National Health Financial Scheme

The government is in the process of implementing a national health scheme for all Malaysians. All of us will be affected one way or another. That is why I decided , as a medical practitioner, to research and delve deeper into the issues, the pros and cons, and how it is going to affect the ordinary people as well as medical personnel.

This paper was written in early 2006, as a private citizen’s effort to present certain feedback to the authority concerned, since very little information was available to the public on this important matter at that time.

It is definitely worth taking a look, since it is going to affect your healthcare as well as your pocket.

Malaysian  Healthcare – a critical look at the proposed National Health Financial Scheme

To view the pdf file, pls click on the above.

This paper has also been published in FOMCA’s CRC review journal with the writer’s permission  in March 2011.


8 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Trackback: National Health Scheme « Dr Hsu’s Forum
  2. Winston
    May 29, 2007 @ 17:07:32

    I agree fully with you that the present health care system is the way to go.
    However, instead of allocating more money to health care, the BN government prefers to squander billions on useless projects!
    I would like to state that doctors, especially specialist, will charge their patients a much higher fee when they knew that such patients have health insurance. This was my experience.
    This government is going to make a fool of itself just like the previous one.
    Remember, the erstwhile premier who said that agreements signed with the privatised companies, which were heavily in the latters’ favour, were stupid but the cabinet ministers who agreed to them were not lawyers.
    So, the current incumbent, who is keeping everything under the OSA (like his predecessor), is making the same stupid mistakes.
    This shows that they never learn!
    What’s the use of telling the public later that ministers are not lawyers when everything is already in a mess?
    It is the people, especially the poor, who have to carry the burden. The government got off so easily.
    I wonder why on earth the voters would ever want to cast their votes for this government.
    They must be masochistic!!


  3. monsterball
    Apr 12, 2008 @ 00:33:44

    After 50 years….and wasting billions…the government is back to basic….caring for the welfare of Malaysians?
    Better late than never……….I guess.


  4. bow
    Apr 13, 2008 @ 08:21:12

    BN is well known internationally for big idea, grand project n mega schemes, but who is the beneficiary in all these billions dollars blue print? obviously not the ordinary Malaysians at large at the end of the day.


  5. Kok chee chiong
    Jul 27, 2008 @ 11:13:45

    It is quite disconcerting to note that the government approach to rising cost was to privatise. The piper has to be paid one way or another. By privatising what the government had done was to transfer the cost into private concerns who are invariably motivated and driven by profit. By privatising some of its operations does it solve the basic inefficiency of the government departments ?

    Your report is also glaringly incomplete in that it failed to consider alternatives or complementary medicine. In USA and europe alternatives are quickly becoming mainstream from of treatment when more people started to realise that evidence-based medicine or modern medicine is a failed paradigm. Such failure is no better reflected in the following study done by Gary Nul et al :

    “Death by medicine”

    Many allopaths(modern day doctor)proudly proclaimed that modern medicine is modern because it is progressive. It learns and and modify its treatment with new knowledge. What many didn’t realise was that it is precisely because modern medicine is flawed in its foundation and the tool (scientific inquiry) is blind that so many patients have to die before any light is seen at the end of the tunnel. On the other hand alternative such as homoeopathy came about from intuitive insights – the complete seeing in an instance – Hahnemann did add to his initial insight later but his later insights were just as penetrating and because of that he was able to treat many chronic ailment that seems to defy modern medicine explanation.

    An honest appraisal of some of the well-known alternatives such as homoeopathy and traditional chinese medicine will lead one to appreciate these healing art form. As a notable example of allopaths who had done so was a Dr. Mahendralal Sirkar who was the Vice president of the British Medical Association (bengal branch). He had denounced homoeopathy as quackary but repeatedly seeing cases cured by babu Rajendralal Dutta, a lay practitioner of homoeopathy. Cases he couldn’t cure was easily cured by him. He decided to find out for himself what was the truth of homoeopathy. He gave up a very lucrative medical practice and was boycotted by BMA and in his reply he said

    “Truth must be told, and truth must be acted upon”. After going through much tribulation he became a towering giant of homoeopathy in India.


  6. MichaellaS
    Jul 21, 2009 @ 17:06:03

    tks for the effort you put in here I appreciate it!


  7. Dr Ng Swee Choon
    Jan 24, 2011 @ 19:33:39

    Hi, Dr Hsu, I may be mistaken, but were you with us at many of the Ministry of Health discussions on NFHS / NHFM? I humbly suggest that this blog should be updated as new schemes are now being devised. Quite different from the 2008 plans.


  8. Dr Hsu
    Jan 25, 2011 @ 12:25:48

    Dear Dr Ng
    No, I was not involved in any ministry discussion on the matter, but did the research on NHFS mainly as a private citizen’s efforts out of my concern that this scheme will drastically change our lives.

    I did submit the paper to Tan Sri dr koh, who was then the CM of Penang and Dato Lee Kah Choon who was then the Parliamentary Sec of Ministry of Health, hoping that through their respective offices, my views can be presented to the authority concerned. I did send a copy via post to our DG then, but so far I have not heard anything nor been invited to any discussion on this.

    The paper was written in early part of 2006, so it has to be read in that context. There may have been changes in the proposal but the problem is, so far, we (the public) have heard very little on how this scheme is going to be implemented. (Like any reasearch paper, once it is done,it cannot be altered. What can be done is to write a new paper if new info becomes available).

    I feel that there should be more information based on which we the public can give our feedback to the authority.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: