Medisave contribution may go up to cover costs
-
SINGAPORE: Medisave contribution may go up as the need for long-term care increases with Singapore's aging population.
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said the current contribution rate of 6.5% to about 9% does not build up enough reserves to pay for both big medical bills and long-term care.
Medisave has been around for 25 years and was originally meant to pay for major hospital stays but its use has since been expanded to include some outpatient payments.
Mr Khaw said the current contribution rate is not enough to cover long-term healthcare bills.
"We've never priced that into Medisave contribution rate. So that's a topic almost certainly I see a need for discussion during the upcoming Budget Debate," he said.
Speaking on the sidelines of his visit to the Bloodbank@HSA on Thursday, Mr Khaw said the increase in contribution rate will depend on what the Members of Parliament are ready to support.
Meanwhile, more money will be injected into the common health subsidy pool for citizens.
This follows the ministry's decision to reduce health subsidies given to permanent residents (PRs) from January 1 next year. The idea is to further sharpen the distinction between Singapore citizens and PRs.
The Health Ministry said in a statement: "Citizens enjoy heavy subsidy in Class B2 and C wards. PRs receive significant subsidy while foreigners are not subsidised at all. The subsidy distinction reflects the privileges of citizenship, but there is scope for refinement."
PRs now get 10 percentage points less in subsidy than citizens. This will go up to a 20-point difference by 2012.
With the revision, citizens are still entitled to an 80% subsidy for a Class C ward. But PRs will be entitled to 60% of cost, down from 70%.
And Mr Khaw explained how the cost savings from the move will be used.
"Our data suggests that about 6% of our patients are PRs, so this reduction in subsidy for them, will save us about seven million dollars a year, which we would then use to top up our growing subsidy for citizens."
The minister said that it is only right for citizens to enjoy more subsidies than non-citizens.
Mr Khaw added that the move will mean PRs have to make some adjustments like getting additional health insurance.
"If you're not already insured with a private shield, then you should seriously think about taking up one because your basic MediShield is really aimed at the B2, C subsidy rates. So now that your subsidy will be less, I think you need to augment it with a private shield."
To help the PRs affected by the policy to ease into the adjustments, the reduction will be carried out in stages.
From January 1 next year, the subsidy for PRs in the public hospitals (Class B2 and C wards) and specialist outpatient clinics will be reduced by 5 percentage-points.
From July 1 next year, another 5 percentage-point reduction will apply in the public hospitals and specialist outpatient clinics.
Also from July 1 next year, the subsidy for PRs in the intermediate and
long-term care sector like community hospitals and nursing homes will be reduced by 5 percentage-points.
From January 1, 2012, another 5 percentage-point reduction will apply in the intermediate and long-term care sector.
By 2012, there will be a 20 percentage-point difference in healthcare subsidies between citizens and PRs.
- CNA/ir
Source:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1033744/1/.html -
Reducing the PR's subsidy to 60 per cent is a move to placate the citizens but it doesnt really help us if the reduction in PR's subsidies do not translate directly into subsidies for citizens. If the subsidy for citizens is now raised to 85%, then the other 5% cut from PR side can be used for case by case basis, I think that will be more appreciated. Reasons like higher subsidies encouraging abuses from higher income citizens should not be an issue if the means testing are done diligently. Overall, I think this change has no up front value to citizens.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
Reducing the PR's subsidy to 60 per cent is a move to placate the citizens but it doesnt really help us if the reduction in PR's subsidies do not translate directly into subsidies for citizens. If the subsidy for citizens is now raised to 85%, then the other 5% cut from PR side can be used for case by case basis, I think that will be more appreciated. Reasons like higher subsidies encouraging abuses from higher income citizens should not be an issue if the means testing are done diligently. Overall, I think this change has no up front value to citizens.
I agree.
Increasing medisave would make the lives of normal people like us even harder. All our money gets stuck in medisave and we cannot even take out the money.
Stay healthy, but no money until we die. -
I saved and saved and saved, in the end, all will return to govt!
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
I agree.
Increasing medisave would make the lives of normal people like us even harder. All our money gets stuck in medisave and we cannot even take out the money.
Stay healthy, but no money until we die.Seriously I have no issues with Medisave, it did help me alot when my Father incur quite a sum of hospital bills. Although he eventually passed away, bills needed to be paid and most of it was being paid off by Medisave. Of cos there are arguments that hospital fees are too expensive in Singapore but thats another argument, Medisave did fulfill its use in my Father's case.
What I cannot understand is how would this cut for the PR add value to me as a citizen? If it doesnt, then I am not being given more as a citizen, its just taking away from the poor PR and then tell us we, citizens are better off. This is like screwing both parties haha.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
Seriously I have no issues with Medisave, it did help me alot when my Father incur quite a sum of hospital bills. Although he eventually passed away, bills needed to be paid and most of it was being paid off by Medisave. Of cos there are arguments that hospital fees are too expensive in Singapore but thats another argument, Medisave did fulfill its use in my Father's case.
What I cannot understand is how would this cut for the PR add value to me as a citizen? If it doesnt, then I am not being given more as a citizen, its just taking away from the poor PR and then tell us we, citizens are better off. This is like screwing both parties haha.
Its better that the Medisave percentage is not too much. If not, healthy but long living citizens would have a hard time till their deaths.
-
another ploy to wipe out peoples' CPF balances........transfer money to Medisave which only your children can get after you're dead..............plus they'll jack up medical costs to deplete your medisave a/c.............
another clear sign the CPF ponzi-game is getting a little unstable......................when Temasek suffer new HUGE losses from the coming HUGE crash.............we can expect more such schemes.............
