FTs = Lower Salaries, Why the Increase in Hospital Charges?
-
Hospital costs sneak up as economy hums
By Tan Hui Leng, TODAY | Posted: 20 March 2007 1356 hrs
Don't like the heftier numbers on your hospital bill? Blame the economy. Apparently, it is doing too well.
Almost every hospital in Singapore has raised its charges — admittedly by just a handful of dollars. As the demand for healthcare professionals rises with the improving economy, hospitals' manpower costs are going up.
Noting that the majority of healthcare costs goes to human resource, National University of Singapore health economist Associate Professor Phua Kai Hong said: "Every time there is a wage increase, the first to be affected is healthcare because there are many qualified specialists there and you need to keep them from moving to the private sector."
It is not the specialists alone that are benefiting. Nurses have been asked to shoulder some of the responsibilities of junior doctors. But this came with a demand for better benefits, and they recently got a pay hike.
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said in Parliament two weeks back that his Ministry had to keep wages competitive to hold on to qualified professionals like nurses and speech therapists. "This is also the reason why medical fees need to be raised periodically as the cost of manpower is a major component of medical costs," he said.
But patients see only the bottomline — and they don't always like what they see.
At Singapore General Hospital (SGH), subsidised inpatients in Class B2 wards will pay $53 a day — an extra $3, or 6 per cent more — from April. Those in Class C wards will pay $26 a day, $1 more than they currently do.
SGH said that the increases are its first since 1993.
An SGH spokesman said that even though its expenses had risen steadily, the hospital had held off any fee increase until now.
And even with the hike, the hospital will recover "just a small fraction" of its rising costs, said chief executive Prof Tan Ser Kiat.
"With an increasing volume of subsidised patients, and facilities at SGH which need updating, any under-collection of revenue would mean fewer resources available for meeting the growing need for improvements necessary for sustaining quality of patient care," he said.
At National University Hospital, the accident and emergency (A&E) fee was increased from $70 to $80 in January — the hospital's first A&E fee hike since 1997.
At Alexandra Hospital, C-class ward charges went up from $21 to $23, subsidised specialist outpatient clinic consultation rates went up from $18 to $20, while A&E went up from $55 to $60; all increases took place late last year. At KK Women's and Children's Hospital, ward treatment fees also increased from last month.
Only Tan Tock Seng Hospital and Changi General Hospital have not raised their fee and now all eyes are on them.
The hospitals, themselves, did not want to comment, but NUS economist Prof Phua felt it was only a matter of time before their fees went up. "These are government hospitals, so they'll follow suit," he said.
Despite the hospitals and the Ministry offering their reasons for the hike, Dr Lam Pin Min, MP and Deputy Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, said he was somewhat surprised. "I was a bit shocked to see the fee revisions for the different hospitals," Dr Lam told Today.
"The timing is not very appropriate — why is there a need to increase prices when the GST hike has just been announced?"
The Government has already said that it will absorb the Goods and Services Tax hike for all subsidised patients. But, Dr Lam pointed out, that is just a two-percentage-point hike, whereas the recent rise in consultation and hospital fees appeared to be more substantial.
The Health Ministry said that the fees would remain affordable to all subsidised patients and the needy would not be denied care.
NUS health economist Prof Ake Blomqvist added that, by international standards, hospital charges in Singapore were not particularly high, especially given the quality of healthcare.
"And if there is concern about the burden that an unexpected major illness sometimes places on low-income people with limited Medisave balances and little medical insurance coverage, it is probably better to work on strengthening the safety net for those population groups specifically, rather than increasing the subsidy to all health care users, including high-income ones," he said. - TODAY/na -
-
i did say previously in order to support the higher wages the civil service is looking for, they need to draw it from the common folk via higher charges...nothing new here...pay and pay.......the govt is basically spoiling the so called talents rotten with money...it will come to haunt them soon enough when these greedy sobs demand more.........
-
Doing too well? Where's the wage increase then? What a pack of liars.
-
They always like this, want to increase they'll always have their 101 reasons
But the thread title, I think it needs some thinking esp on those who oftenly talk abt migrating... If that's what you think, you'll be treated the same in wages when you go over -
I was working in govt hospital b4. Not true those there not paid well. They are paid very well OK, doctors senior get 5 figure salaries and other positions like managerial also pay very well and comparable to private sector. When they say wann adjust pay, want to pay them fairly it's just crap lah.Originally posted by countdracula:i did say previously in order to support the higher wages the civil service is looking for, they need to draw it from the common folk via higher charges...nothing new here...pay and pay.......the govt is basically spoiling the so called talents rotten with money...it will come to haunt them soon enough when these greedy sobs demand more.........
