ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE - FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1995 TO 31ST MARCH, 1996
Sir, first, let me thank Members for making some very thoughtful comments about the direction of our national health policies. Everything we do, whether it involves medical excellence, the practice of traditional Chinese medicine, medical ethics, insurance, subsidies must have, as its starting and its end points, our demographic structure. At the debate on the Finance Minister's Budget speech, Mr Ling How Doong said that we were spending too little money on health, we were being stingy. He said that we were spending only 1.2%. He misunderstood the numbers. Dr Richard Hu said we are, in fact, spending 3% of our GDP. I have asked my officials to do modelling exercises of what the burden on our total society would be in the future if we maintain the same level of health care for each generation. Because the key thing to remember here is that we are still a very young population and when we are young, we do not spend very much on health care. But when we are old, health care costs rise exponentially. And in fact the different models show that, based upon the existing level of health care, we will reach 6% to 8% in the early part of the next century. The demographics are like so. After the Second World War, we had a post-war baby boom and many of us here are in fact members of that generation. From 1945 to 1966, when KK Hospital entered the Guinness Book of Records for being the world's busiest baby factory and, after that, if you look at the demographic charts, our population birth rate plummeted. Now this bulge in our demographic profile will affect everything that we do in Singapore - housing, politics, health care, education. Mindef faced it in the late 80s when suddenly it found that fewer and fewer young men were entering national service and they had to resize their ORBAT accordingly. We will age gradually between now and 2010. But after 2010, when the post-war baby boomers march into their winter years, when they are 65 and above, we will age rapidly until about 2030, when those who were born and gave KK Hospital the Guinness Book award reach their post-65 era. After 2030, it will begin to improve. But for 20 years, we will be in a very vulnerable period when something like one in four of us will be over 65 years of age and that will be a very different kind of Singapore, it will be a different kind of Parliamentary Chamber. Everything that we do now carries implications deep into the future and we must ensure that what we do now anticipates the problem of the next century. If we do not, come that particular time, the burden on young people will be so heavy, they will emigrate and Singapore can collapse. I think in all discussions, let us bear in mind that every good deed that we do now has got downstream implications way into the future and really we have a tremendous responsibility to so structure our health system that come 2010, it is something which a younger generation of Singaporeans at that time can bear comfortably. Mr Loh Meng See made some very interesting comments about medical excellence and I agree with him. Medical excellence and affordable health care should not be in conflict. It should not be that to keep health cost affordable, we suppress medical excellence. Then we ask ourselves what kind of health care we are talking about. We must continue to have excellence selectively and the solution here is to maintain Singapore as a regional medical centre. We should not lose that position, that position was bequeathed to us from the colonial period. It has always been so, it should continue to be so, and we must continue to invest in medical research, continue to have good people in medicine and continue to ensure that the quality of institutional practice is attractive enough for enough of our best doctors to remain in Government service. That is crucial. We should strengthen our links with key institutions in America, in Britain and elsewhere because, especially in America, where they are many years ahead of us. America, today, is in a very difficult position. They are already spending over 13% of their GNP on health care. It is a crushing burden and the music has stopped. The crunch has come, it has become a political problem. It could no longer be sustained and they are in a very serious over-supply situation, both in terms of doctors, nurses, health care practitioners, hospitals, hospital beds. In fact, on a recent visit to America, one senior doctor told me that even if America does not produce a single additional doctor for the next 20 years, it has got enough doctors and many hospitals are facing tremendous over-supply of beds. Top hospitals now find themselves operating at 50% bed occupancy. So on the one hand, we have in America an over-supply situation, while in Asia, we have societies on the move, thickening middle classes, wanting better health care. And I see increasingly a movement of medical facilities, personnel, technologies available in the West, coming over to Asia to meet the under-supply situation here. And if we position ourselves cunningly, I think we can be a medical hub for some of the technology that has come over from the West to Asia and, in the process, giving a much better health service to Singaporeans. In everything we do in Singapore, we get a better service for ourselves, by serving other people. By ourselves, we do not deserve Changi Airport. By ourselves, we do not deserve Singapore port. By ourselves, we do not deserve our financial centre. We get good services as Singaporeans because we serve a region much larger than ourselves. And therefore, maintaining Singapore as a regional medical hub, maintaining strong links with key institutions in America and Britain and elsewhere are important elements of our strategy to give good affordable health care to Singaporeans. Both Mr Loh Meng See and Dr Tan Cheng Bock gave very thoughtful speeches on advance directives. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked why we decided to change the name. The reason why the name has been changed is partly because "living will" confuses people. What does it mean to have a "living will"? I mean a will is something which becomes operative after you die. So what do you mean by that? The meaning of advance directive is intuitive, it is a directive you give in advance. But there is a deeper reason for this. It is that in America and Europe, the name "living will" is associated with the euthanasia movement. The committee on advance directive in Singapore, the National Medical Ethics Committee, and most doctors and the Health Ministry are all opposed to euthanasia. It is therefore very important for us not to be associated with it. What we are trying to do is to ease the process of the inevitable, not to hasten it. 2.15 pm Many points have been made. Extensive consultations have been made by the National Medical Ethics Committee with various religious and professional groups in Singapore. Why religious groups? Because this is a question of life and death and, therefore, a question which touches on the spiritual nature of life itself and is something which all religious people will naturally have views upon, and views of religious leaders having tremendous influence on their flocks. We have not been rushing it. Over the last one year, extensive consultations have been made with 24 religious groups and professional bodies. Most of them are in agreement with the principles, except for one or two. A few asked whether it is necessary now and said perhaps we can wait. On the whole, the support is very great. And the Mufti himself, I remember, issued a fatwa saying that it is something acceptable to Islam. Let me be very specific here, to answer the reservations of Mr Loh Meng See and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, that it will be strictly voluntary. No one is forced to do an advance directive. No one will be pressured to do it. In fact, we must have laws which will go after those who pressure people to write advance directives. It is something completely of their free will. If you do not understand it, if you do not want to preoccupy yourself with it, then leave it. But whether or not there are advance directives, the dilemma of how to treat people who are dying will remain for as long as there is human civilization, and it will remain for as long as we are mortal. Because come the final moment, someone must decide: do I resuscitate one more time? Do I go for yet more expensive antibiotics to fight the final pneumonia which will knock the patient off? At the end of the day, it is a deeply spiritual and a deeply personal matter as to how I register my preferences. If I do it well, consult my wife and family members, I will ease their pains later. If I avoid the issue and leave it to them, when I am no longer compos mentis, and there are quarrels within the family, decisions are taken, you can have recriminations for years after that, when other tensions arise in the family and people say, "There you are, you killed my mother," or "You didn't give enough care to her." So where individuals, having looked at the experiences of others, decide, "Look, I better make preparations, do my will and give clear instructions. Do I want to be buried? Do I want to be cremated? How do I want the final days to be ordered?" By the person settling these issues before he passes away, he takes away a lot of that burden from his wife and his family members, and this is really what advance directives are intended to do, not to force anyone. But if they decide to have an input, then they can. The law will allow for it. It has got nothing to do with medical cost. Because, as I said, even if you have no advance directives, the issue of when to pull the plug will still be there. Why has the problem now arisen when it did not in the past? In the old days when life was simpler, doctors were taught that when patients were dying, they did what was called "masterly inactivity". In other words, when you judge that the patient will pass away within a few days, you advise the family and say, "Why not get the patient home, get a priest, get a monk, provide solace, accompany him?" Today, if you do that because of influence from America, you may get a legal suit. I spoke to some doctors in private practice and they tell me, "Look, in cases of doubt, they just keep on treating". In the process, they may run up the bill and bankrupt the family which they should worry about. They should worry whether it is better and more dignified for the patient to die in intensive care or die at home. But they are more interested to protect their legal flanks. I recall how the late