Thursday, November 01, 2012

Problem with Incomeshield claim

Mr. Tan, please paste this in your blog


The Editor
Today - Voices

NTUC Income’s letter (WHY NTUC Income rejected claim) failed to disclose the salient facts evident in my correspondences  and email exchanges with Income’s officers. These letters are enclosed for the benefit of the Editor. As Income has confused your readers,  I am compelled to straighten the record.

From the letters and emails, it is abundantly clear that when I chose to be C-warded, I had intended to claim under my CPF Medishield. In my letter dated 05/10/12, among others, I stated:  …. “I refer to your
letter of 02/10/12 relating to my hospitalization claims.
Please note that my claims are against my CPF Medishield Basic which I signed on since day one of inception including when it was migrated to your company.
In all the hospitalizations I am claiming I was a C Ward patient with full subsidy. Hence there is no basis to reject my claims. 
Attached please see my July letter mailed to your office which evidently may have misplaced….

 My letter of 04/07/12 asked NTUC Income to process the claims under my medishield which was migrated from CPF to NTUC Income many years ago. Income was hence my service provider and it is supposed to play this role as required by CPF as “one-stop processing centre…”.

So when Income chooses to unilaterally terminate (retroactively to 01/01/12 and jeopardizing my coverage/protection) my Enhanced Incomeshield basic for frivolous reason and after a long time lag of four months, they are still my service provider (until I am informed otherwise as they did when they first “took over my policy” from CPF) . Instead of processing my claims under my Medishield, they told me to get the hospitals to re-bill to CPFB even though I have repeatedly told them that I was not aware nor in the loop when the hospital billed them under “Enhanced Incomeshield basic”. I also had no knowledge of what bills were sent and when. 

To make matter confusing, I was told by their email: … “You will remain insured under Basic Medishield if you satisfy the  CPF’s eligibility criteria.”  Mr Pui Sr VP of Income has since inserted some mitigate in an attempt to damage-control the point I was raising about Income’s duty to check out and advise me. 

Afterall until there was policy  cancellation or re-nomination (my Medishield), Income is still my service provider. Together with GE, Income was keen to takeover my CPF policies and they cannot just drop the matter without the courtesy of informing me. Also in his second and last paragraph, Mr Pui mentions that Income understands that I met CPFB’s criteria. That being the case why did not Income said so upfront despite the many email exchanges; in the process causing so much anxieties to their client?

A week after my first hospitalization, an SMS advises that my claim will be processed within 14 days. After much chasing and prodding, NTUC Income replied some four months later followed in quick succession cancellation of my upgraded policy ignoring my request for delay action so as not to jeopardise my lower tier coverage. Is this the usual performance standard we are to live with?

To-date NTUC Income has yet to inform me officially that they are no longer my service provider for my CPF Medishield basic.

James Wong (Wong Chee Wah)

5 comments:

Johnny Kwa said...

Income is behaving like gangster and hides facts in their response to TODAY paper. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I thought their CEO wanted Income to be transparent, forthright, trustworthy, etc. Looks like there is a very long journey ahead.
Is it empty talk or the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing?

yujuan said...

Policyholders of Income could give this CEO an Oscar Award for such excellent acting performance - what with his lies of making Income trustworthy and transparent, and then stealthily knife-stabbing Medishield clients from behind.
Guess all Income Shield holders are feeling jittery now, remember we were pushed to Income by CPF Board, we dun choose this rascal insurer by choice.
This no longer Cooperative Insurer is now just another wolf in sheep's clothing.
From now, all their products are junk products, not worth even looking at them. All Income shareholders must be smiling with glee, this CEO is gonna increase dividends for them by leaps and bounds, if can get away with paying up, then get away with paying up, and the CEO, Executives and their salespeople could enjoy expensive holidays abroad with pockets full from Commissions.
A hypocritical Insurer under a false facade of a Cooperative. At least other insurers like Great Eastern dun pretend to have integrity.
Somebody said this CEO is a FT from Malaysia, the same category as that ex SMRT CEO Saw, all the same working for self interests only.

Johnny Kwa said...

you reminded me of some "not for profit" organisations like this one in education service which had accumulated some $95 mio enuf to build student hostel near its "campus". Now they have invested big time in Iskandar Johore.... I wonder why govt. is blind to all these happenings.

zhummmeng said...

The senior management is prepared to stick their neck for their so called financial consultants even they are not up to standard in the 'advisory' process . Understandable they have to cover up the shoddy standard. Remember the regular ILPs called vivolink sold to a 60s old woman? A senior VP put his reputation on the line when he defended that the recommendation by a 'consultant or insultant' was suitable for an old woman of 60s. Did you know that the product would break even when the woman is 80+ years old.She may not live to see her saving. What saving is this crap saving plan?
Walau....fair dealing is like that one.!!!MAS uncovered this in the mystery shopping spree and I wonder what MAS has to say about what really is fair dealing.

Johnny Kwa said...

MAS n other regulators are sleeping on the job or busing tallying their bank balances. Look at all those fatcats who earn mega salaries n have so much time in hand which they used to get extra marital sex .... even one or two made illegal money out of the system they operate within n supposed to protect.........

Shame, shame,shame to have such a system which incidentally is also widening the gap between the top salary earners and the bottom lowlives. Yes NTUC is trying their best, on hindsight or with ulterior motive to push up cleaners wages; health care workers.I dun think they care at all. They are doing it in order to make themselves look slightly better comparatively.
Why now? Why not before the watershed GE?

Blog Archive