Hi Friends,
The following was sent to the Forum Page Editor.
Awaiting publication ( if approved)
To:
The Editor,
XXX Forum page
I refer to the article “Not-so-golden years for the elderly in Singapore”.
The report by Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) academics confirmed what most of us had long suspected. Amongst the elderly surveyed those who scored high for active ageing ranged from a low 5 percent for those aged 65 to 69 and decreasing further to a dismal 1 percent for those aged 75 and above. One in five felt that they had insufficient income for living.
As pointed out by Mr. Gerard Ee, chairman for the Council for Third Age, the plight of our elderly is worse than our neighbors’ as Singapore does not have a country-side for our elderly to escape to and they have to contend with the rising cost of living like the rest of us.
How many times have we said to ourselves when we see an elderly sweeping the condominium grounds or wiping the table at the food court that it is just not right that in “First world” Singapore, the elderly are not benefiting from nor sharing the fruits of Singapore’s prosperity.
How can our welfare safety nets be so porous that so many of these elderly- who had helped build up the economy, are falling through them in droves and are now left to fend for themselves?
I feel that not enough is being done for our elderly poor. I would not be unhappy if funds presently allocated to big-ticket items like the YOG had been channeled to alleviate the plights of this increasing underclass. Real help is needed – not tokenisms.
Only when our elderly have an opportunity to experience truly “golden years” can we say that we have arrived as a nation.
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
Friday, August 27, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Singapore Healthcare- Collective response from some Gleneagles specialists
Hi Friends,
The letter below was written after a group of Gleneagles specialist doctors felt that what Dr Lee Wei Ling ( yes she is MM's daughter but she usually still has a mind of her own) wrote in the previous week's column made a lot of sense (Training GP's to be family physicians) . And as usual, they turned to me and said, " SC, can you write to the papers and say that we support her on this" and like they say- the rest was history.
It was almost like drafting a UN resolution- some contentious items were left out and the final result was agreeable to most ( but some had cold feet- but that's another story).
I did not expect anyone to read the letter as it was only on the online edition. But the miracle of the internet meant that obscure stuff does get picked but by some and apparently, angrydoc did just that but unfortunately he ( or she) is negative and cynical about any government intervention ( he calls it subsidy). Read his blog post here : Subsidy and other pre-occupations
From the tone of angrydoc- I guess the 27 ( and some others who did not get to sign it as I was rushing it to the editor) will be considered "Old School" ( or even anachronistic) doctors who believe that Medicine is about healing the sick ( and not just pandering to some who wish to look younger or cannot accept what Nature has provided).
Of even more concern to us is the crass commercialization that has seeped into most aspects of Medicine in Singapore.
I guess if this bit of activism does not achieve anything- we can console ourselves that we did not just stand idly by and behaved like so many sad accounts of how Singaporeans just sat immobile whilst some poor girl was being assaulted on a crowded bus or how some flat dwellers said that , yes, they heard violent noises of someone being killed but they wanted to just mind their own business.
My 27 Gleneagles friends are not like that- we feel things can be better and that our opinions do matter.
Cheers
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
The letter that was published in the online forum page (12 May 2010)
WE ARE doctors specialising in various fields at Gleneagles Medical Centre and we support Dr Lee Wei Ling's gallant attempts to bring medicine in Singapore back to its noble roots ('Train GPs to be family physicians'; April 21).
We suggest the following:
• Invasive aesthetic procedures should be carried out only by doctors who have had adequate surgical training. Only then will the practitioner be able to recognise the early signs of complications. Complications happen even in the best surgeon's hands, but it is often how soon these are detected and the course of action taken that determine the fate of the patient. Aesthetic medicine is here to stay and the Ministry of Health (MOH) should organise properly sanctioned courses for all doctors who are keen to carry out invasive aesthetic procedures. The bar must not be set too low, and being allowed to carry out such dangerous procedures after attending dubious one- to two-day courses should be a thing of the past.
• General practitioners (GPs) are the vanguards of our health-care system. We want each GP to take his proper place as a 'specialist in taking care of the entire patient'. All of them have undergone training at great expense to the state or their families. MOH should make available rotation positions at various hospital departments for all GPs before they start work and at regular intervals after that, to provide opportunities for 'refreshers' to those who feel they need updates or have gaps in their knowledge of certain specialities. National service 'reservist-style' make-up pay is innovative and workable for this.
• Government subventions for GPs to treat subsidised cases is a win-win for all. GPs get more income and hence will be less likely to go for the more lucrative 'aesthetic medicine' route, and the already overcrowded polyclinics will be able to perform even better. In the same vein, many private specialists are also keen to help by treating subsidised patients who are presently referred to overcrowded specialist clinics at public hospitals.
The medical profession should do regular soul-searching, and if we find that we have deviated from our intended paths, we should have the courage to take remedial actions to rectify this.
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
NB: The Straits Times Editor chose to ignore the fact that the letter above was signed by 27 specialists of Gleneagles Medical Centre
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Singaporeans' Medisave Money for Malaysian hospitals
Hi Friends,
Gong Xi Fa Cai!
May we not just have material blessings but also good health so that we can live meaningful lives amongst our kinfolks, friends and community.
My largely unedited letter has been published in the Straits Times Forum today.
I am disturbed that MOH –which had backed down earlier about setting up Old Folks’ Homes in Malaysia after an uproar, has now introduced it again, albeit in a different skin.
Healthcare initiatives- Old Folks’ Homes and now this
The Old Folks’ Home initiative and now the Medisave for Malaysia move is an admission that certain Singaporeans have been priced out of their own homeland.
To some,it seems a logical solution,” If Singaporeans cannot afford to live their remaining days in Singapore- why not just let them do it in Malaysia”. Now it is –“ If Singaporeans cannot afford to have quality healthcare on our own shores- maybe Malaysia boleh (can) ( with a little help from Medisave)”
But others will ask questions like "Why is it that the MOH feels that in our multi-strata healthcare system, which range from C class beds in public hospitals to the super-duper suites in our private hospitals (that even regional royalties feel comfortable in), cannot meet the needs of Singaporeans? Shouldn’t we try to meet the demands and aspirations of Singaporeans within our system instead of sending them up north? Did we not pay tax so that our system can help us when we are sick and old?
MOH should try harder to improve the system so that Singaporeans feel they get more “bang for their dollars" . I do not recall all major stakeholders being consulted about this.
Impact for tourism industry
What about our national plan to make Singapore a regional centre of excellence for Medical Tourism? Each medical tourist comes typically with at least 2-3 family members. This is a huge spin-off with a multiplying effect for hotels, F&B and shopping centres. In one stroke, the MOH has just leaked out a family secret ( and I am not agreeing to this) that Malaysian hospitals are cheap and just as good!
Malaysia has just got a very un-expected Lunar Near Year Hong Bao from MOH! No amount of publicity nor advertisements by Malaysia’s tourism board can compare with such an ringing endorsement from none other than Malaysia’s erstwhile competitor.
Read this space- there will soon be insurance policies which are priced below our present premiums, but with a catch- “Co-payment if treated in Singapore hospitals, but, full reimbursements if treated in Malaysia”
I guess this populist move will win the minister many votes for the coming elections. Why worry about our healthcare system?
Cheers
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
Will it come back to haunt us later? (16 Feb 2010 ST Forum)
I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Medisave can be used in 12 Malaysian hospitals'. The move by the Ministry of Health (MOH) to allow Medisave deduction for hospitalisation in Malaysian hospitals is, in my view, like scoring an own goal in a soccer match.
To say the least, it sends a confusing signal. It is as though MOH is admitting that it has failed in its mission to cater to all Singaporeans in our own often-lauded health-care system.
Is the claim that even the poorest Singaporean will be looked after in our health-care facilities - with its subsidies and special funding such as Medifund - just an empty boast now?
MOH is in fact using national resources - Medisave infrastructure - to build up a competitor's capabilities. Is MOH still serious about helping Singapore become a medical tourism centre of excellence?
This populist measure may seem to placate short-term demands - only to come back to haunt us later when our own health-care and tourism industries are hollowed out in the medium to long term.
By then, any new measure will be futile and like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
Gong Xi Fa Cai!
May we not just have material blessings but also good health so that we can live meaningful lives amongst our kinfolks, friends and community.
My largely unedited letter has been published in the Straits Times Forum today.
I am disturbed that MOH –which had backed down earlier about setting up Old Folks’ Homes in Malaysia after an uproar, has now introduced it again, albeit in a different skin.
Healthcare initiatives- Old Folks’ Homes and now this
The Old Folks’ Home initiative and now the Medisave for Malaysia move is an admission that certain Singaporeans have been priced out of their own homeland.
To some,it seems a logical solution,” If Singaporeans cannot afford to live their remaining days in Singapore- why not just let them do it in Malaysia”. Now it is –“ If Singaporeans cannot afford to have quality healthcare on our own shores- maybe Malaysia boleh (can) ( with a little help from Medisave)”
But others will ask questions like "Why is it that the MOH feels that in our multi-strata healthcare system, which range from C class beds in public hospitals to the super-duper suites in our private hospitals (that even regional royalties feel comfortable in), cannot meet the needs of Singaporeans? Shouldn’t we try to meet the demands and aspirations of Singaporeans within our system instead of sending them up north? Did we not pay tax so that our system can help us when we are sick and old?
MOH should try harder to improve the system so that Singaporeans feel they get more “bang for their dollars" . I do not recall all major stakeholders being consulted about this.
Impact for tourism industry
What about our national plan to make Singapore a regional centre of excellence for Medical Tourism? Each medical tourist comes typically with at least 2-3 family members. This is a huge spin-off with a multiplying effect for hotels, F&B and shopping centres. In one stroke, the MOH has just leaked out a family secret ( and I am not agreeing to this) that Malaysian hospitals are cheap and just as good!
Malaysia has just got a very un-expected Lunar Near Year Hong Bao from MOH! No amount of publicity nor advertisements by Malaysia’s tourism board can compare with such an ringing endorsement from none other than Malaysia’s erstwhile competitor.
Read this space- there will soon be insurance policies which are priced below our present premiums, but with a catch- “Co-payment if treated in Singapore hospitals, but, full reimbursements if treated in Malaysia”
I guess this populist move will win the minister many votes for the coming elections. Why worry about our healthcare system?
Cheers
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
Will it come back to haunt us later? (16 Feb 2010 ST Forum)
I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Medisave can be used in 12 Malaysian hospitals'. The move by the Ministry of Health (MOH) to allow Medisave deduction for hospitalisation in Malaysian hospitals is, in my view, like scoring an own goal in a soccer match.
To say the least, it sends a confusing signal. It is as though MOH is admitting that it has failed in its mission to cater to all Singaporeans in our own often-lauded health-care system.
Is the claim that even the poorest Singaporean will be looked after in our health-care facilities - with its subsidies and special funding such as Medifund - just an empty boast now?
MOH is in fact using national resources - Medisave infrastructure - to build up a competitor's capabilities. Is MOH still serious about helping Singapore become a medical tourism centre of excellence?
This populist measure may seem to placate short-term demands - only to come back to haunt us later when our own health-care and tourism industries are hollowed out in the medium to long term.
By then, any new measure will be futile and like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)