<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>ParkwayHealth's spat with doctors: Is it about money as well?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Wednesday's report ('Doctors upset by Parkway's plans'), which elicited a response from ParkwayHealth's president, Dr Goh Jin Hian, on Saturday ('Doctors upset: ParkwayHealth replies').
I was present at the laying of the foundation stone at the flagship Mount Elizabeth Hospital in 1979 and am now a senior practitioner at its adjunct, the Mount Elizabeth medical centre, which houses the doctors and specialists who use the hospital.
Mount Elizabeth was conceived and built by two Indonesian tycoons, Mr Agus Nursalim and Mr Goh Cheng Liang, to commemorate the memory of one of their relatives.
It was a shrewd business investment and attracted many top physicians and surgeons at the time, some of whom formed their own groups of doctors with different sub-speciality interests in the same discipline.
In fact, at the opening of Mount Elizabeth in 1979, there were three such groups - obgyn (obstetrics and gynaecology), surgical and orthopaedic - all of which were led by luminaries of that time.
The symbiotic and friendly relationship between the hospital and its doctors - the former providing the infrastructure and the latter, the expertise and service element - built up an enviable reputation in the region.
Gradually, the system evolved to include increasingly complex and challenging areas, including open-heart surgery, cardiac interventions and organ transplants.
For almost 30 years, the hospital has survived and thrived, and multi-disciplinary medical care must have been among the contributing factors.
The current ParkwayHealth proposal is that the hospital should form its own groups of doctors in several selected disciplines (an association of practitioners of varying sub-specialities in one discipline), which have been there from day one.
The objective of providing consistent and transparent pricing for the patient is commendable.
But by also stating that it will 'ensure no billing surprises', ParkwayHealth raised my eyebrows, as there is nothing certain, particularly in the high-risk, high-gain disciplines towards which ParkwayHealth seems to be leaning.
Even a simple matter like childbirth carries a maternal mortality in top medical countries of one in 10,000, so it is rather na�ve to say that one can 'ensure there are no billing surprises'.
Those who run hospitals should look to their own internal operations and ensure that the equipment and staff are tip-top, and leave the doctors alone to arrange their own affiliations.
Doctors are aware of the Hippocratic dictum that 'the welfare of the patient is their first concern' and the hospital should follow suit.
It has taken Wall Street two decades to learn that greed is not good.
Let us learn from that painful lesson and that the formation of cartels in whatever guise will not be a good way forward.
Dr Chew Shing Chai
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Wednesday's report ('Doctors upset by Parkway's plans'), which elicited a response from ParkwayHealth's president, Dr Goh Jin Hian, on Saturday ('Doctors upset: ParkwayHealth replies').
I was present at the laying of the foundation stone at the flagship Mount Elizabeth Hospital in 1979 and am now a senior practitioner at its adjunct, the Mount Elizabeth medical centre, which houses the doctors and specialists who use the hospital.
Mount Elizabeth was conceived and built by two Indonesian tycoons, Mr Agus Nursalim and Mr Goh Cheng Liang, to commemorate the memory of one of their relatives.
It was a shrewd business investment and attracted many top physicians and surgeons at the time, some of whom formed their own groups of doctors with different sub-speciality interests in the same discipline.
In fact, at the opening of Mount Elizabeth in 1979, there were three such groups - obgyn (obstetrics and gynaecology), surgical and orthopaedic - all of which were led by luminaries of that time.
The symbiotic and friendly relationship between the hospital and its doctors - the former providing the infrastructure and the latter, the expertise and service element - built up an enviable reputation in the region.
Gradually, the system evolved to include increasingly complex and challenging areas, including open-heart surgery, cardiac interventions and organ transplants.
For almost 30 years, the hospital has survived and thrived, and multi-disciplinary medical care must have been among the contributing factors.
The current ParkwayHealth proposal is that the hospital should form its own groups of doctors in several selected disciplines (an association of practitioners of varying sub-specialities in one discipline), which have been there from day one.
The objective of providing consistent and transparent pricing for the patient is commendable.
But by also stating that it will 'ensure no billing surprises', ParkwayHealth raised my eyebrows, as there is nothing certain, particularly in the high-risk, high-gain disciplines towards which ParkwayHealth seems to be leaning.
Even a simple matter like childbirth carries a maternal mortality in top medical countries of one in 10,000, so it is rather na�ve to say that one can 'ensure there are no billing surprises'.
Those who run hospitals should look to their own internal operations and ensure that the equipment and staff are tip-top, and leave the doctors alone to arrange their own affiliations.
Doctors are aware of the Hippocratic dictum that 'the welfare of the patient is their first concern' and the hospital should follow suit.
It has taken Wall Street two decades to learn that greed is not good.
Let us learn from that painful lesson and that the formation of cartels in whatever guise will not be a good way forward.
Dr Chew Shing Chai