Dr Ee Peng Liang passed away. He had liver cancer. He was very clear in his mind that he did not want to be operated on. He was a Roman Catholic. And the Roman Catholic church puts no obligation on any person to be heroic about his own health care. If you think that it incurs too much suffering, that the risks are not proportionate or that you may be a burden to your family, you are under no moral obligation to try anything and everything which is available. And Dr Ee Peng Liang said no, he did not want to be operated upon. He carried on normal activities, chaired meetings. Many of us met him, even when he knew he had cancer. One morning he did not feel well. They called for the ambulance. The ambulance came, a sister saw him and said, "Look, better get a priest." So he died with Holy Communion in his mouth. This was told to me by members of his family whom I know quite well. And I thought that he died a wonderful death. It was possible because there was a certain serenity of spirit and a certain recognition that we are mortal and that we should not be so arrogant as to think that we should do everything possible to prolong our life for one day, one week or whatever. The committee studying this will be putting up its report soon. I had discussions with them and I think that the basic ideas are sound. After that, we will draft a Bill and present it to this House for Second Reading and we will put it through Select Committee so that anyone with views on this matter can continue to raise them, so that when the Bill finally becomes law, we are all comfortable with it. And even if we are not comfortable with it, we are comfortable that no one will be dragooned into doing it. Mr Loh Meng See raised the issue of medical ethics. This is a key concern of the Ministry and it is for this reason that we formed the National Medical Ethics Committee. Mr Loh is absolutely right that at the end of the day, the medical profession is not a trade, is not an employment, it is a vocation, it is a calling. It has been so from tribal societies. It remains so despite medical technology. It will always be so because of the nature of human mortality, the fact that we are created imperfect and in the course of our lives, things will happen and difficult decisions have to be made. So the person who is healing bears a certain responsibility and the person who is being healed must have a certain respect for the person whom he has called upon to heal him. It is interesting how important this relationship is. It cannot be commoditised. It is being commoditised because there are so many intermediate elements in now - HMOs, insurance companies, lawyers, administrators, all jumping in and saying, "Look, everything should be accounted for, everything should be costed and everything can be standardised." Can it be standardised? If you talk to any doctor in this Chamber - Dr Tan and Dr Soin - we know that it cannot be standardised. And so much depends upon the doctor's chemistry with his patient. There was a recent report in America which is truly amazing, studies which show that when patients bring chocolates and apples to their doctors, doctors make more accurate diagnosis. Why should that be the case? But that is the case. That is the case because you cannot replace the doctor by a computer. It is judgment, it is his interest in the patient. And this is well known, the placebo effect, the Hawthorn effect. All pharmaceutical companies know that the same amount of panadol put into a capsule has got a stronger effect on people on average than the same amount of panadol in a tablet. And all pharmaceutical companies know that the placebo effect for painkillers is something like 50%. Hence, the comment sometimes made in humour that pain is a matter of opinion. We must safeguard that relationship. If that relationship is sound, we will have good health care in Singapore. If that relationship is perverted, then however we spend our money, we will not get good health care. If the doctor has a sneaky feeling that the patient who is seeing him wants to sue him afterwards, it must affect all his thinking and all his actions. We will emphasise the teaching of medical ethics to medical students and to insist upon it in the profession. I have distributed a pledge which all doctors will henceforth take from this year. It is drafted by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), an adaptation from the old hippocratic oath and the Declaration of Geneva. The idea is, every newly graduating doctor should pledge this oath in great solemnity in front of his senior peers, and he will be held to it. I proposed to the Dean of the Medical Faculty that even for medical students who will be seeing patients in the course of their medical studies they should also take a simplified pledge. There are many other things which we will do to ensure that medical ethics are upheld, including enforcement actions and disciplinary actions by the Singapore Medical Council. The National Medical Ethics Committee is also reviewing its guidelines related to medical practice in the fields of obstetrics and neo-natalogy. There are many ethical issues bound up with experiments done on sperms, ova, embryos, on interventions, and strict guidelines are given to those who are involved in them. Mr Loh Meng See, Mr Peh Chin Hua, Dr Wan Soon Bee and Mr Lau Ping Sum all urged the Government