Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Economics of Private Shield

Monday, September 14, 2009

Economics of Private Shield

Some insurance agents like to tell scare stories about people who are hit with large medical bills, costing $50,000 or more. These stories are true (and they can provide evidence), but they are exagerated, in the following ways:

a) Only a very small proportion of insured get hit with large bills, maybe less than 1 in 10,000 people (corrected).
b) You have the option to go to a subsidised ward and pay less than one-third of the bill charged by a private hospital.

If you are already insured under a Private Shield, you can be sure that the bill will be high, as the hospital know that it will be paid by Private Shield.

The lifetime cost (from age 25 to 85) of Basic Medishield is $20,000. The lifetime cost of Private Shield is $50,000 for A class(restructured) and $70,000 (private hospital).

If you are well off and have adequate savings for retirement, the additional cost of $30,000 may not be important to you. Go and spend it for the "status". But, if you do not have sufficient savings for retirement, do not waste $30,000 (which is a lot of money to most people).

Some agents will advise you to go to Private Shield when you are young (as the premium is low) and to downgrade to Medishield after you retire. This may make sense, but you must remember that you are more likely to face a big hospital bill after you retire.

Out of the $50,000 that you pay in a lifetime for a Private Shield (class A), about $15,000 (30%) goes to pay commission, expenses and profit. Another $15,000 goes to replace the subsidy that is provided for B2 ward. The real benefit to the patient is quite small, except for the "status" of being treated in class A.

The scare story that you will go bankrupt if you land with a big bill and you are covered under Basic Medishield is exaggerated. But it is effective in getting you to convert to a Private Shield and increase the earnings of the agent. Who convince you anyway?

Tan Kin Lian

44 comments:

Anonymous said...: Medishield or private shield - we are all missing the point.

For a small nation like ours, the gahmen, will so much reserves, should take care of its citizens properly.

Like what you have mentioned (assuming true):

"a) Only a very small proportion of insured get hit with large bills, maybe less than 1 in 10,000 bills.

b) You have the option to go to a subsidised ward and pay less than one-third of the bill charged by a private hospital."

Let use your example of big bills, $50,000. Assume singapore got 4 million citizens (which we don't). Then gahmen just need to set aside $200 billion. It is impossible for 4 million citizens to incur $50,000 at the same time.

So it is perfectly fine and within the financial budget of the gahmen to provide free coverage for its citizens.

Let the PRs, FTs and non-citizens worry about Medishield or Private shields.

Summary: Gahmen should provide free medical to all citizens. Period.; September 14, 2009 11:33 PM
Singapore Short Stories said...: Yup, I agree with you Mr Tan. There are many methods of Presentation of statistics. some can be confusing.; September 14, 2009 11:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Tan,

This post is posted in bad faith. Don't shoot below the belt. Insurance advisers hate to sell the shield plan and the commission is peanuts but comes with a lot of work.; September 15, 2009 12:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Scare tactic or greed tactic , very commonly used by insurance agents.
EG. every day someone dies of cancer. Analyse this statement.Is it scary?
Singapore equity returned 40% . or
According to the best well kept secret our wholelife rate of return == 6%; September 15, 2009 12:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr Tan, can you please advised more...as I am confused..

I am male, 57, and worried of the future medical and hospitalisation costs..

Over the years, I actually had the original basis medishield insured by the CPf since inception from day one.

Two years ago, worried of the potential high cost of medicals, I was advised by the insurance agent from ntuc to switch to ntuc private shield.

I then choose the preferred plan - the top of the three plans..

This I was told that I can easiy switch downward to a lower or 3rd basic plan should I want to in the future when I had no money to continue with the paying of the preferred premium.

I was told it was not possible to switch up to a high plan if there was a claim before or there was illness daignosed, etc.

Now that I know from you only one or two of the total insured people would need hugh sum of money for their medical, I have now wish to consider to switch back the basic medishield isnsured by the CPF.

Can you advise if this was a diea or not. If not what is your recommended advice..

