Below was my letter to ST Forum recently. Believe they will ignore me again as they never seems interested to publish financial planning related issues or maybe that I’m not a big shot enough…
** QTE **
Medishield is a low cost catastrophic medical insurance scheme introduced in 1990 to help CPF members meet medical expenses from major illnesses. Over time, several insurance companies introduced their version of shield coverage meant for those who wish to stay in higher wards and hospitals. These shield plans operate on a co-payment feature by mean of “Deductible” and “Co-insurance”. These insurance companies later also introduced riders with premium payable by cash to cover the deductible and co-insurance of these shield plans which mean that their policyholders need not pay a single cent in event they are hospitalised.
Though it is not a desirable thing to be hospitalised but to transfer 100% of the risk back to insurer may increase the chance of exploitation by hospitals and patients. The hospital may order for treatments and diagnostic test, which may not be cost effective and yet generate consumer demand for these intense and costly services. Over time, medical inflation rate will likely rise faster than the national inflation and Singaporeans’ wage increase rate.
I hope Ministry of Health and Monetary Authority of Singapore will relook into allowing Insurers to add riders within their shield plans for 100% coverage. When the patient take up partial responsibility towards their own hospital expenses, they will question deeper into the necessity of going for more expensive hospitals and treatments as well as to conduct more research and comparison before using them. This shall help keep healthcare cost better controlled and to create healthy competition among hospitals in the long term. With a high healthcare cost, there will be extra burden on taxpayer’s monies and future insurance premium will increase to a point that only the rich can afford.
I applaud NTUC Income to be the only insurer in Singapore that recognise this problem and insisted on the 10% co-payment feature even when a rider is added to their Shield Coverage.
** UNQTE **
Disappointed that they always not publish my letter when I feel what I wrote concern national interest and consumer benefits and they always choose to publish gossips and complains which attract more readership. Wait till the end of the week and see if they will really respond to me…
(My letter was published on the 04th August)
You write rubbish and you embarrass the govt. You glorify ntuc and may misrepresent their other rotten products. Does this explain why they don’t publish your article albeit well wriiten.
By: The Watchman on July 29, 2010
at 10:08 pm
I have to agree with you Adrian,
There should be some shared responsibilities between the insurers and the public.
Because the rider is not 100%, the premiums are definitely much lower and certainly makes more sense to take it up.
By: Mr Bonez on July 30, 2010
at 12:37 am
I agreed with you that 100% coverage isn’t necessary for all consumers. we should take part of the risk (small risk) to reduce the hospitality expenses.
p/s:
if your writing is more neutral (minus the NTUC part), then I think ST may publish your letter.
thank you
By: Roman on August 1, 2010
at 10:04 am
I don’t think what you’ve written is rubbish. It makes sense and is rather useful for many people.
Unfortunately for unknown reasons, I agree with you that topics on gossips or otherwise have higher chance of being published.
I myself have written something before but suffered the same fate.
By: Ken on August 1, 2010
at 2:18 pm
hi Adrian, perhaps you can submit to the TOC and Temasek Review so that more people can know about this.
if you want, i can post this as a guest post on my blog http://www.investmentmoats.com
best regards.
By: Drizzt on August 1, 2010
at 6:16 pm
Hi Drizzt, I’ll be happy to share this post with your readers. Thanks for your offer.
Hi Roman, I think the fate will be the same with or without the NTUC part because they can choose not to publish the NTUC part if they feel that its bias.
Hi Ken, I’ll try to write a complain next and see if they publish it. haha…
My last unpublished letter was at
http://akhiat.com/2010/05/11/unpublished-forum-letter-on-ilp/
By: akhiat on August 1, 2010
at 10:59 pm
Letter resent to ST forum and Mr Yap Koon Hong with some amendments including taking out the NTUC part. See it will go through this week.
By: akhiat on August 2, 2010
at 8:52 am
you should take out the part that you wrote about insurance. Just leave that part where you praise NTUC Income. Sure get published this way. Don’t believe, just try it and you will see I am right.
By: TKL on August 3, 2010
at 2:20 am
TKL is right.. SPH will be forced to publish because it means more ad revenue for them. Bigger ads and maybe centre fold ads next time. This is a I scratch your back and you scratch mine world. Honesty and sincerity is dead.