Economy doing well does notjustify the increase in charges in hospiitals. Govt really ssuucks! They never fail to find opportunities and time to back up their reason to increase charges. Seems that they focuse so much on earning lots of $$$ for themselves. -
Originally posted by ShutterBug:
Increase charges in govt hospitals, so can the govt guarantee 100% we will get good service from the hospitals, especially from SGH. SGH really ssucsks! All those I know of go there for consultation and treatment complain about the service - bad attitude of nurses, doctors and so on. They should learn from TTSH. TTSH provides better service. If after increasing charges and SGH still cannot provide good service what is the govt going to do? STupid damn Govt!!!
[b]Hospital costs sneak up as economy hums
By Tan Hui Leng, TODAY | Posted: 20 March 2007 1356 hrs
Don't like the heftier numbers on your hospital bill? Blame the economy. Apparently, it is doing too well.
Almost every hospital in Singapore has raised its charges — admittedly by just a handful of dollars. As the demand for healthcare professionals rises with the improving economy, hospitals' manpower costs are going up.
Noting that the majority of healthcare costs goes to human resource, National University of Singapore health economist Associate Professor Phua Kai Hong said: "Every time there is a wage increase, the first to be affected is healthcare because there are many qualified specialists there and you need to keep them from moving to the private sector."
It is not the specialists alone that are benefiting. Nurses have been asked to shoulder some of the responsibilities of junior doctors. But this came with a demand for better benefits, and they recently got a pay hike.
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said in Parliament two weeks back that his Ministry had to keep wages competitive to hold on to qualified professionals like nurses and speech therapists. "This is also the reason why medical fees need to be raised periodically as the cost of manpower is a major component of medical costs," he said.
But patients see only the bottomline — and they don't always like what they see.
At Singapore General Hospital (SGH), subsidised inpatients in Class B2 wards will pay $53 a day — an extra $3, or 6 per cent more — from April. Those in Class C wards will pay $26 a day, $1 more than they currently do.
SGH said that the increases are its first since 1993.
An SGH spokesman said that even though its expenses had risen steadily, the hospital had held off any fee increase until now.
And even with the hike, the hospital will recover "just a small fraction" of its rising costs, said chief executive Prof Tan Ser Kiat.
"With an increasing volume of subsidised patients, and facilities at SGH which need updating, any under-collection of revenue would mean fewer resources available for meeting the growing need for improvements necessary for sustaining quality of patient care," he said.
At National University Hospital, the accident and emergency (A&E) fee was increased from $70 to $80 in January — the hospital's first A&E fee hike since 1997.
At Alexandra Hospital, C-class ward charges went up from $21 to $23, subsidised specialist outpatient clinic consultation rates went up from $18 to $20, while A&E went up from $55 to $60; all increases took place late last year. At KK Women's and Children's Hospital, ward treatment fees also increased from last month.
Only Tan Tock Seng Hospital and Changi General Hospital have not raised their fee and now all eyes are on them.
The hospitals, themselves, did not want to comment, but NUS economist Prof Phua felt it was only a matter of time before their fees went up. "These are government hospitals, so they'll follow suit," he said.
Despite the hospitals and the Ministry offering their reasons for the hike, Dr Lam Pin Min, MP and Deputy Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Health, said he was somewhat surprised. "I was a bit shocked to see the fee revisions for the different hospitals," Dr Lam told Today.
"The timing is not very appropriate — why is there a need to increase prices when the GST hike has just been announced?"
The Government has already said that it will absorb the Goods and Services Tax hike for all subsidised patients. But, Dr Lam pointed out, that is just a two-percentage-point hike, whereas the recent rise in consultation and hospital fees appeared to be more substantial.
The Health Ministry said that the fees would remain affordable to all subsidised patients and the needy would not be denied care.
NUS health economist Prof Ake Blomqvist added that, by international standards, hospital charges in Singapore were not particularly high, especially given the quality of healthcare.