Cheers

Able; September 15, 2009 12:40 AM
Seth said...: I hereby disclaim that I am a financial planner.
---

Mr. Tan, I think your blog is bordering on the adjective you used to describe the mini-bonds - "toxic". Let me explain:

"Only a very small proportion of insured get hit with large bills, maybe less than 1 in 10,000 bills."

This is an extremely vague sentence with fuzzy Math AND weasel words. What is "maybe less"? What defines "large bills"? Where do you get the statistics for 1 in 10,000 bills?

Does your blog constitute as financial advice? Are you responsible for the financial advice you dispense online? If someone, upon reading your blog and taking your advice not to get a private shield plan, ends up being worse off for it, what will you say of that?

Therefore, I think your blog is bordering on being "toxic", or rather, unhealthy for people who do not know better and just follow your advice without thought, much like how an unethical agent can use weasel words and fuzzy Math to mis-sell a financial product.

Only gamble what you can afford to lose. Insurance is about risk management, and there are people who are willing, or rather want to manage that risk by paying $30,000 (assuming the number you provided is accurate) more, rather than risk the chance of ending up having to pay a lot more than that $30,000.

Also, I second the comment made on [September 15, 2009 12:12 AM] regarding the commission and work involved. Your argument against the insurance industry seems to revolve around the commissions paid to the agent. If the product is the most suitable and beneficial for the client, why would the agent's commissions matter? You seem to think that the less commission an agent gets, the more benefit the consumer will receive. You have been in the business for 30 years, earning a living from the profits of participating products and Shield plans, so I think you should also know that unscrupulous agents can also earn a handsome commission out of selling term insurance indiscriminately.

Lastly, today I met a prospective client who coincidentally has an NTUC shield plan, way back from 1994. NTUC was the first to offer such Shield plans, which you are now condemning. Let me guess, when you were at helm, everything you did was solely for the good of the consumer and now everything is solely for profit?; September 15, 2009 2:27 AM
Seth said...: Okay, I overlooked that you have defined large bills as those costing above $50,000.; September 15, 2009 2:31 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: Hi Able,
You can switch back to Medishield at any time and pay a lower premium. At 57, there is no need for you to bear the burden of the higher premium for a Private Shield, unless you are very well off.

I switched from Incomeshield to Medishield two years ago. I forgot whether I signed a form from CPF and from Income. It was a little confusing at first, but it was quite easy when I found the way.; September 15, 2009 6:24 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: Seth
Many insurance agents have the wrong concept of risk management. They only think of one side, i.e. the need to cover a risk, but they forgot that the price should be correct. They are happy to sell sell an overpriced product (relative to the benefit provided to the consumer) as they earn a commission.

It is wrong for an adviser to scare the consumer about the large hospital bills in private hospitals, when the same treatment can be obtained in a subsidised ward at one third of the cost. And that subsidised cost can be covered by basic Medishield.

I know what is proper financial advice better than you do. I have written this blog for three years to educate people and give honest advice. It is different from the half truths that the "licenced" advisers give to scare customers into making wrong decisions (which are profitable to the adviser).

The circumstances in which I introduced Incomeshield 15 years ago are quite different from today. Many things have changed. I do not wish to engage into this argument on this point.
ButI ask you to avoid being rude and making sweeping personal attack.; September 15, 2009 6:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Hi Mr Tan,
You mentioned that you are now on the Basic Medishield. How does the government means testing affect you when comes to your future medical bills?
Thanks.; September 15, 2009 7:50 AM
Anonymous said...: My Dad has only basic medishield and not too long ago, have End Stage Renal Failure (ESTF) and has to undergo dialysis. Dialysis cost in Singapore is about S$190 per session, 3 sessions a week. So total cost is S$2280 per month. We are not eligible to be subsided by NKF/KDF as we did not pass the means test.

Medishield paid up to S$1K a month and S$450 is claimable from medisave, which means we have to folk out S$850 per month henceforth, or close to S$10K per year.

Dialysis is very expensive in Singapore and medishield is not sufficient in such chronic illnesses :( It is even harder for families who are not rich but also neither poor enough.; September 15, 2009 7:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Tan,

Some blog post like this one is rude. You also make sweeping statements. It is only expected others are rude to you too.; September 15, 2009 7:59 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: 7:59 AM
You do not need to come to my blog. There are many blogs for agents to share their stories. My blog is for consumers who find my advice to be useful.; September 15, 2009 8:53 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: 7:58 AM
Insurance has its cost too. If your dad has been paying Private shield, the additional cost is $30,000 over a lifetime. It is all right to buy insurance, but make sure that you get a good price and good value for money.; September 15, 2009 9:00 AM
Anonymous said...: IMO, NTUC income shield Plan B [cheapest plan] is value for money. The lifetime cost is approximately $30,000 and the coverage limit almost double for every section. In addition, there is unlimited limit per lifetime and i think it is definitely worth getting.; September 15, 2009 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr Tan, I salute you! Your arguments & logic may hurt some unscrupulous people who show no qualms about their "greed" which is the cause of the financial meltdown the past year. Keep up the good work, Mr Tan & expose such "greedy" people.; September 15, 2009 9:47 AM
Khiat Han Hwee Adrian said...: Hi Mr Tan,

Many adviser do not like to recommend Shield Plans because of the low commission and the vast amount of work and servicing required by the adviser. All the work may comes to nothing due to the strict underwriting by the insurer as well. To be unethical, advisers will sell something of higher premium and less work.

I hope you don't see advisers as greedy for the commission just because we are concern for the clients future medical cost in upgrading their medishield to a private integrated plan.

Over last 2 years, I have a client,60yo, incurred a $60k bill and another client, 1yo, incurred a $25k bill. Both stayed in Restructured hospital. I don't think my clients falls in the 1 in 10,000 category because I only have 400 Shield plan clients.; September 15, 2009 9:52 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: Adrian
I think that Basic Medishield is suitable for most ordinary people. There is no need to get them to pay more for Private Shield (A or private hospital) unless they are well off.

I do not have access to the actual statistics, so my figure of 1 in 10,000 is my guess. I am referring to the insured population, most of which are the younger people. Older people are likely to be treated in subsidised wards, so the cost is lower.

Most of your clients are probably the private Shield clients who opt for A and private hospital. The incidence rate of large bills will will be higher, but they pay a much higher premium.

I do not wish to judge you or anybody else on your motive. If you think that you are acting in the best interest of your clients, let them be the judge. But do tell them about the option of staying in Basic Medishield.; September 15, 2009 10:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Hi Mr Tan,
Thanks for sharing your views on "a high income person using basic Medishield".
I have a private SHIELD.
Two years ago, I took up a plan meant for Female Illness which costs more than 700 bucks per year (premium goes higher as I age).
It seems I am paying a lot of extra unnecessarily.; September 15, 2009 10:49 AM
Anonymous said...: My father's, 78yo, received $297/mth from Retirement Account.

He paid cheapest INCOME Shield nearly $700 early this year.

If he switch to MOH Medishield, will he be insured after 80yo?; September 15, 2009 11:13 AM
Anonymous said...: REX comments as follows,

Dear MR Tan
I don't quite understand why you think the Basic Medishield is good enough for most people. Is it because you felt that the odds of 1:10000 is too low, thereroe, don't worry too much over falling sick? (someone challenged you to those figures you quoted, i can see it).

Excuse me if i am wrong, i believe the main problem with the Basic Plan, is that there is limited coverage. Enhanced plans allow for "all expenses paid option" and without regard to the type of illness. That's very important, because if you fell down and broke your hip and need $30,000 hip replacement surgery, I think basic shield has very limited maybe no payouts to this event. Please correct and forgive me if i am wrong, i had done some research on this two years ago (i bought private plan after the research).

The price of the private plans typically several hundred dollars can be paid from the medisave account annually up to a certain age - by that time perhpas the children grown up and can help to upkeep the plan.

Secondly, i am also a bit concerned about the trend of this posting on the blog. It is getting a bit too hot for comfort. It is unlike the other posts which exist in your blog. Now we are seeing some unhappy mud slinging's, it's not very healthy regardless who is correct.

REX; September 15, 2009 11:29 AM
Seth said...: Mr. Tan, likewise, it is wrong for anyone to downplay the risk of large hospital bills, especially when one doesn't have the proper statistics to back them up. I am not sure if you realize, but since you started touching on Shield plans, there have been a few people who have come forward to share their own personal experiences regarding hospital bills and the inadequacy of MediShield. I urge you, and especially your readers to consider these accounts.

The thing is, "maybe less" and unsubstantiated statistics like "1 in 10,000" are also half-truths. As stated and now reinforced by Adrian, unethical agents will not even bother recommending Shield plans due to the unattractive commission to work ratio, so your point that agents sell purely for commissions is also a sweeping and misleading statement.

I do concede that your 30 years in NTUC accords you a lot of experience to dispense financial advice, but you are not right 100% of the time. It may sound rude and seem like a personal attack, but the simple fact is that different people have different financial needs. Your honest advice seems to be that everybody has no need for a private Shield plan, and that it is an unnecessary "status", when that is not true for everyone (likewise for the argument for buy term invest the difference).

What if someone takes your advice and ends up being worse off for it? You don't have a responsibility towards people who take your advice through this blog, and I certainly don't expect you to be responsible for just penning your opinions online. As such, I feel that pointing out the debatable points in your post will benefit readers to make a more informed decision regarding their insurance options.; September 15, 2009 1:01 PM
Seth said...: Also, one interesting thing is that if I sold only term plans, as strongly advocated by Mr. Tan, I expect my income to increase quite substantially, based on the plans I have already sold to my existing clientele.

It is very attractive from a profit viewpoint to not sell Shield plans and sell term plans instead. However, I am not purely driven by profit. I believe product suitability is still the most important.; September 15, 2009 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...: REX comments as follows,
Seth's mail of 1.01 pm makes sense mostly. Except the statement about "buy term invest the rest".
I have done enough research, and spoken even to ex-expert insurance people before, and can confirm how wise it is to buy term and invest the rest. As i mentioned before, insurance and savings are contrary forces, you want something you get less of the other. As everyone needs protection it is necessary to forgo a bit of savings to get it. It is very reasonable to give up %50 a month in exchange for a $200,000 payment if you die suddenly or fall sick and then die in short while. The 200,000 will fully reimburse whoever is taking care of you, to put it in a bad way. So in virtual terms, since you have to die sooner or later, you wouldn't be short changed if you buy Term insurance. Any other product that try to marry the concept of insurance and savings, is generally useless to the consumer, but benefit the issuing entity more, as implicated strongly not just by our host blogger but many other learned people.

REX; September 15, 2009 1:22 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...: My estimate is that 1 in 10,000 people incur a hospital bill above $50,000 in a year. This is just an estimate, and I do not have the figures to back it up. I intend to show that the chance is small.

Maybe it should be 1 in 5,000 but it is still very small. I think that my estimate is not too far off.

More importantly, people should not quote specific incidences of big hospital bills, just to scare people into buying insurance and paying a lot of money to cover these risks.

For people who can afford the high premium, it is all right. But do not ask people who are not well off to spend money unnecessarily.; September 15, 2009 2:19 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...: Rex (1:22 PM)
It is all right to pay $50 a month ($600 a year) to get $300,000 of coverage, assuming that this is to cover death. (Actually, it also depends on your age and period of insurance).

But they should not pay $3,000 a year to get cover for $120,000 (which is the typical premium of a whole life policy), when you need 20 years just to break even (i.e. get back your premiums with no investment return). They are better off to buy term insurance and invest the difference.

I see that you advocate "buy term and invest the difference", so this message is for the other readers.; September 15, 2009 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: REX comments

Yes, i concur with you, it is only those idiotic endowment products that make you pay $3000 a year every year for miserable $120,000 cover. One must first distinguish in his mind very clearly from the beginning, that one needs $300,000 cover or whatever, than work backwards to see which is the lowest offer, it is that simple! If one goes the other way round and starts with the premium and figure out what coverage would be had for that premium, and then gets greedy, hoping that surviving the plan could allow to plough back the cash, then one would fall into the insurance companie's traps.

In these evil days especially, the complicated products usually involved complicated rules and options to be followed over 20 years, etc., are actually using your own money to pay you back a bit and a time and make you feel like they are so generous, it's plain absolute crazy!!! I was cheesed off by a well known bank and scolded the agent when what he actually was doing was to cut my principal and pay more "interest" out of my own money.. principal and interest must be separated, this is basic ethics!!!

All insurance should be term insurance, period. No fanciful complicated cheating products. This is the ideal case, but it's like allowing cigarette sales. Government don't care, these insurance products etc. create jobs, bolsters the economy, give impression that we are free society pro-business.

REX; September 15, 2009 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: I am not sure if presenting a possibility of an event or some events is considered "scare stories".

Examples:

"If you are obese and don't lose weight now, you will die of heart attack" This is not true, it is just a possibility.

"If you don't save now for retirement, you will not have money for retirement" This is not true. It is only a possibility.

"If you don't vote for PAP, your mother and sister will become maids in other countries" - This is not true. It is only a possibility.

"If you don't buy term insurance or any form of insurance for yourself, your family will suffer if you die" Again, this is not true. It is just another possibility.

Best: "If you don't study hard - you will fail."
Of course we know it is not true - it is only a possibility.

So how does one decide fairly what is "scare stories"?; September 15, 2009 10:31 PM
Anonymous said...: I think rather than finding ways to save on premium for such plans, it may be better to find ways to generate more income.

When you earn more or have more income, what is the cost of the premium to you?; September 15, 2009 10:47 PM
Seth said...: "My estimate is that 1 in 10,000 people incur a hospital bill above $50,000 in a year. This is just an estimate, and I do not have the figures to back it up. I intend to show that the chance is small.

Maybe it should be 1 in 5,000 but it is still very small. I think that my estimate is not too far off."

Except you don't have the figures to back up your statement that large medical bills are a very small chance. You can't even decide on an arbitrary figure of how small this chance is. Do you think it's 1 in 10,000, or 1 in 5,000 now?

Regardless, it does not matter. Even if it is 1 in 10,000, what happens to that one person? That's the very idea and concept of insurance, where the risk is managed and shared by 10,000 people instead of having that single person being utterly devastated by the large medical bill.

"More importantly, people should not quote specific incidences of big hospital bills, just to scare people into buying insurance and paying a lot of money to cover these risks. "

What is also important is that you shouldn't downplay the risk of large medical expenses.

Personally speaking, I am not someone who uses stories to sell, as I'm quite a young consultant with not many such stories to share with in the first place. The funny thing is, such stories are told to me by my clients who readily buy such Shield plans because they have realized the importance of it themselves.

"For people who can afford the high premium, it is all right. But do not ask people who are not well off to spend money unnecessarily."

People who are well off can well afford $100,000 or $200,000 in medical bills. But do not ask people who are not well off to gamble what they cannot afford to lose. People who are not well off cannot afford that risk and therefore hedge it away by purchasing hospitalization insurance.; September 15, 2009 11:35 PM
David Wong said...: Mr Tan, I seriously don't understand how can you make such a statement without having the actual facts and figures? What are you trying to achieve recently? what if the client really do incur a large medical bill? so can he or she hold you liable? do you know how will this change his or her life?

I am a financial consultant for years and i have been a avid reader of your blog. All along i have been silent but i really feel that this time i really need to speak up as normal folks out there could be "misleaded" by you in this instance. your recent blogs could be too radical. before you make any statement, please spare a thought and consideration for all parties.

consider this:
1) why will the government encourage singapore citizens to "enhance" their basic medishield plan?

2) i am sure you know that medical inflation is happening at SIX percent averagely a year?

3) ONE in THREE singaporeans will get critical illness

4) Commissions for shield plan is not even enough for us to take cab to and fro from the client's place twice!

