Hence, from April this year, MIC@Home will become a mainstream model of care in our public healthcare institutions. As a result, patients can be assured that they will not pay any more for MIC@Home than they do for acute inpatient care in a public hospital. All our hospitals intend to price MIC@Home similar to, or lower than, a normal hospital ward. Patients will be supported by subsidies, MediShield Life and MediSave, no different from a physical inpatient stay.
In response to Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's suggestion, I do not think we therefore need to give an incentive for transition to home care now. It will be better to develop MIC@Home into a well-accepted mainstream mode for acute inpatient care. We will also further expand the capacity of MIC@Home, as a first step, from 100 in 2023, to 300 in 2024, with the potential to scale up further.
The third change is to encourage telehealth. Sir, 40% of attendances in a typical polyclinic are for chronic care management. Last year, we extended subsidies and allowed the use of MediSave for the use of telehealth, for chronic care. By the second half of this year, we will also expand MediSave coverage to telehealth consults for preventive care services, such as follow-up reviews after regular health screening. This represents another 10% of polyclinic attendances.
With this change, telehealth is treated almost the same way as physical consultations in terms of financial support. The only difference is telehealth for common illnesses, that is, when patients experience symptoms, like cough, cold and fever. Patients still cannot use MediSave for such consults for common illnesses. Also for a good reason. We are holding this back as many people have been using such teleconsults as an easy way to get medical certificates (MCs). So, there will need to be greater discipline in issuing MCs before we consider this final move.
CF丨编辑
CF丨编审
新加坡国会丨来源
新加坡国会丨图源