MR TAN Guan Seng's letter ('Worker served with $147,000 C-class
bill'; Jan29) and the response from National University Hospital on
the same day ('Patient turned down advice on subsidies') caused me
concern as a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME).
My workers are covered by the Work Injury Compensation Act
(Wica) and basic health insurance. In addition, they are encouraged
to use a small part of their bonus to pay for additional MediShield
coverage as it has portability benefits.
But Mr Tan's example suggests that if a worker is injured in the
course of work, he suffers again as the government subsidies -
designed to be generous to Singaporeans - are withdrawn and the
worker is left to fend for himself after the employer's Wica
liability exceeds the limit. Worse, it seems that where high-
dependency treatment has to be administered, the MediShield
coverage is insufficient.
SMEs are caught between a rock and a hard place if their
employees are mired in medical liabilities.
An employer may have to retrench staff if he is to help such a
worker pay a hefty sum in medical charges.
Or, he can let the worker fend for himself which will inevitably
mean having to contend with an exhausted worker who tries to find
other ways to pay off his hospital debt.
Why must the Ministry of Health's policy insist on the
withdrawal of medical subsidies in work-related injuries?
Businesses are taxpayers too.
Tan Suan Tiu
dear Mr Tan ........ have you heard of insurance ? .......
contact your favourite insurance company and ask about worker's
comp coverage ......