5) Insurers have very strict underwriting rules for shield plan as it has extremely low profitability and it is widely known that private shield plans are there cos the government "encourage" the big private insurers to have it

6) lets face it. private hospitals give more attention and specialised care to patients. is it right to deny an average joe out there to get significantly better treatment? i am sure most of the financial consultants who are long enough will know that private hospitals have a higher chance of a full recovery.

7) lastly about critical illness. there is something that insurance will never cover. that is your medication for the next 4 to 5 years, private nursing care, dialysis treatments, potential loss of permanent income for the rest of your career due your history of critical illness and etc... all these could cause a huge drain financially on the family and at least most private plans covers treatment costs 90 days pre and post of hospitalization. maybe you sld speak to a family who really went through all the suffering

I know of a family despite having basic medishield plan, the father still have to fork out $50,000 for his daughter's treatment and the cost is still escalating. prior to that, will you still insist that he just have a basic medishield plan for his daughter? this case is well documented in the papers.

lastly about buy term and invest the rest i also differ strongly but my emphasize now is on this issue. I also don't see the need for traditional products such as whole life and especially endowment there is a reason why US and AUST go almost purely ILP... why not you take a look at their view?

I have always respected you as an ex CEO but your recent views really disappoint. I thought you knew but maybe after all you don't. You should work as a consultant and you will know what tragedies we came across and the tears we shed for our clients.

hopefully you can be more responsible and do more research before commenting on such "potentially harming" comments to the general public.

For Passion,
David; September 16, 2009 3:07 AM
David Wong said...: Oh btw I have not talked about recurrances of critical illnesses like cancer...; September 16, 2009 3:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Tan,

If you feel that the private shield plan's profit margin is too high and therefore too expensive, you should blog about ways to introduce a more effective competition.

Telling people not to buy such product or saying the commission is high is totally out of the point.; September 16, 2009 8:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Tan,
I suggest that you do not post the views of the insurance agents and financial consultants. Their purpose is to confuse the consumers and scare them into spending premium (actually wasting money) on insurance, so they can make their commission. How greedy.

Many of these agents seem to be from NTUC. Why don't they go to their own company's website and tell their stories to their customers there. There is no need for them to hang around this blog.; September 16, 2009 10:30 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: David Wong

You asked "why does the Government encourage citizens to upgrade their basic Medishield coverage?

I do not know whether your statement is correct. Suppose that it is. It is possible that the Ministry of Health face a "conflict of interest". Here is the explanation:

If more people go to B2 ward (under Medishield), the government has to give more subsidy. If they upgrade to A, the Government does not bear the subsidy.

I am just giving honest advice to consumers. You can pay less (through hospital bills or insurance premiums) by opting for Medishield and stay in B2 ward. Do not spend your money unnecessarily. Keep it for your retirement.; September 16, 2009 10:39 AM
Tan Kin Lian said...: I wish to add one more point. If a patient goes to B2 ward, the cost is cheaper for two reasons:

a) There is a government subsidy of 50% to 65%
b) As the government is a co-payor, they will help to make sure that there is no over-charging of the hospital bill. If the patient pays 100%, there is no one to help the patient to check against over-charging.

Some people say that they are treated by trainee doctors in B2 ward. This is not correct. The trainee doctor will do the routine checks, but for serious cases, a qualified and experienced specialist will be in charge. This is usually satisfactory (instead of choosing your own doctor).; September 16, 2009 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr Tan, I disagree with you to be on Medisave and then pay the difference to upgrade to a private hospital later. In my mother's case, it cost $26,000 for a A class ward at Mount Alvernia. If she was on Medishield and she upgraded, she would have forked out $22,000 in difference. Not cheap at all, and I am not an insurance agent either.; September 16, 2009 11:09 AM
Anonymous said...: REX likes to ask a question,

Mr Tan, earlier on i mentioned a question
"..i believe the main problem with the Basic (medishield) Plan, is that there is limited coverage. Enhanced plans allow for "as-charged option"

As i understand it the copayment/coinsurance is only very slightly different than the basic medishield too for "as charged" option, so the additional cover may be quite attractive - since cpf medisave can actually pay the premiums for up to a certain limit.