to move on to regulate and upgrade the practice of traditional Chinese medicine. Having raised the issue last year, I must now register a caveat, that while we should do something to improve training and regulation, it is not easy. If it were so easy, it would have been done in Japan, in Korea, in Taiwan, in China, in Hong Kong. It is done in none of these countries. Even in China, where there are a number of top TCM universities, the syllabuses, and the codification vary from university to university. And the health ministry there regulates with a very light hand. During Mao Ze Dong's days, when they had barefoot doctors, he insisted that there be integration of western and eastern medicine. The same spirit caused Mr Peh Chin Hua to recommend that we set up a centre for eastern and western medical studies. But, in reality, in China, even though they require the two disciplines to be put together, there is no real integration. If you are a student in a western medical school, they call it xi yi wei zhu [ ]. You must still do some zhong yi [ ]. You must still do some eastern medicine. If you go to a TCM institute, zhong yi wei zhu [ ] , you must still do some western medicine. So you do 70%-80% of one and 20%-30% of the other, which is why today when you meet a sinseh from China, he understands ultrasound, he understands X-rays and he can talk to you about viruses and bacteria and immune systems. In the same way, when we meet a western doctor from China, they are quite knowledgeable in qi, acupuncture and herbs. But there is no integration in the sense of scientific integration. This is an area which has bedeviled scientists for many decades. I remember reading once an essay by the great Cambridge historian, Joseph Needhan, who wrote this encyclopedic study on Science and Civilization in China. And he said, in every field there is integration - in astronomy, geography, science, navigation, the whole range, except in medicine. He said, on this last field, integration remains very difficult. And the reason, I believe, is because western medicine takes an analytical approach and, in fact, remarkable progress is being done at the molecular and the genetic level. But eastern medicine tends to take as its starting point holistic medicine. Progress is advancing, curiously, in both directions. 2.30 pm So last year, the December 1994 issue of the Economist wrote about how in America, despite the fact that they already spent 13-14% of their GNP on health, which is western medicine, one in three American adults in 1993, as reported in the New Island Journal of Medicine, used unorthodox therapies, and about 425 million visits were made by Americans that year to unconventional therapists, who are acupuncturists, chiropractors, homeopaths, and so on. So worldwide there is a recognition that, yes, we can get more and more analytical, but we also have to be more and more holistic. Therefore, in Singapore, we should treasure our heritage. It is a precious heritage which has given tremendous medical support to many generations of Singaporeans over the years. All these Chinese sinsehs in Tong Chai Hospital, the Buddhist Federation, the clinics in Toa Payoh and elsewhere, every day they are seeing thousands of Singaporeans, almost for free. They have given sterling service over all these years for which we should be very grateful. I think we should do something to upgrade standard and training, but at the same time recognise the profound difficulties. We cannot do what the Nobel Laureate has proclaimed to be very difficult to do. Instead, what we should do is to study the experiences of China, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Japan and then say, "Okay, what do we do for ourselves." It has been very difficult getting our local TCM practitioners and groups to work together but last year they made one great Herculean effort and they formed a coordinating committee. That is progress. But it is only the first step. The Health Ministry will encourage and facilitate their work and encourage and facilitate more and more self-regulation. At least the TCM community as a community should point out who the charlatans are, who are those who are trained and who are those who are not trained or who are not properly trained. They should identify themselves and discipline those of their members who are quacks and who are unprofessional. So I am thinking in the Health Ministry how much we should require them to self-regulate. For a start, they should work out what is the minimum they must do in terms of entrance requirements for students, what is the minimum in terms of training, minimum in terms of standards, checks, auditing and begin to list the people who are qualified. As for those who are not, well, that is a separate matter. Can the Health Ministry jump in and say, "Okay, we regulate." I am not comfortable because there is so little expertise in the Ministry and it will take us very many years to build it up. Even in the west, the regulation of the medical profession took many centuries. It started as a self-regulated profession. It was only in recent times that there were Health Ministries and Health Ministers with regulatory agencies. We should encourage the TCM practitioners in Singapore to go the same way. Even if we decide to legislate, we do it step by step. Something like acupuncture, we can probably move earlier. In