Health Ministry Clears Up “NHP Misinformation”

April 27, 2011

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Health said they wish to “alert the public to the fact that grossly inaccurate information is currently in public circulation regarding the National Health Plan [NHP] Consultation Paper.”

Saying that they hope to properly inform the public on the details and implications of the Consultation Paper, the Ministry today [Apr.27] released a series of “Frequently Asked Questions” about the National Health Plan to “dispel the misinformation.” They said the points below, provided by the Ministry of Health, serves to “correct the facts surrounding the inaccurate information recently circulated.”

The funding for the Plan will start in August 2011

  • Not true at all. The funding for the plan won’t be established until the financial modelling is done and implemented. This will take about two years.

The mandatory contribution will be 8% – 12% or higher

  • The contribution level has not been determined. There is no reason to expect it to be at that level. At present health insurance contributions represent 4.5% of GDP. The financial modelling will determine the appropriate contribution level.

Insurance payments for persons making between $70,000 to 80,000 could go up by 30 – 35%.

  • Not true at all, and it is unclear how this figure was invented. It has no basis on any financial information. The reforms will ensure persons with average salaries are not negatively impacted financially.

This % will be deducted from every employees salary as of August 2011

  • Not true at all. There will be no deductions for a new system until it is implemented.

The National Health Plan will run parallel with the employees’ current plan until the NHP is up and running; i.e. people who presently contribute to a health plan will now have to contribute to both plans

  • Not true at all. The reforms will be phased in and no one will ever have to pay for the same coverage twice. No one will contribute anything to a new system until the reforms are in place.

The reason for the NHP is that the government is trying to find ways to fund the new hospital.

  • Not true at all. The NHP is not related to the hospital redevelopment, whose funding has already been established separately.

The Government is using the NHP to subsidise healthcare for persons over 65, by shifting the costs to the private sector.

  • Not true at all. FutureCare is adequately funded and its financial performance is sound. The NHP is an independent development to address broader health sector reforms needed in the country.

The 43-page 2011 National Health Plan Public Consultation Paper is below, click ‘Full Screen’ for greater clarity:

Read More About

Category: All

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. RobbieM says:

    The reforms will ensure persons with average salaries are not negatively impacted financially.

    I would like to know what is considered ‘an average salary’?

    • crazytalk says:

      …and everyone with higher than average salaries (i.e. 50% of the population, roughly) WILL be impacted negatively. Make no mistake about it.

      By how much? No idea. Obviously, they don’t want to talk about that, because it might annoy 50% of the people who will have to pay for it. So
      they will keep the details under wraps for as long as possible.

    • peaceandlove says:

      and what is considered “not negatively impacted financially”

  2. peaceandlove says:

    i want to pay for insurance, but i also want to be covered, not like Future Care where I have to pay 25% of the bill myself for overseas treatment, cause this hospital doesn’t do a lot of treatments and they have to be done in U.S. That could cost $50,000 which I dont have. Then what, i stay here and die?

  3. alicia says:

    the problem with the paper is that there are no concrete figures – no actuarial data showing what increase in payroll tax is going to be needed to financially support this, what (if any) cost sharing will occur between employer and employee, what specific controls are going to be implemented to control usage and cost, and how they can continue to offer this with a shrinking working population and increasing senior population.

    i don’t trust it….

  4. B says:

    These responses would make me feel better if this Government didn’t have a solid track record of BSing and leaving out details and saying what people want to hear whether it’s true or not. Unfortunately, their words mean nothing to me…

  5. 32n64w says:

    Interesting (and equally worrying) that Government STILL haven’t explained/said how we’re going to pay for any of this.