... comfort the afflicted...

This is what I meant.


Clinic did not overcharge patient

THERE are two issues in the letter by Mdm Gan Siok Wah in 'High prices for common drugs in HDB heartland' (ST, Feb 21).

First, the alleged overcharging. I would like to clarify that the $80 bill includes both the consultation fee and the medication prescribed to her daughter.

Her daughter was billed $22 for consultation fee for a visit at 9.20pm, when the Singapore Medical Association's recommendation to all clinics is $25 to $55 for consultation between 9pm and midnight.

With regard to the five tablets of Klacid MR 500mg costing $37, the price charged at our clinic adheres closely to the recommended retail price set by Abbott Laboratories (S) Pte Ltd. Mdm Gan is at liberty to confirm the price with them at customer.services.sg@ abbot.com.
Second, unnecessarily expensive medication.

As Mdm Gan has chosen to breach doctor-patient confidentiality by going public with her daughter's medical condition, I would like to highlight the fact that she omits to mention that her daughter had the symptoms for five days prior to the consultation in my clinic and that she had been treated elsewhere for similar complaints without improvement.

It is medically prudent to treat a patient with second line medication if the patient shows no improvement after treatment with first line medication. This was why her daughter was prescribed such medication by our clinic.

I stand by the fact that our clinic did not overcharge Mdm Gan. Nor was her daughter given any unnecessary treatment.

I would be most grateful if you can publish this to clarify the misconception that Mdm Gan's letter has created in the minds of the public.

Dr Low Jin Kheng
Clinic Manager
Street 11 Clinic


Had the editor referred the original letter to the clinic and sought their side of the story first, both sides would have been spared a lot of negative publicity. For the clinic, the damage is already done; but what recompense can the clinic seek from the author (who omitted vital facts of the case - so that we all thought her daughter was on the first day of a viral fever) or the press (which published the letter, knowing very well that such publicity would adversely affect the reputation of the clinic, but without first checking the facts)?

I like the tone of Dr Low's reply letter. It's a nice change from the usual apologetic replies aimed more at appeasement than stating the facts of the case - yes, I tend to believe in the clinic's account, not because of professional bias, but because they are unlikely to make those statements if they didn't have records that would stand up to examination in a court to back them up.

As I have said before, I don't mind complaint letters - they are an essential channel of feedback. But for the system to be efficient and not clogged by frivolous and unfounded complaints, the profession needs to stand up and tell it like it is/was even if it meant making people unhappy.

Will this change anything in the short term? Probably not. It remains cheap, convenient, and backlash-free to email a complaint off to a newspaper forum that does not verify your account. Few people who do not already know the author will know the author just from the name in the newspaper, but the name and address of the clinic/hospital are common knowledge to those in their vicinity. It's not a fair situation, but I think Dr Low has taken us a step closer to making it so.

Thank you, Dr Low.