Requirement for Employers to Offer Healthcare Insurance for Re-employed Workers

The Senior Minister of State for Manpower (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Manpower):Our employment laws, in general, stipulate basic labour standards and we allow employers room to provide additional benefits relevant to their circumstances. In this case, the Employment Act stipulates that employers have to pay for their employees' medical consultation fees while they are in employment.

We are, however, happy to note that many employers have gone beyond these basic requirements to also provide health insurance for their employees, so as to attract and retain valued workers. A survey conducted by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) found that about six in 10 companies with at least 25 employees provide inpatient medical benefits for their local employees in 2013. Of these companies, 86% provide such medical benefits through group medical insurance. As for re-employed workers, a separate survey found that around nine in 10 companies continued to maintain their inpatient medical benefits when re-employing them at the age of 62.

At the same time, the tripartite partners have been encouraging employers to enhance the portability of their medical benefits. On its part, the Government provides incentives for employers who do so by way of higher tax deductions for medical expenses of up to 2% of total employees' remuneration. Employers can also enjoy the additional tax deduction when they make ad hoc Medisave contributions for their employees.

A tripartite workgroup is looking at ways to enhance portable medical benefits to complement MediShield Life, which, when implemented at the end of 2015, will provide lifelong healthcare insurance protection for all Singaporeans. This includes older citizens, regardless of whether they continue to be employed.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the reply. I would like to ask: would the incentives that the Senior Minister of State has highlighted also apply to older workers who have been retained by the company beyond the re-employment age of 65 and would there be other forms of protection that MOM may require of the companies to offer their older workers beyond the re-employment age of 65? This is because some of these workers would still like to remain active even as they grow older and they feel that they are fit enough to continue to remain economically active.

As we have announced earlier, we are taking a promotional approach now to encourage employers to employ their workers even beyond the re-employment age of 65 before we look into reviewing and extending the re-employment age beyond 65 to 67, as legislation. As long as the workers are re-employed by the company,

Page: 26

regardless of their age, companies would then be required, for instance, if they are manual workers, or if they are non-manual workers but with a salary of $1,600 and below, to provide workmen injury insurance, because this is required under the law.

As regards inpatient medical benefits, as I have noted, most of those who have been re-employed under the current legislation have retained their inpatient medical benefits and we will continue to encourage companies to do so. And as I have noted, we are also working through a tripartite working group to encourage companies to implement portable medical benefits for their employees and these should also extend generally to workers, regardless of their age, if they are re-employed.