Worker's hefty hospital bill affects company too
-
Mar 3, 2011 - ST Forum
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in the course of work, he suffers again as the government subsidies - designed to be generous to Singaporeans - are withdrawn and the worker is left to fend for himself after the employer's Wica liability exceeds the limit.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
-
Well, look no further than our budget. What's the allocation for healthcare again?
-
Originally posted by Clivebenss:
Mar 3, 2011 - ST Forum
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in the course of work, he suffers again as the government subsidies - designed to be generous to Singaporeans - are withdrawn and the worker is left to fend for himself after the employer's Wica liability exceeds the limit.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 ......