America now, in many states, there is extensive legislation on who can be an acupuncturist and how acupuncture should be carried out, what are their responsibilities and what are their liabilities. In Singapore, you get needles poked into all parts of your body and there is no legislation or regulation whatsoever, except an instruction from the Health Ministry that you should try to use disposable needles. We have spoken to experts from WHO and sought their advice. We have decided that as a start we will establish an acupuncture research clinic at Ang Mo Kio Community Hospital. We will get experts from China, we will get WHO to help us work out a research protocol and then we will do proper studies and evaluate the conditions for which acupuncture is clearly indicated. I read recently of reports that even in America the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering accepting acupuncture as a recognised form of treatment, which means that it will be recognised for Medicaid, Medicare and so on. Dr Aline Wong's Committee has been hard at work. They have visited institutes in China. They have met the various TCM groups and the report is being drafted. Certain ideas are still being discussed. I think towards the end of the year we should be able to produce something for public discussion, but this is not something that I want to rush into. I believe that it is an area which requires careful thought, a balance of immediate needs and the consideration of long term implications. This is not the first time that we are trying acupuncture in our hospitals. Many of us here may not be aware of it, but in SGH and Tan Tock Seng Hospital we have always had a few doctors who knew acupuncture and who used it for pain treatment. Dr Aline Wong will answer questions on health service for the elderly, Medifund and cost of health care. I would now like to address the issues raised by Dr Michael Lim on health care providers and Dr John Chen on medical insurance. Dr Michael Lim, I presume, was speaking largely on his experience in NUH, although of course he has friends elsewhere and it is a small fraternity. But I believe that many of the points he raised pertain more directly to NUH. It used to be directly under the University and overseen by the Education Ministry. That created all kinds of problems when we went about trying to implement the recommendations of the White Paper which the House approved 1 1/2 years ago. So from 1st October last year, between the Education Ministry and the Health Ministry, we agreed that NUH should come under the charge of the Health Minister. It is important because it facilitates better cross-posting of personnel and it makes for better coordination. We have been losing people both from NUH and SGH. The problem is severe but not alarming. Part of it is because the private sector is expanding and they were desperately making offers to some of our doctors to leave to set up shop and giving them offers they could not refuse. Because of that, some of our doctors have left in the belief that those opportunities were now or never. But I also accept Dr Michael Lim's point that the factor is not all "pull", that there was a certain amount of push. It is a difficult and complex problem. Doctors are like other Singaporeans who are all caught up in the rat race and in the desire to move on in life. So the personnel turnover problem in SGH, NUH and the other hospitals is part of a wider national problem of personnel turnover in the civil service, the statutory boards and the private sector. There is that element which is systemic across the board, but over and above that there are particular problems relating to SGH and NUH. Dr Michael Lim suggested that in the Health Ministry we are not aware of what the ground problems are. We may not be aware of everything, but the medical fraternity is a small fraternity and you get feedback and advice even when you do not welcome them. It is quite remarkable how doctors are sometimes so quick to run down other doctors. I get very pained by this. It goes against the oath that we have just introduced that, in the profession, we respect each other as brothers and sisters. But the rivalries are so intense, the competition for turf is so intense that judgments are occasionally clouded and issues become personalised. I am advised by senior members of the medical fraternity that this goes back for as long as can be remembered and that not all of these problems can be entirely solved. For certain specialisations, we will allow, maybe two centres in Singapore, a certain latitude so that if you are not happy with your boss and you think you are just as good, you can go over to the next mountain and show him your worth. Singapore is a small place. Too many tigers on the mountain maybe and a certain separation of valley spaces will be helpful all round. It is for this reason that we are promoting both NUH and SGH as tertiary centres, not just one or the other, but both. Where of course allowing for two centres make for wasteful duplication of resources, then we will stop it. But where it does not require wasteful duplication, where it is mainly a question of personalities, we say, "Okay, let them have some friendly competition, like the competition between Oxford and Cambridge or between Yale and Harvard." I think we can accommodate that kind of competition and it will lead