Worker served with $147,000 C-class bill
-
Jan 29, 2011 - ST Forum
I HAD an accident at work last June. Initially, the interim hospital bill from the National University Hospital indicated a subsidy.
But when the final bill was given to me, I was shocked. The bill for my stay at a C-class ward amounted to an unsubsidised total of $147,000.
I was discharged on Aug 13 last year and the reason for the difference between what was stated in the interim bill and the final one was not explained at all.
Only after I asked was I told that the Ministry of Health had withdrawn the subsidy as the accident was work- related.
About a month after my discharge, I applied for a waiver of the outstanding amount of about $122,000 through my MP. This was after my company had paid $25,000.
As far as I am aware, the hospital did not reply to the appeal.
Three months later, after more deductions from my MediShield ($41,000) and Medisave accounts ($31,000), I was informed that the hospital was in the process of scheduling an instalment payment plan for the remaining $50,000.
Needless to say, my family and I are plagued by anxiety. I am 54 years old and work in the construction sector; my wife works part-time and my daughters are still in their teens.
How can an average Singaporean worker like me support a family, pay off a huge hospital bill and still find more money to pay for subsequent medical requirements arising from the accident and treatment?
If I had been given a subsidy, I would not have been burdened by this unexpectedly trying financial circumstances.
Tan Guan Seng
-
Jan 29, 2011 - ST Forum
THE REPLYPatient turned down advice on subsidies
MR TAN Guan Seng spent most of his hospitalisation at the high-dependency and intensive-care units during his two-month stay at the National University Hospital.
His hospitalisation charges were originally pegged at the subsidised rate as our admission office staff had overlooked that it was a work-related injury. We apologised to him for this.
When Mr Tan's wife made a request to upgrade him to a private ward, the hospital's staff informed her that the estimated bill would exceed the quantum to be borne by Mr Tan's employer under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
Under the Act, Mr Tan's employer is liable to pay medical expenses for up to one year from the date of the accident, subject to a cap of $25,000.
However, hospitals are given the discretion to downgrade patients admitted for work-related injuries and who have financial difficulties to subsidised status, if they meet the criteria after a financial assessment.
We empathise with Mr Tan's situation. In our bid to assist him, we advised him to undergo a financial assessment to confirm if he could qualify for higher subsidies for his medical expenses. Mr Tan did not take up the offer.
He was also advised to check with his employer if his medical expenses could be covered under the company's insurance policy.
In September, Mr Tan appealed for a waiver of the outstanding amount through his MP. We considered his appeal and explained that as he was appropriately charged for the treatment provided, we could not accede to his request.
As he did not take up our earlier offers for financial assessment, we were unable to explore other forms of assistance.
In consideration of his appeal, we offered Mr Tan an instalment plan to settle the outstanding amount. The offer was rejected by Mr Tan.
Joy Wong (Mrs)
Director, Patient Relations
National University Hospital -
Originally posted by Clivebenss:
Jan 29, 2011 - ST Forum
THE REPLYPatient turned down advice on subsidies
MR TAN Guan Seng spent most of his hospitalisation at the high-dependency and intensive-care units during his two-month stay at the National University Hospital.
His hospitalisation charges were originally pegged at the subsidised rate as our admission office staff had overlooked that it was a work-related injury. We apologised to him for this.
When Mr Tan's wife made a request to upgrade him to a private ward, the hospital's staff informed her that the estimated bill would exceed the quantum to be borne by Mr Tan's employer under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
Under the Act, Mr Tan's employer is liable to pay medical expenses for up to one year from the date of the accident, subject to a cap of $25,000.
However, hospitals are given the discretion to downgrade patients admitted for work-related injuries and who have financial difficulties to subsidised status, if they meet the criteria after a financial assessment.
We empathise with Mr Tan's situation. In our bid to assist him, we advised him to undergo a financial assessment to confirm if he could qualify for higher subsidies for his medical expenses. Mr Tan did not take up the offer.
He was also advised to check with his employer if his medical expenses could be covered under the company's insurance policy.
In September, Mr Tan appealed for a waiver of the outstanding amount through his MP. We considered his appeal and explained that as he was appropriately charged for the treatment provided, we could not accede to his request.
As he did not take up our earlier offers for financial assessment, we were unable to explore other forms of assistance.
In consideration of his appeal, we offered Mr Tan an instalment plan to settle the outstanding amount. The offer was rejected by Mr Tan.
Joy Wong (Mrs)
Director, Patient Relations
National University Hospitalcertainly no joy in Joy's reply.
-
The company and he himself also never apply for insurance?