By: The Watchman on August 4, 2010
at 10:39 am
It has finally publish in the Strait Times forum today
By: noworry on August 4, 2010
at 10:51 am
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for your sharing. But this issue had been addressed by MOH in Nove 2007. In case you missed it, here’s MOH’s reply to a forum letter:
Pitfalls in as-charged insurance policies
Mr Koh Wee Guan has bought medical insurance coverage for his daughter and was particularly pleased that “‘As charged’ medical plan takes load off dad’s mind” (ST Forum, 30 October).
We commend Mr Koh’s pro-active approach towards his daughter’s medical coverage. We encourage all parents to subscribe to at least the basic MediShield for coverage in Class B2 and C, and to supplement with private insurance plans if they are likely to use private hospitals or higher classes in public hospitals.
As noted by Mr Koh, some insurers also provide additional “riders” with payouts “as-charged” by the hospitals, thus eliminating any co-payment by patients. While this seems like a good feature for policyholders, such a scheme has unfortunately led to over-servicing and over-pricing by hospitals in other countries. The initial low premiums of such “riders” prove unsustainable and in order to cover the rising claims and costs, insurers end up having to raise premiums regularly and/or to drop the “as-charged” approach. Indeed, most national health insurance policies now regulate how much providers can charge through some sort of fee schedules. A free-for-all “as charged” regime proves too costly for the insurers (and hence the policyholders) to bear.
MOH has not objected to the introduction of “as-charged” plans, despite this concern, as we do not wish to stifle industry innovation. But we do not allow Medisave to be used for such riders.
MS KAREN TAN
DIRECTOR, CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
By: Shanne on August 4, 2010
at 6:37 pm
Hi Adrian,
Shanne again. While I agree that a national health scheme should not pay from the first dollar, your letter is poorly written and researched. Pardon my bluntness. For subject on health insurance which is close to most people’s heart, you really need to do a lot of research before sending them for publishing so as to not embarrassing yourself.
You used a lot of sweeping statements, which may not be appropriate and subject yourself to trouble. You seemed to suggest that all hospitals and doctors will exploit the system by doing unnecessary yet costly procedures and treatments. Surely there are some unethical doctors around, but I believe most have their patients’ interest at heart. Just like in our profession, there are many bad sheeps, but some (like you?) are earning an honest living wat.
Also, your point on NTUC Income being the only insurer that required co-payment is incorrect. Don’t tell me you don’t know NTUC Income also has Daily Cash Rider to help cover the 10% co-insurance? The reason for the intro of this rider and Child Illness rider was in response to competition from other shield plans.
Lastly, it does appear that you haven’t been reading the news enough and stay updated. Your point about co-payment is nothing new at all. It’s been addressed by Ms Karen Tan of MOH in Nov 2007. I believe if you have read it, you would not have written this letter.
Therefore, if you wish to educate the public about financial planning in future, please read and research more so that they are not misled. You need to spend some time on reading and upgrading yourself, besides doing sales. Just my 2 cts worth.
By: Shanne on August 5, 2010
at 11:11 am
I write with good intention, not to pour cold water on you okie..
By: Shanne on August 5, 2010
at 11:19 am
Also, in case you’ve forgotten, NTUC Income was one of the first insurers to go first dollar with the intro of Plus rider. It was forced to terminate the Plus rider due to huge loss incurred after the rider was introduced to pitch against Aviva MyShield. It didn’t do it voluntarily. We shall see if Pru, AIA, GE’s plans are sustainable going forward..
By: Shanne on August 5, 2010
at 1:34 pm
Hi Shanne,
Thanks for visiting and comment on my blog. Constructive comments shall make us better. I will like to thank you for your feedback.
I indeed have not seen that 2007 statement by MOH and admit that the letter will be better if I’d left out the NTUC part. I’m actually quite careful not to make sweeping statements because majority of the hospitals/doctors work with integrity.
My intention for writing is very simple. I believe that some self responsibility can induce the patient to think and this helps to control healthcare inflation in the longer term. When 100% coverage continue to exist, the demand will be there and things will stay status quo. When patients stop to think and question, such interity can be gradually eroded over time.
By: akhiat on August 5, 2010
at 2:27 pm
Hi Watchman,
Thanks for visiting my blog and giving me comments. I’m sorry that I’d blocked off some of your comments. I’m not sure why I never have chance to approve your comments before it come unlike my other comments.
I just like to keep my blog simple and preferably no finger pointings and negative arguments which will generate more arguments.
I thank you for your understanding…
By: akhiat on August 5, 2010
at 10:13 pm
If you have left out applauding NTUC Income then your letter would not have been published.
By: TKL on August 9, 2010
at 11:53 pm