to a healthier and more relaxed environment in the practice of health care in Singapore. But since taking over NUH, I would like to assure the staff there that I would consider it a failure of my mission and the Health Ministry's mission if NUH is not able to maintain its position in Singapore as a premier teaching hospital, not just in Singapore but in the region. We in the Health Ministry are committed to ensuring that. The problems that are raised, we will sort out. I meet the Vice-Chancellor regularly, I meet the senior members of the NUH Board every two months and I get the Dean of the Medical Faculty to sit on my fortnightly Ministry meetings, so that there is nothing we discuss in the Ministry which is done secretively against NUH. Of course, that was never a problem but because of rivalry, there was always this suspicion and rumour going around that SGH was MOH's favourite son. It is not the case and it will not be the case. We will continue to emphasise research. Mr Loh mentioned that $20 million was given to the NMRC and that is only for clinical research. In addition, there is a separate budget under NUS for basic medical research. It is about $4 million a year. So there is quite a lot of research work which can be done to ensure that there is a special quality and satisfaction in institutional practice which you can never get in a private hospital. I know many of my medical colleagues here are in private practice but, with due respect to them, let me be very frank here that without the hospitals, in particular SGH and NUH, the medical profession cannot reproduce itself. The transmission of knowledge, the imparting of values to the next generation, research development, all that must be done in SGH, NUH and our other hospitals. It cannot be done in Mount Elizabeth or Gleneagles Hospitals, which are more like hotel facilities. On nurses, I agree with Dr Michael Lim that we must do much more for them. There is a shortage. We are recruiting more. More are coming to join the three-year diploma programme at Nanyang Polytechnic. We are also recruiting nurses from overseas to make up for this immediate shortfall. But I hope that members of the public and Members here will understand that health care is a very service intensive industry. Whatever you do, from time to time, there will be blow-ups, unhappy nurses and complaint letters will be flying back and forth. We attend to them as best we can, but it is not possible to get absolutely zero defects. We will keep working at it. We will keep using the techniques of service industries, and health care is a service industry, but there are limits to what we can do. I welcome feedback from Members of Parliament; I welcome feedback from any member of the public. And every criticism, every complaint, is carefully attended to and improvements made when they are justified. 2.45 pm Dr John Chen raised some fundamental issues about medical insurance. He asked how we regulate health insurers, including health care providers, who are in fact acting as insurers. Where it is clearly an insurance operation, it requires approval from MAS, whether it involves health or does not involve health. And when it involves health, the Health Ministry gives an input to MAS to ensure that the interests of policyholders are looked after. That is the normal general problem of the insurance industry which has to be taken care of. The specific problem of moral hazards in health care insurance is something which the Health Ministry takes particular interest in. So apart from NTUC's Managed Health Scheme, no other insurer is allowed to make use of Medisave. I have mentioned last year that this is an area in which we are conducting an experiment and NTUC has already got some policyholders. The experiment will go on for a few more years, and after that we will make an assessment whether or not we should also allow Medisave to be used for non-NTUC insurance policies. But for the time being, we rather sit back and watch. It is not clear how much regulation is needed. We are not America, the situation here is different, and I do not want to regulate more than is necessary. The health care industry is fluid, doctors come together, companies come together, some risks are pooled, some overheads are pooled, new entrants, exits. It is volatile. So long as it does not lead to general inflation in health care cost, I really do not want to interfere, because that is part of the normal dynamics of market competition. It is a little like the travel business where you have the airlines selling tickets, wholesale/retail, you have travel agents, you have tour agents, you have people buying tickets, individuals, people combining as co-operatives to buy tickets, and the industry changes all the time depending on what new technologies come on stream, depending on what new factors impinge upon the market. Same too with health care industry. We have already set a cap - 2% tax deductibility for all corporations - and we also say private insurers cannot touch Medisave. For the time being, we are comfortable with the situation. We do not see a problem. But if a problem does arise down the road, then we will react. But until it happens, we will just treat health care insurers as a general problem of insurance in general. Dr Aline Wong will, with what time she has, try to answer as best as possible the other questions.