Dr Desmond Wai in his letter called for the setting up of a medical insurance committee that would address issues and disputes between Integrated Shield Plan (IP) insurers, medical practitioners and patients (Set up multi-party medical insurance committee, Sept 28).

The letter suggested that the committee should comprise representatives from the Life Insurance Association of Singapore (LIA), Singapore Medical Association, Consumers Association of Singapore, Ministry of Health (MOH) and Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).

Interestingly, such a group consisting of these same member organisations did exist in the form of the Health Insurance Task Force (HITF) in 2016.

The HITF published its report in October 2016, and some of the major recommendations included the setting of fee benchmarks and that IP insurers should be clear and transparent on the criteria for including doctors on their preferred provider panels.

In 2018, MOH published its fee benchmarks.

Since then, several IP insurers have reimbursed doctors at rates that are below or at the lower end of the benchmarks.

Most IP insurers do not provide information to doctors or policyholders on their inclusion and exclusion criteria for putting doctors on their panel.

Clearly, the HITF and, by extension, the LIA - IP insurers are members of the association - have not been very effective in getting all seven IP insurers to follow the recommendations of such a grouping that Dr Wai has suggested. Therefore, there is little if any assurance that another such grouping will do any better.

MOH and MAS' Forum letter is instructive (All have part to play in keeping health insurance affordable, Sept 24).

It is clear that Aviva did not change its IP terms and conditions when it decided not to provide coverage to diagnostic endoscopies and, legally speaking, it was therefore not required to seek approval from MOH.

The illation here is that the current terms and conditions gave Aviva considerable latitude to unilaterally and legally change the scope of coverage.

It is heartening to note that MOH and MAS are exercising "regulatory oversight" of IP insurers.

However, it would be more helpful if MOH and MAS can educate the public and doctors as to what specific statutes are available that can be used to regulate an IP's scope of coverage, taking the Aviva case of withdrawing coverage of diagnostic endoscopies as an illustrative example.

Tan Yong Kuan