Funds Disbursed from Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) Treatment Co-funding Scheme

Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health (a) how many couples have benefitted from the Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) co-funding scheme for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) since its inception in August 2008; (b) what is the total amount of funds disbursed; and (c) what is the success rate thus far.

The Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): Sir, the Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) treatment co-funding scheme was introduced to help make ART treatments, such as in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), more affordable for couples who have difficulty conceiving. Since the scheme's inception in August 2008, Ministry of Health (MOH) has subsidised a total of 5,503 ART treatment cycles, benefiting 3,841 couples in the process. Thus far, MOH has disbursed around $13 million in funding for this scheme. We are encouraged by the effectiveness of this scheme. About 26% of the treatment cycles under this scheme successfully resulted in live births, which compares well with the national average of 22%.

Page: 1568

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister of State for the answer. In her reply, the Minister of State said that MOH subsidises about 3,000 couples for this particular scheme. I would like to ask the Minister of State, first, is this a subsidy given, because from what I understand, all patients going through IVF are considered "private patients" and no Government subsidy is entitled? My next supplementary question is that since the success rate is so good, will the Government consider extending this particular programme, because I understand that the grant is only available to couples who are receiving IVF treatment in Government restructured hospitals only? Will that be reviewed and can that be extended to the private hospitals, given that it is a grant and not a subsidy?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, the Member is right to say that it is not a healthcare subsidy per se . The ART co-funding scheme was introduced as part of the Marriage and Parenthood package to allow couples who have difficulties conceiving to go for ART treatment and make it more affordable for them. ART treatment is not essential to the patient's health and so it is a non-standard form of treatment. Like all non-standard treatment, there is no healthcare subsidy. So, if the patients go to a public hospital for ART treatment, if they are not under this co-funding scheme, they will be treated as private patients and charged private rates. So, the Member is right. But if they qualify under this co-funding scheme, then they will get subsidy under the co-funding scheme. When we implemented this, we did not extend it to the private hospitals because the scheme was new. We will continue to monitor demand and consider this as an option as we review our experience, but currently we are not thinking of extending it beyond the public sector as yet.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My last question. I would like to thank the Minister of State for agreeing to review it with a view that it may be introduced to the private hospitals. I would like to ask the Minister of State when MOH compares the average success rate of 22% at the national level versus 26% for this particular programme, is there any factor that causes the success rate to be higher compared to the national level? From what I understand, patients going through this programme have to be below a certain age limit, and have to meet other governing criteria. In fact, a lot of couples unable to fit the criteria have no choice but to resort to going to the private hospitals to receive treatment. I am not sure if MOH would agree that the age difference may have contributed to the difference in success rate. Will MOH now relook at the data to see if when the patients are equal in terms of criteria, the success rates would be the same between the Government hospitals and private hospitals?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, the statistics that I quoted, that is, 26% under the co-funding scheme as compared to the national level average of 22% – are based on the same age profile. So, in fact, our 26% is also better compared internationally to, say, Australia and New Zealand for the same age profile, where it is about 22.3%. Yes, the Member is right that there are qualifying criteria for patients to go under this scheme. Age is one criterion. The patient has to be below 40 years old. There are certain clinical considerations too. That would likely have contributed to the higher success rate. Clinical evidence is that there is a higher success rate for patients below 40 years old. We need to impose conditions because we are subsidising using taxpayers' money. So, we need to ensure that it is effectively used.

Page: 1569

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Sir, a supplementary question. I would like to ask the Minister of State this: besides the age criterion, what are the other criteria to qualify for this co-funding scheme?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: The criteria will be that the patient has no more than one living child with her husband; the patient must be below 40 years of age at the start of the cycle; the patient has been assessed by the doctor to meet the clinical requirements for ART; treatment is a fresh cycle; no more than two embryos are transferred during the cycle; the patient has not already received three co-funded cycles in the past. The ART co-funding scheme is up to a maximum of three cycles. And the patient or her spouse must be a Singapore citizen at the start of the cycle.

Sir, I just wish to add to Member Dr Lim Wee Kiak's comment earlier about patients going to private sector hospitals if they are not under this scheme. They can actually go to the public sector and, obviously, there will be a range in the fees.

11.07 am

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.