Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:02

Statistics that keep getting better?

In Main Stories, Top Story, Uncle Leong, Uniquely Spore • 1,017 views • 23 Comments

Leong Sze Hian / Columnist

I refer to the article, “Medifund kitty increased” (ST, Dec 18). 

It says that only 1,366 Medifund applications, compared to 356,566 approved applications, were turned down – less than one in 200. Last year, it was reported that there were 6,456 Medifund rejections, a 30-fold increase compared to 210 in 2005.

That is:

2005 = 210 rejections

2006 = 6,456 rejections

2007 = 1,366 rejections

Whilst the number of approved applications has increased by 18 per cent from 301,126 to 356,566, why is it that the number of rejections has declined dramatically by 79 per cent from 6,456 to 1,366?

In other words, a 30-fold increase the previous year has become an almost 80 per cent drop now.

Is it because the approval criteria has been relaxed, or has the ratio of needy to non-needy applicants increased substantially?

It was reported last year that the 301,126 approved applications were made by about 20,000 to 30,000 patients.

So, how many patients made up the latest 356,566 approved applications?

As I believe that patients who are rejected are unlikely to go through the paper work to apply again, are the 1,366 rejected patients or rejected applications? Were some told that they don’t even have to apply because they could not meet the basic criteria?

If most are rejected patients, then the rejection rate may not be one in 200, but much higher.

Madam Halimah Yacob, chairperson of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, expressed some concerns that the current conditions are too stringent, some procedures are excluded, and that for some ailments, B2 is the lowest class of ward available.

In this regard, what do needy patients do if they require procedures that are excluded, or cannot pay the at least 40 per cent of fees required for those ailments that has B2 as the lowest ward?

I would like to suggest that the Medifund approval criteria be made available to the public, so that needy Singaporeans need not become overly worried about medical costs.

————

Related posts:

  1. Fed up with statistics (Part One)
  2. Budget debate statistics: Uniquely Singapore?
  3. Uniquely Singapore, F1 or F9?: Inflation up, HDB property tax up, statistics disappear, Ministers’ pay up again soon
  4. Fed up with statistics? (Part 2)
  5. Unemployment – important statistics missing from media reports



23 Comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The SS
Jan 6, 2009 10:27

I don’t see why they need to withold such information since they are presumably already means-tested ! What has your sickness got to do with being approved or not? If a patient needs treatment from your appointed hospital, surely it’s not a faked ailment that needs treatment.
Typical of them to lord over the poor by the power they get from witholding knowledge isn’t it? Back to medieval times.

alky
Jan 6, 2009 10:36

I wonder what happened to those who were rejected. Were there any who chose to discontinue medical treatment due to lack of funds?

Maybe that is why I have heard people say that it is better to die than to fall sick here in Singapore.

kum L P (long pong)
Jan 6, 2009 11:06

Thank you Mr Leong!

I have a doubt.

Does medical insurance help solve these problems of high medical/hospitalization bills for the less well off?

I wonder how many older generation people do not have sufficient coverage, if ever covered at all ?

best regards
K

Singaporedaddy
Jan 6, 2009 12:54

Good Afternoon Leong Sze Hian.

There is a very serious flaw or shall I say an omission not ONLY in your assumptions, but how you have managed to derive at your calculations to form some, if not ALL of your summary concerning what you see as

“the Medifund approval criteria be made available to the public, so that needy Singaporeans need not become overly worried about medical costs.”

However, you must appreciate that I really need to be careful what I submit here. As let us say, I have to work under certain limits and restrictions.

Neither do I see the wisdom of issuing out a correction that will probably consume 15 minutes of my time only to subsequently discover it has been censored or place on moderation in perpetuity. So of course these are practical and realistic constrains on me and you as well, but if you wish to know the error of your ways.

Please feel free to ask me right here in this thread Leong. I will gladly show you the error of your ways and hopefully we may all learn from it all.

Thank you

Do have a very nice day.

SD (The Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

moshedyan
Jan 6, 2009 19:00

[i]alky on January 6th, 2009 10.36 am I wonder what happened to those who were rejected. Were there any who chose to discontinue medical treatment due to lack of funds?
[/i]

this 1 very easy
when you make appointment for a surgery or whatever
you go to that room concerned
the receptionist will asked
you
where is YOU ca$h deposit$ as required?
you tried to bluff
sayin
my family is comin with the ca$h…
the reception would replied politely
not a problem
i trust YOU just liked i thrust leekuanyew
you just sit and wait
even if the surgical team already had their teabreaks and lunches
you just wait
and wait
and wait
till your duracell run out
and mind you
this is a semi government hospital hor
you do have the funds in YOUR medicsaves/medicshield
but if you have no ca$h depo$it$ as required
you LANLANED wait….
till you PAID………..
this is FROM
my owned eyes/ears……………………

sheriff
Jan 6, 2009 19:36

What do we have here? A gunfight in high noon. Better stand down Mr leong. those guys dont miss not even from that distance, not by half. Trust me, they never miss.

moshedyan
Jan 6, 2009 21:39

[i]sheriff on January 6th, 2009 7.36 pm What do we have here? A gunfight in high noon. Better stand down Mr leong. those guys dont miss not even from that distance, not by half. Trust me, they never miss.
[/i]
indeed they don’t missed
is this a THREAT?
are you tareking ganjas?
eh ahbang?
skerang
lu mau puki mana?

sitting bull
Jan 6, 2009 23:53

Moshedayan and sheriff are both right, I third that, everyone likes to watch a wild wild west gun fight :). Its a crowd puller in the net. Come on lah just let it rip la guys. Then we can all go home and eat our maggi mee and go to the land of nod. As it is the tension is making me want to pee in my pants ;)

What about sanity?
Jan 7, 2009 0:19

moshedyan you may be right, but why the HELL are you

typing
like
this….

It’s very irritating and a waste of space

osamaobamataksamah
Jan 7, 2009 0:21

What is Medifund ? More information please. Singaporeans are confused…which is what ! More stories in the media to explain Medifund before it becomes just for Forfund ! !

moshedyan
Jan 7, 2009 0:38

[i]What about sanity? on January 7th, 2009 12.19 am moshedyan you may be right, but why the HELL are you

typing
like
this….

It’s very irritating and a waste of space
[/i]
maybe i have 1 eye
or very short keyboard
do you know
what is called a dna fingerprint?
thats my dna
you all are lucky
you haven’t seen moi atricious singish yet…….
find me there
http://www.ebuzzcafe.com/forums/

tiredsingaporean
Jan 7, 2009 15:40

11) moshedyan on January 7th, 2009 12.38 am

Mosh, are you a left handed? hehe

moshedyan
Jan 7, 2009 17:09

[i]tiredsingaporean on January 7th, 2009 3.40 pm 11) moshedyan on January 7th, 2009 12.38 am

Mosh, are you a left handed? hehe[/i]
wei wei
you placed alittle spycamera with 3g har….
you are right
i am indeed left handed
well done….

tiredsingaporean
Jan 7, 2009 18:30

13) moshedyan on January 7th, 2009 5.09 pm

I enjoy reading your comments here but I have to shift my chair to the left side of my screen to have a better view lah. . . . . .lol

abegail
Jan 7, 2009 19:41

Why is my entry censored? Can you please explain to me / I have mirror copied this in my facebook account. I believe if you want to censor me, then I too have a right to tell the whole wide world.

Hows that, can you deal with that? I asked a legitimate and valid question that I believed to be important and useful.

Now one more time. WHY WAS I CENSORED?

abegail
Jan 7, 2009 19:48

How big do you think the world is TOC? Not very big when we all have to read, make sense of 4) Singaporedaddy on January 6th, 2009 12.54 pm.

Guess what no money for you. Go do us all a favor, float this as a paid site, I want to see how far you will get without reader support.

At the rate all of you are pissing all of us off, I shouldnt have to guess how or where it will all end up.

Remember what comes around will go around!

Bye Bye

moshedyan
Jan 7, 2009 20:27

[i]abegail on January 7th, 2009 7.41 pm Why is my entry censored? Can you please explain to me / I have mirror copied this in my facebook account. I believe if you want to censor me, then I too have a right to tell the whole wide world.

Hows that, can you deal with that? I asked a legitimate and valid question that I believed to be important and useful.

Now one more time. WHY WAS I CENSORED?
[/i]
sweathard abegail
moshedyan got countless censored
in russians and in arabic as well
including a nice
Tears of Allah poem
no politics
no armageddon…
never mind lark…

moshedyan
Jan 7, 2009 20:29

[i]tiredsingaporean on January 7th, 2009 6.30 pm 13) moshedyan on January 7th, 2009 5.09 pm

I enjoy reading your comments here but I have to shift my chair to the left side of my screen to have a better view lah. . . . . .lol
[/i]
thank you
that what i am here for
to share aroun….
life is hard
life is short

phd
Jan 7, 2009 20:32

I saw the whole thing. The entry that was deleted. All abegail asked from Singaporedaddy was whether she could stand in place of Leong Sze Hian and ask the question on his behalf. As I believe she happens to be a medical student or someone who is involved in the healthcare business and wants to get something meaningful out of this whole discussion.

Geez TOC chill out. Whats the beef in dat? Whats wrong with that!!!!!!!!!!!

Karen
Jan 8, 2009 15:39

Hello all

I have always been suspicious when stats are used to explain away anything. They can be useful, if used correctly. But if used indiscriminately they do little except hyperbole and skewers the picture.

For instance. I am currently in the middle of a consultancy for a healthcare provider based in Dubai.

Gone through tons of models on trying to suggest a way and methodology for improving patient response time. Cant say I had any success, except one case where I noted there was spike of almost 80% in response time in the Royal Free Hospital ICU / from 23th June 2000 to Sept 13th 2002. This stood out, but I cant see how they managed the transitional improvement as labor resources and working hours remained constant. This is what I mean when stats are used wantonly, they offer little in the way of light to solicit improvement.

Could someone please answer this question and the one posed here reg this write up. many thanks, Cheerio

Singaporedaddy
Jan 8, 2009 19:25

Good Evening Karen,

“…..where I noted there was spike of almost 80% in response time in the Royal Free Hospital ICU / from 23th June 2000 to Sept 13th 2002. This stood out, but I cant see how they managed the transitional improvement as labor resources and working hours remained constant. This is what I mean when stats are used wantonly, they offer little in the way of light to solicit improvement.”

The short answer is Karen your suspicions are absolutely right – a 80% increment within the time period you mentioned is really quiet impossible to accomplish; without at least complementing it with direct increases in either manpower and opportunity cost.

It cannot be done. However, saying that’s impossible really tells us a big nothing; that’s a bit like saying the internet is a dangerous place; it doesn’t really pin point precisely how it could be weaponized; or even why types of skills are required to transform it to a wonder weapon; or even what type of war head it can be expected to deliver etc; that to say it doesn’t really tell you HOW those statisticians go about the business of cooking the books to successfully manipulate the field to produce the quantifiable 80%.

I think before you can even proceed to uncover ANY statistical lie; it’s a bit like understanding magic; it pays dividends to know how a trick is executed; that’s to say, you need some basic knowledge of distraction, cupping and palming techniques etc; so what you’re really trying to do is get into the magicians head – you’re never going to get very far if you try to break it down from the audience side – too many variables.

To put it simply in the context of your question Karen; look closer at Goldhart’s Law and ask yourself; how it may even be operable to have once produced that magic 80% that you highlighted here; it’s a whale of a subject, so I will leave you to google it up yourself; but to answer your question; IMHO the ONLY way in which 80% could have been derived is through reclassification and redefining the target parameters; one way in which this is usually accomplished is by glossing over one section of the process; for example, if special trolleys reclassified as mobile beds are introduced to sidestep the target that no patient should wait in the hospital for more than 4 hours; then instead of outpatients waiting in foyer; the very moment they come in; they’re seated in these mobile beds instead –then what happens is a form of magic. They’re still waiting, perhaps even for longer this time, they may even die like flies; only since they’re now waiting in these reclassified mobile beds; they aren’t waiting as much as they are work in process. See what I mean? Its magic.

I guarantee you 100% this was how they achieve the magic 80%, doesn’t seem like magic anymore does it? Karen, the truth sets you free.

Your second question, I have to politely decline; I was very specific in No.4.

SD

eternalhap
Jan 8, 2009 22:27

“I would like to suggest that the Medifund approval criteria be made available to the public, so that needy Singaporeans need not become overly worried about medical costs. ”

This is a good suggestion, if implemented, can certainly alleviate their worries. But maybe the approval criteria is already flexible enough, such that there’s no need for a published, fixed criteria. Anyway, it’s always good to be transparent, especially on money issues.

fg
Jan 9, 2009 16:00

“Your second question, I have to politely decline; I was very specific in No.4.”

Why have they suddenly taken such a hardline? This is really unlike them. What happpened to cause this? As I recall, they have always volunteered information to anyone on free for all basis.

Leave a Reply

Comment


theonlinecitizen on Facebook