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
another ploy to wipe out peoples' CPF balances........transfer money to Medisave which only your children can get after you're dead..............plus they'll jack up medical costs to deplete your medisave a/c.............
another clear sign the CPF ponzi-game is getting a little unstable......................when Temasek suffer new HUGE losses from the coming HUGE crash.............we can expect more such schemes.............
And you must have a baby. If not, govt take back liao. -
Produce another paying customer.
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
I saved and saved and saved, in the end, all will return to govt!
I believe you can give your CPF money to your nominee when you die.
So, your CPF money does not go to the government unless you buy the annuity
plan with zero amount given to your nominee when you die.
-
does this mean less take home pay?
doesnt make sense if we contribute more for higher medical costs because it still means paying more for the same kinda treatment...
-
Originally posted by GHoST_18:
does this mean less take home pay?
doesnt make sense if we contribute more for higher medical costs because it still means paying more for the same kinda treatment...
Indeed, the medical cost for the same treatment has increased significantly for the past 2 years.
A friend needs to have a spine surgery and the estimated cost is $18,000 for B1 class (cheapest private patient class which allows the choice of a surgeon, B2 and C class patients cannot choose a surgeon and the surgeon will be assigned by the hospital and the surgeon is most likely to be a surgeon who has just completed his or her specialist training, so no choice but the friend has to opt to be a B1 class patient) in Jun 2008 and she checks with the hospital again in Jan 2010, the estimated cost has increased to $27,000. She has still not decided to do the surgery yet as she is still worried about the danger, outcome, complications of the spine surgery.
The percentage increase in surgery cost is more than 30% within a two year period.
-
Can use mediasave mah, if not contribute to medisave for what??? give govt ar??? with medisave and medishield, it is almost free. Singapore has one of the best medicate facilities and provider in this region, and we should be glad that we are living here and get treated at fraction of a cost. Ask your frens to go for it, life is more important, money can earn, life once damaged, it gone.
-
then why ''poor'' countries like Mexico can give patients TOTAL FREE care for everything, even for AIDS.......all that's needed is USD200 per year.................
Cuba is another poor country that has excellent doctors................S'pore healthcare costs are bullshit.........the PAP jack up everything sky high then give ''discounts'' with subsidies...............
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
I agree.
Increasing medisave would make the lives of normal people like us even harder. All our money gets stuck in medisave and we cannot even take out the money.
Stay healthy, but no money until we die.
No mah, you can transfer to your decendent mah...but you guys all dun want to marry and like to play around, so no decendents, govt take lah...if not then how, give me ar?? -
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
then why ''poor'' countries like Mexico can give patients TOTAL FREE care for everything, even for AIDS.......all that's needed is USD200 per year.................
Cuba is another poor country that has excellent doctors................S'pore healthcare costs are bullshit.........the PAP jack up everything sky high then give ''discounts'' with subsidies...............
no need to mention mexico, just malaysia and indonesia, got free clinics, but if you see their doctors and medicine, the crowds and the waiting time, i think people who are not sick, go there also get sick. And after the free consultation, the docs will said that if you want better medicine you have to pay these and that, and surgery will need your insurance, and that if you dun want, we cannot help you further except go outside and take your cough or panadol medicine.
But our is different, cure you all the way first, money can talk later ya
-
Originally posted by Junyang700:
Its better that the Medisave percentage is not too much. If not, healthy but long living citizens would have a hard time till their deaths.
too bad our gov cant predict who will healthy long living & who will need the medical saving outfront
so...bo pian...chin chai lah...all save up, dun come and trouble me when u need it 
-
"too bad" hahaha...singaporeans like to use these two words.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
no need to mention mexico, just malaysia and indonesia, got free clinics, but if you see their doctors and medicine, the crowds and the waiting time, i think people who are not sick, go there also get sick. And after the free consultation, the docs will said that if you want better medicine you have to pay these and that, and surgery will need your insurance, and that if you dun want, we cannot help you further except go outside and take your cough or panadol medicine.
But our is different, cure you all the way first, money can talk later ya
-
still laughing Haiz!!! too bad.!!!
cannot change to "too good" meh?
-
I am lost, reducing PR subsidy means higher insurance premium for Citizen???
-
yes, you are right, and no, you are not lost
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
another ploy to wipe out peoples' CPF balances........transfer money to Medisave which only your children can get after you're dead..............plus they'll jack up medical costs to deplete your medisave a/c.............
another clear sign the CPF ponzi-game is getting a little unstable......................when Temasek suffer new HUGE losses from the coming HUGE crash.............we can expect more such schemes.............
LOL,my thinking exactly!!!Everytime when GLC loses money in foreign markets,the PAP ministers will come up some fuk up ideas like raising minimal CPF sum,increase contribution rates to Medisave etc to lock up our CPF money.
I mean come on,cant they be more creative?
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
no need to mention mexico, just malaysia and indonesia, got free clinics, but if you see their doctors and medicine, the crowds and the waiting time, i think people who are not sick, go there also get sick. And after the free consultation, the docs will said that if you want better medicine you have to pay these and that, and surgery will need your insurance, and that if you dun want, we cannot help you further except go outside and take your cough or panadol medicine.
But our is different, cure you all the way first, money can talk later ya
Ignore.
-
Originally posted by gasband:
Reducing the PR's subsidy to 60 per cent is a move to placate the citizens but it doesnt really help us if the reduction in PR's subsidies do not translate directly into subsidies for citizens. If the subsidy for citizens is now raised to 85%, then the other 5% cut from PR side can be used for case by case basis, I think that will be more appreciated. Reasons like higher subsidies encouraging abuses from higher income citizens should not be an issue if the means testing are done diligently. Overall, I think this change has no up front value to citizens.
Look at it this way - they are reducing subsidies for PRs rather than increasing subsidies for citizens.
There is no "loss" to them in terms of financial aspects.
They are actually better off financially while making themselves look good in front of the citizens.