said

    Means testing may seem like a new idea, but it has already been used by the government in various sectors. Our differentiated scale for income tax is a form of means testing. I support the notion where the higher income earners contribute higher taxes to state coffers and help fund the cost of government and civil service operations. With the introduction of GST, more than 70% of Singaporeans do not have to pay taxes, thus the tax burden lies on the shoulder of the remaining 30% of the citizens. Shouldn’t the government having collected taxes from the citizens treat all its’ people equally and fairly and not discriminate anyone based on race, language, religion or income levels?

    Public housing is another segment where means testing is applied. With income ceiling set for HDB housing, the higher income earners do not enjoy the benefits of subsidized housing. With 80% of Singaporean living in HDB flats, again, the remaining 20% is deprived of state subsidy for housing.

    The imminent introduction of means testing for public health hospitalization is another punishment for the minority group of Singaporeans. The minister has alluded that income levels and housing types as a possible indicators for means testing. With 70% of Singaporeans not having to pay taxes and 80% living in HDB flats, the new changes will ultimately affect only the 20% higher income earners. Should the higher income earners whom contributed the largest portion of taxes be penalized again and again? It appears that this minority group is treated as second class citizens devoid of any state subsidy. Is this minority group of Singaporeans been abusing the hospitalization scheme to such a large extend that MOH has to implement measures to address them? Why introduce measure that will only affect a minority group of people and the issue is caused by the majority? Shouldn’t this minority group whom has contributed the largest portion of taxes be allowed to gain some subsidized medical care when they fall ill?

    It appears that higher income earners are being marginalized and unappreciated in Singapore.

  6. ks said

    I do not know why the goverment donot banned smoking.i donot belive because of people already smoke, as they allow 18 years old teenager to smoke, nor i believe is for singapore economic(although facts remains part of singapore ecom is from selling cigarettes)as the government increase tax and about to open casino and new resort to earn big bucks from the tourist. I believe the government should banned smoking totally

  7. su said

    people hate to wait for the doctors and nowdays people are getting sick more often.
    price are getting higher everyday(:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: