This is Unbelievable
-
What hell is this?
==================================
Charging extra for medical report unfair
Aug 07, 2006
The Straits Times
I REFER to the letter, '$78 fee applies only to special medical report'(ST. July 2
, by Mr Wong Loong Kin, chief financial officer of Singapore General Hospital. I find the statement that charging for test results and medical reports is a standard practice in restructured hospitals puzzling.
It seems to mean patients are not entitled to know their own medical condition - for better or worse - and do not need a copy of medical test results to keep or for a second opinion.
The patient pays for the whole package, including interpreting and generating the medical report. Charging extra or not giving him the report seems to run contrary to medical practice regarding the patient's right to know his own health.
I did an MRI 64 slice scan on my by-passed heart in Mount Elizabeth Hospital recently. I was given a copy of the complete report plus a CD. When I wanted to understand more about the report and CD, I was a given a full explanation while viewing the CD at no cost.
Why should it require a specialist to extract relevant information from medical records for the report when a printout or photocopy will do? At the end of the day, the patient is privy to his own full medical condition.
With the implementation of e-filing of all medical data, I hope hospitals will make it a practice to furnish a copy of patients' medical reports for the benefit of both parties.
Paul Chan Poh Hoi -
This is known as privy of contract but subject to the terms and conditions.Originally posted by ShutterBug:What hell is this?
==================================
Charging extra for medical report unfair
Aug 07, 2006
The Straits Times
I REFER to the letter, '$78 fee applies only to special medical report'(ST. July 2, by Mr Wong Loong Kin, chief financial officer of Singapore General Hospital. I find the statement that charging for test results and medical reports is a standard practice in restructured hospitals puzzling.
It seems to mean patients are not entitled to know their own medical condition - for better or worse - and do not need a copy of medical test results to keep or for a second opinion.
The patient pays for the whole package, including interpreting and generating the medical report. Charging extra or not giving him the report seems to run contrary to medical practice regarding the patient's right to know his own health.
I did an MRI 64 slice scan on my by-passed heart in Mount Elizabeth Hospital recently. I was given a copy of the complete report plus a CD. When I wanted to understand more about the report and CD, I was a given a full explanation while viewing the CD at no cost.
Why should it require a specialist to extract relevant information from medical records for the report when a printout or photocopy will do? At the end of the day, the patient is privy to his own full medical condition.
With the implementation of e-filing of all medical data, I hope hospitals will make it a practice to furnish a copy of patients' medical reports for the benefit of both parties.
Paul Chan Poh Hoi
Pls do study the terms and conditions b4 u think wat r yr rights under the Contract??? -
for ordinary report you get partial information on patient's health, for special report, you get the full complete informaton from the doctors. what a new way for hospitals to make more money from patients. so be sure to ask whether the health report you may have is a partial ordinary one or a complete special one.
-
Pls la... they just want to find ways to squeeze money out of patients.
-
Can you explain what you mean by "privy of contract but subject to terms and conditions" and how it is relevant here.Originally posted by foomwee88:This is known as privy of contract but subject to the terms and conditions.
Pls do study the terms and conditions b4 u think wat r yr rights under the Contract???
The issue here is not whether or not 3rd parties can sue on the contract - nobody has even mentioned "breach"!!
The issue is that of the hospital's business practices. Do you agree with it or don't you?
I don't. I think they are being unreasonable. This seems to be blatant profiteering by the hospital and the hospitals explanation is far from satisfactory. -
-
Didn't Kwah defended the higher for the same medication in public hospital vs in private hospital, during one of the disease outbreak saying that hospitals are not communist organization and should not charge the same price even for the same product.
-
The question in my mind is;
"Where, does the $78 go to in generating the report?"
- pay for paper and ink?
- cost of labor for someone to operate the printer?
- or simply make more out of the same patient?
I can't help but feel that the 3rd assumptmion is most accurate.
Personally, I wouldn't have minded if I were to be charged perhaps $5-$10 for the report. But $78 is robbery! -
I cn tell you $3.90 is for gst.Originally posted by ShutterBug:The question in my mind is;
"Where, does the $78 go to in generating the report?"
- pay for paper and ink?
- cost of labor for someone to operate the printer?
- or simply make more out of the same patient?
