Leong Sze Hian /

I refer to the deposit required for admission to public hospitals.

No subsidised ward, how?

Since patients needing emergency care and who have financial difficulties with furnishing a deposit (because the estimated hospitalization bill is higher than the Medisave withdrawal limits, or if the funds in the Medisave account are insufficient) will still be admitted if the medical condition warrants so, what happens to those patients who choose subsidised wards with a medical condition not warranted as “emergency care” and are unable to pay the required deposit?

Maximum wait is 12 hours?

As I understand that the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is that patients in the Accident and Emergency (A&E) ward should not have to wait more than 12 hours for a hospital bed of the selected ward class, I would like to suggest that public hospitals inform such patients that they will be transferred to another public hospital with an available subsidised ward bed, so that patients will know that the wait for a bed should not be more than 12 hours.

Otherwise, patients may be unduly stressed into deciding to upgrade to a non-subsidised higher class ward.

Upgrading policy?

Since it has always been and still is the policy at all public hospitals to upgrade patients to higher class wards when the selected subsidised ward class bed is not available, and still charge the non-subsidised rate, I would like to suggest that this policy be made known to subsidised patients as well when a bed is not available.

Otherwise, patients may similarly be overly stressed, thinking that they must find the money to upgrade to a non-subsidised ward in order to be hospitalized.

How many can’t pay?

By the way, how many patients who are hospitalized in public hospitals are unable to pay their bills when they are discharged?

And how many end up paying 24 per cent interest on their credit cards to pay for the admission deposit required?

‘Subsidised’ – need deposit?

Finally why is it that the estimated hospitalization bill can be higher than the Medisave withdrawal limits, even for patients who choose subsidised wards, and thus still require a deposit?

Shouldn’t “Medisave withdrawal limits” be sufficient for subsidised wards hospitalization, in the first place?

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

Singapore Expo to be transformed into a facility to care for recovering COVID-19 patients

Singapore’s Health Minister Gan Kim Yong pointed out on Sunday (5 April)…

Suicide rates among the elderly have increased – why?

In 2017, there were 361 recorded cases of suicides in Singapore according…

方荣发质问:《防假消息法》如何避免执政政府涉散播假消息?

工人党议员方荣发昨日(5月8日)于国会中询问,指《防止网络假消息与网络操纵》法案,赋予现任政府裁定假消息的绝对权力,其对选举结果的影响不能被低估。当权者能以“社会公众利益”之名,要求撤下来自政治对手的不利言论,甚至会对选举结果带来巨大的影响。 “政府也可能散播假消息” 方荣发说,“最大的恐惧是来自于一些人以现任政府的意向,故意做出了对事实的虚假陈述,来影响选举的结果,甚至是形塑公众舆论与观点。散播假消息者,也可能来自现任政府本身。那请问法案当中,是否有针对该情况提出相对应的方案或保障吗?” 他以2015的大选中举例,在竞选期最后一刻,人民行动党竞选机器向榜鹅东区选民发出信件,指该选区于2013年的一笔约2千250万元转账到工人党市镇会的款项,却不知去向,信中强调,该项声明是无可非议的事实。然而上述陈述却与每年的审计报告不符。 方荣发表示,显然该陈述被捏造出来,仅仅是为了影响2015年的选举结果。 方荣发也反问,《防假消息法》应如何起到保护作用,尤其是如果执政党在选举最后一刻散播假消息,媒体也照本宣科,届时也来不及向民众澄清事实。 他举例,若在大选期间,有内幕人对现任领导高层作出严重人身指控,并质疑他们的诚信与品格是否有资格带领国家。在《防假消息法》下,部长、主管机关、代理机关也可以公众利益之由,轻易将其撤下。 承上所诉,方荣发认为消息被撤下,但无人能说明究竟涉案部长和内幕人孰是孰非,到底谁才是在陈述事实。他也反问,《防假消息法》,是否也能被用来封锁、噤声这类能让选民知情、左右选民决定的资讯? 方荣发质问:新法能阻止执政政府散播假消息? 方荣发也向律政部长尚穆根追问,部长是否同意《防假消息法》,也无法避免现任政府涉及散播假消息以影响选举结果,就像上述提及的2015年大选发生的事件一样。 尚穆根则回应,《防假消息法》旨在对付那些可能动摇机构(institution)的假消息,至于那些可能影响行动党或工人党的假消息,无论是谁在散播,则不涵盖在《防假消息法》下,“可能可援引《防止骚扰法令》(POHA),而不是《防假消息法》(POFMA)”。 方荣发持续敦促法案应涵盖大选期间所散播的假消息。对此,尚穆根以“已给出最佳说法”,没有正面回应方荣发的提问。

Penal Code Review may have a chilling effect on private citizens

The nature of laws is that it is never static. Laws need…