"And if there is concern about the burden that an unexpected major illness sometimes places on low-income people with limited Medisave balances and little medical insurance coverage, it is probably better to work on strengthening the safety net for those population groups specifically, rather than increasing the subsidy to all health care users, including high-income ones," he said. - TODAY/na
[/b]
-
Well, try recalling the recent incident wherein a kidney donor died, because of cheap surgical tools/equipment used by doctors/surgeons...Originally posted by rane:Increase charges in govt hospitals, so can the govt guarantee 100% we will get good service from the hospitals, especially from SGH. SGH really ssucsks! All those I know of go there for consultation and treatment complain about the service - bad attitude of nurses, doctors and so on. They should learn from TTSH. TTSH provides better service. If after increasing charges and SGH still cannot provide good service what is the govt going to do? STupid damn Govt!!!
Use cheap tools and still want to increase charges??
Bluddy thick-skin I say...!!! -
you have to prevent them from moving to the private sector.
this is the in phrase now. -
This is the problem with the public's expectation of the healthcare system. It is NOT a service industry! You do not go to a clinic to be pampered and smiled at - you go there to seek treatment and get well. The quality of the healthcare provided and the quality of the service rendered are not necessarily related.Originally posted by rane:Increase charges in govt hospitals, so can the govt guarantee 100% we will get good service from the hospitals, especially from SGH. SGH really ssucsks! All those I know of go there for consultation and treatment complain about the service - bad attitude of nurses, doctors and so on. They should learn from TTSH. TTSH provides better service. If after increasing charges and SGH still cannot provide good service what is the govt going to do? STupid damn Govt!!! -
Service is also very important lor. For example, if you (choi, touch wood!) get very sick, would you like the doctor to keep smiling or even chuckle at your misfortune? Or the nurses telling you lazily that doctor not around so you can just go f*** off to one side to wait?
That's bad service for you.
And apparently you don't really mind. -
hey, you are talking out of context. who will expect to be in the clinic to be pampered, wake up don't talk nonsense! you have not been treated badly before is it? Go ask those who were/are treated badly by those staff be they drs or others in the public hospital then you will know what service we talk about. Don't think I wanna waste time talking to you!Originally posted by cherry_garcia:This is the problem with the public's expectation of the healthcare system. It is NOT a service industry! You do not go to a clinic to be pampered and smiled at - you go there to seek treatment and get well. The quality of the healthcare provided and the quality of the service rendered are not necessarily related. -
hi, slipshade, in fact I think this silly fellow who posted b4 you cherry garcia loves to be treated with bad service from the healthcare personnel. Don't think he/she minds if the nurse shouts at him or her.Originally posted by Slipshade:Service is also very important lor. For example, if you (choi, touch wood!) get very sick, would you like the doctor to keep smiling or even chuckle at your misfortune? Or the nurses telling you lazily that doctor not around so you can just go f*** off to one side to wait?
That's bad service for you.
And apparently you don't really mind.
Come on, healthcare industry staff are encouraged to smile at their customers (patients), this is what that public hospital I used to work is practising. cherry garcia, you go eat your cherries and don't waste your time here talking nuisance when you have nothing good and positive to contribute 
-
This is exactly the perception I mean. Patients are NOT customers. Healthcare is not a service. Yes, courtesy and care are a basic human right and respect should be shown at all times, by the doctors, nurses, security guards and cleaners in the hospitals. I do not dispute that in the least. You misunderstand my intention.Originally posted by rane:hi, slipshade, in fact I think this silly fellow who posted b4 you cherry garcia loves to be treated with bad service from the healthcare personnel. Don't think he/she minds if the nurse shouts at him or her.
Come on, healthcare industry staff are encouraged to smile at their customers (patients), this is what that public hospital I used to work is practising. cherry garcia, you go eat your cherries and don't waste your time here talking nuisance when you have nothing good and positive to contribute
The public wants healthcare fast, cheap and good. They do not want to wait, they expect the most expensive treatment and investigations, sometimes unnecessary mind you, yet they do not want to pay for it. They expect free medical reports generated on the spot for them. They expect healthcare professionals to have the time to talk to every member of their extended family giving them the same updates over and over and over again whenever they choose to show up in the hospital ward. The list goes on.
Are these "services"? Largely, yes. Do they have any impact on the quality of healthcare given to the patient. Not necessarily.