I can't help but feel that the 3rd assumptmion is most accurate.
Personally, I wouldn't have minded if I were to be charged perhaps $5-$10 for the report. But $78 is robbery!
-
It is like an insurance contract, Insured and Insurers are the party to the policy but the rights of The Insured are suject to the terms and conditions of the policy.Originally posted by lwflee:Can you explain what you mean by "privy of contract but subject to terms and conditions" and how it is relevant here.
The issue here is not whether or not 3rd parties can sue on the contract - nobody has even mentioned "breach"!!
The issue is that of the hospital's business practices. Do you agree with it or don't you?
I don't. I think they are being unreasonable. This seems to be blatant profiteering by the hospital and the hospitals explanation is far from satisfactory.
The Insured have the rights to lodge a claim and pay for the cost of reports etc but Insurers have the right not to give a copy of the result of the report to the Insured.
Pls don't anyhow bark up the wrong tree, I did not mention any third party and "breach"which are not the issue relates to Privy fo K here
Of course, I dont agree with the hopital's business practice but i do warn the party concerned to look into the contract to know their rights. -
Again, how is what you have posted relevent. All you are saying is that the relationship between the parties is governed by contract. And...? Noboedy has even mentioned contract, yet you go on about how rights and obligations as per the contract as if that were somehow pertinent here.Originally posted by foomwee88:It is like an insurance contract, Insured and Insurers are the party to the policy but the rights of The Insured are suject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
The Insured have the rights to lodge a claim and pay for the cost of reports etc but Insurers have the right not to give a copy of the result of the report to the Insured.
Pls don't anyhow bark up the wrong tree, I did not mention any third party and "breach"which are not the issue relates to Privy fo K here
Of course, I dont agree with the hopital's business practice but i do warn the party concerned to look into the contract to know their rights.
I have never heard of the term "privy of contract". I have however, heard of the doctrine of the "privity of contract", which provides that generally, only parties to a contract can sue on the contract. -
Of course it is pertinent here,if there is a legal right under the K, u can sue the hospital for the report which must be released f.o.c to the patients. otherwise, the patients would have difficultly to obtain the report or hve to pay for it depended on the terms and conditions of the K.Originally posted by lwflee:Again, how is what you have posted relevent. All you are saying is that the relationship between the parties is governed by contract. And...? Noboedy has even mentioned contract, yet you go on about how rights and obligations as per the contract as if that were somehow pertinent here.
I have never heard of the term "privy of contract". I have however, heard of the doctrine of the "privity of contract", which provides that generally, only parties to a contract can sue on the contract. -
Funny thing is, if the report is chargeable at that amount, why wasn't the patient INFORMED or TOLD about it?
Why is it a Hidden Cost? -
From what I read, this is a specialist medical report, requiring a specialist to give an opinion with respect to the medical condition. A specialist report is often requested for insurance purposes, or to determine suitability for NS training, claims for work injuries, appeals in license renewal etc. It is also a medico-legal document which can and often is submitted to the courts in legal proceedings.
The preparation of a specialist medical report will require a specialist (not necessarily and often not the patient's doctor, who may have moved elsewhere) to review the case notes and form an opinion with regard to the question raised ie. whether the person is suitable for a job or NS training, or the likelihood of recovery from a work injury.
Depending on the complexity of the case, it often takes an hour or longer to prepare a specialist report. The charges reflect the time taken by the specialist to prepare that report, during which time he is taken away from his routine work and cannot see patients or perform other procedures.
If all the patient needs is to photocopy the case notes, it would be much cheaper but a stack of notes with unintelligible medical jargon would not be useful for most people. Actually, the cost is not that high if we consider how much it would cost to go to a lawyer just to make a statutory declaration. All the lawyer has to do is to certify that you have signed the statement that you yourself have prepared and the process takes a few minutes. But you expect to pay just as much, if not more. -
As I stressed earlier, nobody even mentioned "breach". So nobody is talking about suing on the contract.Originally posted by foomwee88:Of course it is pertinent here,if there is a legal right under the K, u can sue the hospital for the report which must be released f.o.c to the patients. otherwise, the patients would have difficultly to obtain the report or hve to pay for it depended on the terms and conditions of the K.