Forum: Issues to consider in co-funding private IVF treatment

I refer to Mr Timothy Kwan Weng Tim’s letter “Foster a culture of proactive family planning to boost birth rate” (Feb 22), which discussed extending government co-funding for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) to private fertility clinics, to reduce patient waiting time and lessen the heavy patient load at public hospitals.  

The immediate question that arises is, rather than spending public funds on subsidising private IVF treatment, why not use the money to expand IVF facilities at public hospitals instead? It could, for example, be used to employ more doctors and expand the capacity of IVF laboratories to handle more cases.

After all, a substantial portion of any subsidies given for private IVF treatment would eventually go to shareholders’ profit, instead of being invested back to benefit the public by improving government healthcare facilities.

Then, there is also the question of fairness in singling out IVF treatment for subsidies in private healthcare.

As IVF treatment is not considered life-saving, would it be fair to subsidise it at private clinics, when the treatment of life-threatening and debilitating illnesses such as stroke, cancer, and heart and kidney diseases is not being subsidised in private healthcare?

In case the Government eventually decides to subsidise private IVF treatment, subsidies should be contingent upon individual private IVF centres demonstrating higher or equal IVF success rates compared with public IVF centres, to justify the spending of taxpayers’ money.

Stringent annual audits of the track record of private IVF centres would be needed to ensure that they qualify for such subsidies.

Alexis Heng Boon Chin (Dr)