Suay lah. Got injured for work purposes but company only pay 25k
-
His hospitalisation charges were originally pegged at the subsidised rate as our admission office staff had overlooked that it was a work-related injury. We apologised to him for this
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i liked this.
in singapore we must be really careful. i dont know if he is suay or he has himself to blame.
but then i pity him. how can he afford such a hefty sum?
a wife and 2 teenage girl to support. and he's 54 already.
walau.
-
Originally posted by dragg:
His hospitalisation charges were originally pegged at the subsidised rate as our admission office staff had overlooked that it was a work-related injury. We apologised to him for this
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i liked this.
I'm sorry it happened.
Let's move on.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
I'm sorry it happened.
Let's move on.
did the hospital forewarn him when the bill reached lets say 20k, then 40k, then 60k...... ? surely they must be concerned if he, common salary man, can afford to pay up.i believe most people cant afford to.
-
Originally posted by dragg:
did the hospital forewarn him when the bill reached lets say 20k, then 40k, then 60k...... ? surely they must be concerned if he, common salary man, can afford to pay up.i believe most people cant afford to.
He was staying at C class ward.
They probably thought he was making 6 figures a year.
-
I think something isn't right..
how come... The reply...
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
I think something isn't right..
how come... The reply...
Duh.
-
not abt e oversight part
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
I think something isn't right..
how come... The reply...
the same day?
-
Originally posted by dragg:
the same day?
Not tisHow do you expect a normal person to react to advise from hospital over this at the immediate point?
Check tis, check tat yourself is e answer. How do you expect a layman to figure such issues out?
Typical of e govt today in any case. Everything your own biz to check and resolve.
Sometimes replies are of some PR image issue. I can prove it from e replies I can get from LTA.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
Not tisHow do you expect a normal person to react to advise from hospital over this at the immediate point?
Check tis, check tat yourself is e answer. How do you expect a layman to figure such issues out?
Typical of e govt today in any case. Everything your own biz to check and resolve.
Sometimes replies are of some PR image issue. I can prove it from e replies I can get from LTA.
We have long suspected they have templates for these things.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
We have long suspected they have templates for these things.
watever e casethe replies from LTA says it's not under their purview. But ends up e matter is resolved very quickly (for those tat seriously can be resolved on e spot de).
Dun tell me land transport issues dun need to get pass them?
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
Not tisHow do you expect a normal person to react to advise from hospital over this at the immediate point?
Check tis, check tat yourself is e answer. How do you expect a layman to figure such issues out?
Typical of e govt today in any case. Everything your own biz to check and resolve.
Sometimes replies are of some PR image issue. I can prove it from e replies I can get from LTA.
When Mr Tan's wife made a request to upgrade him to a private ward, the hospital's staff informed her that the estimated bill would exceed the quantum to be borne by Mr Tan's employer under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
Under the Act, Mr Tan's employer is liable to pay medical expenses for up to one year from the date of the accident, subject to a cap of $25,000.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the above is proof they did forewarn him about the bill.
-
Originally posted by dragg:
When Mr Tan's wife made a request to upgrade him to a private ward, the hospital's staff informed her that the estimated bill would exceed the quantum to be borne by Mr Tan's employer under the Work Injury Compensation Act.
Under the Act, Mr Tan's employer is liable to pay medical expenses for up to one year from the date of the accident, subject to a cap of $25,000.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the above is proof they did forewarn him about the bill.
private ward part...many do not realise the difference.. I can say tis
-
and Koh Boon Wan paid only S$8 for his by-pass surgery
-
that means from now his family cant afford to be hospitalised as he still owes another 50k.
in fact i think his family cant afford to be hospitalised ever again.
-
His hospitalisation charges were originally pegged at the subsidised rate as our admission office staff had overlooked that it was a work-related injury. We apologised to him for this.
WAH KAOZ.... Its like saying I accidentally caused you to get a heart attack because my nurse gave you the wrong medicine and I apologise to you for this.
Can ah? WTF... The guy should sue the hospital to pay for his bills instead. The two sentences are enough.
ITS A LAPSE MADE BY THE HOSPITAL. -
Retarded self-serving hospital. Just another reason never to get warded in NUH...
-
then which hospital to go leh?
seems like all hospital not cheap
Can die, but cannot sick
-
so he got no money to pay how?
he will get sued and go to jail? or declare bankrupt?
-
Eat more apples, sleep early, drink water, dun smoke. Live longer but healthily.
Another way is to smoke more, drink more, dun sleep, dun drink water and die faster so you dun have to pay the medical bills.. die faster... save all the trouble.