Patients are NOT customers. In a subsidised healthcare system, which has to operate under tight budget constraints, the public should not expect to be able to dictate their terms. In other words, you can't choose your medications/doctor/investigations/etc etc like you're ordering a Happy Meal in McDonalds.
I realise this is digressing from the original theme of the thread. Oops
BTW, considering rane is berating SGH for its poor service, it seems ironic the way he/she is choosing his/her words when addressing me. One might think that someone who champions courtesy and good service might have the good manners to be polite to a fellow forummer. Your stint in the great public hospital you worked in didn't do much to inculcate any manners eh?
-
they have to do it before the 7% gst kicks in cos some minister had promised no increase in govt fee for a year after that.
-
That is the reality. Since Sept 11, the US has made it increasingly difficult for wealthy patients from the Middle East to seek medical treatment there, fearing the terrorist threat. Even if they get a visa, it can easily take three months before they receive one. As a result, such patients are looking to Singapore and other countries with a high standard of medical care for treatment.Originally posted by dragg:you have to prevent them from moving to the private sector.
this is the in phrase now.
Doctors from our public hospitals have been leaving for the private sector, where salaries are easily two to three times higher. Given the increasing numbers of foreign patients seeking treatment in Singapore, this trend will continue, particularly with respect to senior doctors:
" If our public healthcare does not progress in tandem with the world, our best doctors will leave the public sector for the private sector, where they compete for patients in this huge international market. And the attrition rate of public sector doctors leaving for the private sector has increased in the past few years. Heads of departments in our public hospitals are routinely wooed by overseas universities and academic hospitals."
(MM Lee Kuan Yew, 16 Apr 2006, http://www.sma.org.sg/sma_news/3805/Globalisation_of_Medicine_MM.pdf)
Wages of health professionals in the public sector have to be competitive, unless we want our public hospitals to be completely run by cheap foreign doctors whilst our highly qualified specialists and senior doctors service the wealthy foreign patients in our private hospitals. -
you think you have good manners, i don't think so! please stop your attack on me me no longer with the public hospitals as I find it is not a good place to work. everywhere has politics but the politics there is very worst to the extreme - lots of dirty politics from top to bottom, from bottom to top. CAn create story out of nothing to get people into trouble. This is not only one or few times but many times.Originally posted by cherry_garcia:This is exactly the perception I mean. Patients are NOT customers. Healthcare is not a service. Yes, courtesy and care are a basic human right and respect should be shown at all times, by the doctors, nurses, security guards and cleaners in the hospitals. I do not dispute that in the least. You misunderstand my intention.
The public wants healthcare fast, cheap and good. They do not want to wait, they expect the most expensive treatment and investigations, sometimes unnecessary mind you, yet they do not want to pay for it. They expect free medical reports generated on the spot for them. They expect healthcare professionals to have the time to talk to every member of their extended family giving them the same updates over and over and over again whenever they choose to show up in the hospital ward. The list goes on.
Are these "services"? Largely, yes. Do they have any impact on the quality of healthcare given to the patient. Not necessarily.
Patients are NOT customers. In a subsidised healthcare system, which has to operate under tight budget constraints, the public should not expect to be able to dictate their terms. In other words, you can't choose your medications/doctor/investigations/etc etc like you're ordering a Happy Meal in McDonalds.
I realise this is digressing from the original theme of the thread. Oops
BTW, considering rane is berating SGH for its poor service, it seems ironic the way he/she is choosing his/her words when addressing me. One might think that someone who champions courtesy and good service might have the good manners to be polite to a fellow forummer. Your stint in the great public hospital you worked in didn't do much to inculcate any manners eh?
Please those feedback I got is not from me but from others who have gone to SGH. If you have an issue on this you go after them Ok, me don't wanna waste time and effort on you with unreasonable attitude. Let me quote u a very good case, nurse and doctor (SGH) kept asking the patient to sign the form for taking blood from the patient. When asked they say it is nothing, later the patient's wife read the form and told them off. The form indicated blood is taken for research purpose. The wife was so infuriated and told them off without letting the husband give his blood for research. See this sort of service and attitude. It is unethical to do it this way. -
Wages of health professionals in the public sector have to be competitive, unless we want our public hospitals to be completely run by cheap foreign doctors whilst our highly qualified specialists and senior doctors service the wealthy foreign patients in our private hospitals.