The as-charged option gives peace of mind... the argument is not just about quality of doctors (even LKY wife go to govt hospital, so actually, good doctors are everywhere), in my view. I cannot imagine being half dead and having to worry whether my family can support paying for ABCD treatment, XYZ treatment, names i can't even pronounce, which are proposed by specialists to help you recover. i believe basic medishield doesn't support many different types of illnesses, and they have probably lots of bureucracy to figure out if the treatment matches the approved list. A sick person will not like to hear all these "sick" discussions surely...

REX; September 16, 2009 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: If i may add an additional point, medical advances changes regularly. And, i do not know how often the basic medishield plan approved-list of treatments will be updated. What if there is a new treatment procedure - you can't get reimbursed - unless the govt is super efficient and respond very quickly and update the list- which i doubt.
Some medical procedures could be slightly controversial and medisave basic wouldn't approve it at all. Under such circumstances as aforesaid, the As-charged plan could be a lifeline - not a status symbol.; September 16, 2009 2:00 PM
Anonymous said...: If everybody remains on Medishield, which means more people getting various levels of subsidy from the government, do you think our taxes can remain in the present level?
Somebody has to foot this bill.; September 16, 2009 3:01 PM
Anonymous said...: EC wants to share below a forum article from sgClub:

(Article Dated 11-03-2008, 09:19 PM)

"Bad Insurance Agents selling Private Medical Integrated Plans

Hi all,

I have been working in the hospital as Patient Service Associate and currently I came across an issue about Insurance Agent who give wrong information on the PMI plans to his customer.

Just want to let you guys know please do not get cheated by those Insurance Agents whom nowadays promote PMI plans to you.

As private integrated plans the use of Medisave is subject to a limit of $800 per insured person per policy year.

A Medisave–approved private integrated plan is a catastrophic medical insurance plan which offers additional benefits on top of that provided by MediShield.

It does not mean that if you buy the private integrated plans you can waive off the deposit required to pay to the hospital for surgery.

Last Friday i came across a Great Eastern Issue. That was the patient was a PR she work in Singapore and she medisave claimable only can cover up to a certain sum and she have a SGD800 deposit and before she come to the surgery her GE Insurance Agent told her she need not pay a single cent for the Surgery if the purchace this PMI plans.

But in fact to hospital if you can produce LOG (Letter Of Guarantee) from the Insurance company / Workplace Company deposit will be waive off than that mean Patient will not pay anything.

Having a PMI plan only claimable to the Medisave part and Subject to Approval only.

I talk to the GE Agent of my Patient and I have to explain to him that what is LOG what is PMI and he keep telling me that PMI need not need the patient to pay a single cent. I was very annoyed and ask him EXCUSE ME SIR DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS PMI PLAN? He told me WHAT IS PMI? I tell him what is PMI three to four times and he dun get it and I ask him HEY YOU ARE AN ISURANCE AGENT DO YOU KNOW YOUR PRODUCT?

Today my colleague who works for 15 years in the hospital she came across this issue from the NTUC Income Agent.

I just wonder is it that nowadays the Agents have no business they do such unethical of selling their products? "

Mr.TanKL, do you think there is a miscommunication between the three parties - hospital, agent, insurance company? Is this a case of "the blind leading the blind"?; September 17, 2009 12:54 PM
Anonymous said...: ntuc agents are attacking you in their forum about this article. The ungrateful agents are the people whom you helped in the past.They threaten to report you to authority for misleading.; September 17, 2009 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: The blind (agent) leading the blind (client).

EC; September 17, 2009 2:43 PM
Anonymous said...: I switch to private shield because i have enough in cpf medisave account. And I thought that money in medisave account cannot touch so why not use it to buy better shield protection.

Did I misunderstood this part?; November 23, 2009 1:22 PM

Monday, September 14, 2009

Economics of Private Shield

44 comments:

Blog Archive