Penalising Integrated Shield policyholders an exercise in bad faith

I REFER to the article "Insurers, doctors at odds over how panel practitioners are selected" (BT, March 25, 2021).

It appears everyone - insurers, doctors, government - is invited to the table except the most important people: the insured. Those who buy and pay for the policies.

The decision to change the Integrated Shield terms was reportedly done at the instruction of the government (although I assume the insurers are more than happy to oblige), but did the government require the insurers to apply the new rule to existing policies?

The requirement for co-payment for rider policies - originally marketed and sold to cover 100 per cent of co-payments under the basic policy - strikes at the heart, the very nature, of the riders. This is akin to telling people who took out fire insurance policies that your policy no longer covers damage caused by fire.

If any change is necessary, it should only apply to new policies and not penalise existing policyholders. Whatever fine print insurers use to justify themselves, changing the very nature of the existing policy riders is the ultimate exercise of bad faith.

If there are indeed abuses by claimants and doctors, it is up to the insurers and the government to root them out and not penalise innocent policyholders. To those doctors who abuse the system, I say to you: Shame on you; you profane the name of your profession.

If insurers had made the wrong actuarial claim assumptions, they should take responsibility for their mistakes. You should not ask your policyholders to pay for your mistakes.

I ask insurers to act with honour and apply the new requirement for co-payments only to new rider policies, and not to penalise existing policyholders who bought them in good faith. Likewise, I ask the government not to require insurers to apply the new rule to existing policies.

There must be fair play. Otherwise, all these insurance policies are a sham.

Ho Swee Huat