Heard that stuff before. Just another 'horror story' that is spun to keep us in-line and obey any arbitrary decision -
agree with you.Originally posted by mistyblue:Heard that stuff before. Just another 'horror story' that is spun to keep us in-line and obey any arbitrary decision -
Someone can correct me on this if my figures are wrong.
I think it was reported in 2003 that Singapore spend 4.5% of her GDP on healthcare. This compares with Vietnam (5.4%) and China (5.6%) who both spend more of their expenditure, percentage-wise, on the health of her citizens.
The only countries that had lower % of GDP spent on healthcare were Indonesia (3.1%), Malaysia (3.8%), and Thailand (3.3%).
Of couse, this figure is misleading in one aspect, i.e., the absolute amount that Singapore spend may be higher than Vietnam and China. But this low (relative) healthcare expenditure does seem to suggest that our country has other higher priorities compared to healthcare. Right or wrong? That's up to each of us to decide. -
wow, how come that cherry ignores the above and still insist . . . . . as if the above is not bad service!!! cherry, be objective and don't harbour intention/motive of attacking anyone who simple voice out facts and reality. Wake up!!Originally posted by ShutterBug:Well, try recalling the recent incident wherein a kidney donor died, because of cheap surgical tools/equipment used by doctors/surgeons...
Use cheap tools and still want to increase charges??
Bluddy thick-skin I say...!!! -
agree. but doctors stressed that govt already subsidised a lot for healthcare already why people still make so much noise. Is their other higher priority earning lots of $$$ out of the nation, hee hee!!!Originally posted by sourketchup:Someone can correct me on this if my figures are wrong.
I think it was reported in 2003 that Singapore spend 4.5% of her GDP on healthcare. This compares with Vietnam (5.4%) and China (5.6%) who both spend more of their expenditure, percentage-wise, on the health of her citizens.
The only countries that had lower % of GDP spent on healthcare were Indonesia (3.1%), Malaysia (3.8%), and Thailand (3.3%).
Of couse, this figure is misleading in one aspect, i.e., the absolute amount that Singapore spend may be higher than Vietnam and China. But this low (relative) healthcare expenditure does seem to suggest that our country has other higher priorities compared to healthcare. Right or wrong? That's up to each of us to decide. -
If it is a horror story, it is one that is true. In recent years, we have seen many senior doctors and heads of department leaving for the private sector. With salaries that are double or triple that of the public sector, even junior specialists are leaving the moment they obtain their specialist qualifications.Originally posted by mistyblue:Heard that stuff before. Just another 'horror story' that is spun to keep us in-line and obey any arbitrary decision
"THE exodus of doctors from the public to the private sector seems to be picking up this year, after two years of relatively little movement.
And this time, an unusual number of senior people are leaving. There were 43 specialists among the 177 doctors who quit last year in spite of Sars causing massive disruption in the health-care system for almost half a year. Twenty-one were from the SingHealth cluster, which in just two months this year has already seen 11 more go. The other major player, the National Healthcare Group, admitted that it, too, has lost specialists this year, but would only say they represented 1 per cent of all its doctors. Both groups said that the departures are inevitable since the public sector's role has traditionally been to train young doctors.
Still, several recent resignations have raised eyebrows because of the calibre of the people involved. They include at least four heads of department. Last month, Singapore General Hospital lost its top colorectal surgeon, Dr Francis Seow-Choen, and ear, nose and throat specialist Goh Yau Hong. Associate Professor Patrick Tan, SGH's head of haematology, will leave shortly. He is best known for pioneering efforts in using cord blood to cure blood and bone marrow cancers. The National University Hospital has seen six obstetricians and gynaecologists go since last December. They include a former department head, Professor Ng Soon Chye, and fertility expert Jothi Kumar. Its chief of hand and reconstructive microsurgery, Associate Professor Lim Beng Hai, is now serving his notice. The National Cancer Centre has lost radiation oncologist Lee Kim Shang to the Parkway Group. Changi General Hospital will be saying farewell soon to its head of surgery, Dr Michael Ho. He is going into private practice as he wants to spend more time with his four young children.
Most of the doctors The Straits Times spoke to cited more time for themselves and their families, plus the better service they believe they can give patients in the private sector, as the main reasons for leaving. Ear, nose and throat specialist Dr Goh said he could see as many as 100 patients a day at SGH, reducing the time he would have liked to have for treating patients. His former SGH colleague, Dr Seow-Choen, who was with the hospital for 22 years and is known internationally, said he wanted to leave while he was still at his peak. 'My leaving will also make way for younger doctors to move up,' he said.
However, there are not as many of these left from the 100 or so specialist trainee posts available each year. Last year, 45 from this pool resigned; the year before that, 35 did. Before 2000, fewer than 20 would leave each year. The last major exodus of all doctors was in 2000 when 243 left. In the two years after that, their numbers dropped drastically to 124 and 135, as the economy slumped. As a result, the number of doctors in the public sector crossed the 3,000 mark last year, surpassing that in private practice for the first time in a decade.
The Straits Times
09 Mar 2004 " -
THE public health sector is possibly seeing the biggest exodus of specialists in a decade, including six heads of department among the more than 50 who have left for private practice this year. The average number of specialists leaving the public sector has been just over 40 a year since 1995.
In the past decade, the only time when more than 50 consultants quit in a year was in 2000, when 61 specialists moved to the private sector. That year, a record 243 doctors - or more than 20 a month - left the public service. The rationale then was that the Asian economic meltdown that began in mid-1997 had discouraged many doctors from venturing out in 1998 and 1999.
Last year, 177 doctors - 43 of them specialists - quit, which works out to nearly 15 a month. This was despite the Sars outbreak making conditions in private practice more difficult, because many foreign patients were put off coming here for treatment. The number of doctors leaving this year looks set to exceed that, as 131 doctors have left in just the first six months. This is an average of nearly 22 a month.
It was paperwork that drove Dr Tan Chee Eng out of the Singapore General Hospital (SGH). Dr Tan, the former head of endocrinology, said he was spending half his time on administrative work, and the needs of running a department curtailed both his patient care and research. 'That took away my reason for staying in the public sector,' he said. At 44, he was a senior consultant and both his salary and title had reached a peak. 'Salary was not the major factor. If it was, I would have left long ago,' he said. Since he set up his clinic at Gleneagles Medical Centre last month, he not only sees more patients but is able to spend more time with them. He reserves Wednesday afternoons for research and retains his position as adjunct senior research fellow at the Centre for Molecular Epidemiology.
Dr Khoo Kei Siong, the National Cancer Centre's former head of medical oncology, gave the same reason for leaving - too much administrative work. 'When I cannot spend enough time with patients, I find the work less satisfying.' He used to see 40 to 50 patients a day. Diagnosis and treatment can be quite fast, he said, but cancer is a major disease and he wanted to spend more time explaining to patients what they can expect and the alternative treatments available. Private patients can also afford more expensive medicine that has been shown to have better results, he said. 'We are less likely to see the treatment fail. It is always more satisfying when patients do well,' he said.
The push to make Singapore a regional medical hub makes the transition easier. Foreigners now account for almost half the patients he sees.
Other prominent doctors who have gone into private practice this year include SGH's former head of haematology, Dr Patrick Tan; and its former head of colorectal surgery, Dr Francis Seow-Choen. Changi General Hospital lost its head of surgery, Dr Michael Ho, while the National University Hospital (NUH) lost its chief of hand and reconstructive microsurgery, Dr Lim Beng Hai. Next year, NUH may lose its head of medical oncology, Dr Lim Hong Liang. He has told the hospital of his intentions, but has not tendered his resignation yet.
The Straits Times
04 Sept 2004 -
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan wants to put a stop to the exodus of doctors to the private sector that has depleted public hospitals of 'good doctors and dedicated teachers'.
Hit by a record 247 doctors leaving public institutions last year, Mr Khaw slammed his ministry's attitude that 'loss of doctors to the private sector is not a loss, for as long as they continue their practice in Singapore'.
This is wrong, he said on Friday night.
When a senior doctor leaves for private practice, the country suffers a big loss.
This, he said, is because younger doctors lose the opportunity of being taught and mentored by him; his skill and experience is lost to subsidised patients who can't afford private rates; and he can no longer help the nation advance medically.
He suggested easing their administrative load, giving them more say in the running of the hospital and even allowing them to see private patients in public hospitals as ways to keep them.
Speaking at the launch of a book to commemorate 100 years of medical education in Singapore at the College of Medicine Building, Mr Khaw spoke of the need to 'go all out to retain doctors with sound institutional values'.
The Straits Times
25 Feb 2005