Those opting for A class wards are not the govt's problem

27 Apr 2005, Today

Question

Name of the Person: Leong Sze Hian 

Those opting for A class wards are not the govt's problem

I refer to the article "MediShield beyond the age of 80?" (April 25). Higher income earners may have their Medisave contribution ceiling, currently $30,000, raised in a year's time. The reason given was that MediShield was designed with the B2 and C class wards in mind, so for higher-income earners, capping the Medisave contribution ceiling might mean they would not have sufficient savings if they opt to stay at A-class wards. This is contradictory to the recent policy change of farming out the MediShield-Plus schemes to a private insurer. On one hand, we say we want to give those who can afford it the choice of a wider and competitively-priced range of medical insurance schemes from private insurers. On the other hand, we are now told we have no choice but to have more Medisave for MediShield's design limitations? If the higher-income earners choose a higher class of wards, it is because they prefer to do so and believe they can afford it. So, why is there the need to lock up more of their disposable cash-flow and assets in Medisave? The more one's assets are locked up in Medisave, the less will be available for other uses such as retirement and health-related expenses. The restrictions on the use of Medisave limits the choice of many health-related services available, such as out-patient, health screening, etc. This may mean more cash out-of-pocket medical expenses. Increasing the Medisave contribution and withdrawal ceilings may have the undesirable effect of encouraging one to opt for higher class wards, because some may feel that one might as well use it since it cannot be used for anything else. Perhaps, healthcare policies should focus on the lower-income, such as not closing the night services at polyclinics, instead of forcing the higher-income to contribute more. After all, if the higher-income groups do not have enough when they opt for higher class wards, it should not be the Government's problem.

Reply

Reply from MOH 

MOH: Our priority is still lower income groups 

In "Don't raise Medisave ceiling" (BT, April 26) , Mr Leong Sze Hian argued that "healthcare policies should focus on the lower income". We agree. 

This is why our resources are prioritised towards basic medical services, including the provision of Medifund as a safety net for the poor. It is also for this reason that we are considering means-testing to better target healthcare subsidies to those who need them the most. 

As for higher income earners, Mr Leong is of the view that they opt for higher class wards because "they can afford it" and this should not be the government's problem. This is a valid view. Seen from this perspective, we should simply continue with the status quo. 

However, some anecdotal feedback suggests that there are people in the middle and higher income groups who feel differently about this issue. They would like some refinements to Medisave rules to allow them to help pay for the higher cost of hospitalisation in the private and Class A/B1 wards. 

We are approaching this issue with an open mind, and do not rule out any options, including the possibility of doing nothing, until we have analyzed the data. Meanwhile, we welcome all feedback to moh_info@moh.gov.sg