[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: The Ministry of Health (MINSA) said on Tuesday (December 29) that it has published rate benchmarks for anesthesiologists’ fees and hospital care physician fees for the private sector.
These include recommended rate ranges for anesthetists for approximately 190 procedures, as well as inpatient care physicians for consultations and patient reviews in different ward settings.
This is the second tranche of the fee benchmarks, following the fee benchmarks published in 2018 for surgical procedures.
“The rate benchmarks will give patients and payers (eg insurers) more complete information on the reasonable range of doctors’ fees for surgeries and hospital stays and will allow for better-informed decisions,” said the Ministry of Health. .
The benchmarks will also serve as a guide for private sector healthcare providers to charge appropriately.
The Health Ministry said the fee benchmarks were recommended by the Fee Benchmark Advisory Committee and were fully accepted by the ministry last Wednesday.
Benchmarks for anesthetists’ fees were recommended as anesthesia support is an integral component of surgery. Benchmarks for physicians’ hospital care fees were also recommended to provide a baseline for consultation fees during a hospital stay, the Health Ministry said.
The committee reviewed data such as negotiated historical rates and inflation rates while developing the new rate benchmarks, the Health Ministry said.
He also consulted with numerous stakeholders during 10 sessions held in November and December this year.
Among them were some 200 specialists from the Singapore College of Anesthesiologists, representatives of professional bodies, medical professionals from the public and private sectors, as well as insurers.
“These help ensure that the benchmarks reflect a fair range of professional fees that are representative of the risks and effort expended by physicians, while balancing the interests and perspectives of other stakeholders,” the Ministry of Health said. .
“FAIR AND REASONABLE” RATES
The Health Ministry said the fee ranges established by the committee took into account the anesthesia risks associated with the surgery and any additional complexity arising from the patient’s condition, regardless of the complexity of the surgery.
It also sought to ensure that the fees charged are “fair and reasonable,” and commensurate with the risks and efforts of the anesthetist.
For example, the new benchmark for anesthesiologist fees for a single knee replacement surgery ranges from S $ 1,670 to S $ 2,400. Based on actual transaction fees, including GST, between July 1, 2018 and June 30, 2019, anesthesiologist fees ranged from S $ 2,140 to S $ 2,675.
The hospital care fee benchmarks cover professional consultation fees for physicians in the general ward, high dependency ward, and intensive care unit (ICU) cases.
For the ICU, the fee benchmarks cover those who require care in the lower intensity ICU. For example, referral fees for lower intensity ICU cases in the ICU ward range from S $ 300 to S $ 600 per day, depending on the doctor’s office hours.
(Table: Ministry of Health)
The rate variations are broader for patients requiring intensive care in the ICU and were excluded from the benchmarks.
“The development of rate benchmarks for private healthcare providers is part of a broader strategy to ensure that healthcare costs remain affordable and that our healthcare system is sustainable,” the Health Ministry said.
Fee Benchmark Advisory Committee Chairman Dr. Lim Yean Teng said analysis after the first published set of fee benchmarks showed that most physicians charge within recommended fee ranges for surgical procedures.
This has resulted in a moderation in the growth of the cost of health care.
“In order for the rate benchmarks to be effective, the (committee) encourages all stakeholders to use them reasonably as a benchmark for fair collection and payment,” said Dr. Lim.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story detailed the oldest fee benchmarks for a single knee replacement surgery from S $ 2,140 to S $ 2,675. In fact, these were actual rates, not benchmarks. We apologize for the error.
