Buying the Most Expensive Integrated Shield Plan When Young and Downgrading When Old

Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) are hospitalisation insurance plans offered by private insurance companies to cover hospital stays in public and private hospitals. They are integrated with the basic Medishield Life plan run by CPF. There are typically 3 types of IPs, namely those covering Class B1 wards, Class A wards and private hospitals. For ease of reference, they are named as Class B1, A and P plans respectively. Annual premiums increase with age and are most expensive for Class P plans. For this post, I will use the IPs offered by my insurer as the basis for discussion, since I signed up with them and have records dating back to 2006 when as-charged plans were first introduced. I believe the trends discussed below are applicable to all other insurance companies offering IPs.

Private hospitals offer the best care compared to public hospitals. However, Class P plans are the most expensive compared to other plans. One of the strategies used by some people to afford private hospital care is to sign up for Class P plans when they are young and premiums are affordable, and downgrade to Class A/B1 plans when they age and premiums become more expensive. As an example, for the Class P plan offered by my insurer, premiums for a person aged 25 is only $417. However, as he ages, premiums increase rapidly to $2,639 when he reaches 70. At this age, the corresponding premiums for Class A and B1 plans are $1,758 and $1,428 respectively, which are equivalent to 67% and 54% of the Class P plan premiums.

It is a good strategy to use, but do note that annual premiums do not stay static. The figures below show the annual premiums for Class B1/A/P plans since 2006, which have been increasing. To be fair, the increases in premiums are also accompanied by enhancement in insurance coverage.

Fig. 1: Class B Plan Annual Premiums Since 2006

Fig. 2: Class A Plan Annual Premiums Since 2006

Fig. 3: Class P Plan Annual Premiums Since 2006

Thus, when you buy an IP, please take note that annual premiums are not static and are expected to rise over time. And for those who plan to use the above-mentioned strategy of buying the most expensive Class P plan when young and downgrading to Class A/B1 plans when older, be prepared to downgrade earlier than expected.

See related blog posts:

• Unforeseen Risk in My Medical Insurance
• The Cost of Buying Insurance at a Later Age
• The Insurance Cost of Being a Smoker

The Insurance Cost of Being a Smoker

Last week, I blogged about the cost of buying insurance at different ages. This week, we will discuss the insurance cost of being a smoker.

The chart below shows the difference in annual premiums for a level term insurance with critical illness benefits for a male with a sum assured of $1 million covering until 70 years old. Using age 25 as an example, a non-smoker would pay $3,149 in annual premiums for 45 years until age 70, while a smoker would pay $4,936. The difference is $1,787, or 57% more. The total premiums payable over the whole duration of the policy is $80,415 more for the smoker.

Difference in Insurance Premiums for Non-Smokers and Smokers

The percentage difference in annual premiums between non-smokers and smokers generally increases with age. At age 20, the percentage difference is 50%, while at age 65, the percentage difference increases to 71%. Thus, from an insurance point of view, it pays to quit smoking. If you have friends who are smokers, please share this blog post with them.

The above analysis is carried out based on level term insurance. There are other insurance products such as whole-life, reducing term and endowment insurance available on compareFIRST.sg. You can carry out similar analysis to determine how much you could save in insurance premiums by quitting smoking!

See related blog posts:

• The Cost of Buying Insurance at a Later Age
• Buying the Most Expensive IP When Young and Downgrading When Old
• Doing Your Own Insurance Planning

The Cost of Buying Insurance at a Later Age

You have probably heard that it is better to buy insurance at a young age, as the insurance premiums will go up while health conditions will go down with age. However, how costly is it to put off buying insurance until an older age? Previously, you need to have an insurance agent friend to know this. However, with compareFIRST.sg, we can now know the cost of putting off buying insurance until an older age.

The chart below shows the annual premiums (blue) and total premiums (red) for a level term insurance with critical illness benefits for a non-smoking male with a sum assured of $1 million covering until 70 years old. Using age 25 as an example, the annual premium is $3,150, payable for 45 years until age 70. The total premiums payable would be $141,700. If this person were to put off buying insurance for 5 years until he is 30 years old, the annual premium would go up to $4,280, payable for 40 years until age 70. The total premiums payable would be $171,400. Do note that the insurance product used for analysis is not the cheapest term insurance product available on compareFIRST. This product was chosen as it has the widest age coverage. Hence, the proper way to read this blog post is to understand the relative differences in premiums rather than to take the premiums as absolute numbers. Moreover, the terms of the insurance (i.e. type of product, age of coverage, sum assured, etc.) assumed in this analysis might not be what you need.

Variation of Insurance Premiums with Starting Age

As shown in the figure above, the annual premiums will increase with age. The increase will start slowly, but will accelerate at the age of 30. The average increase in annual premium is approximately 29% for each 5-year increase in age between age 20 and 65. On an annual basis, the increase in annual premium works out to be approximately 6%. 

The total premiums payable over the policy duration will also increase with age. Like the annual premium, the increase in total premiums will start slowly, but will accelerate at age 30. The total premiums will reach a peak at age 55 before falling off, due to the shorter policy duration. It is interesting to note that until the age of 25, the total premiums do not increase by a lot, but you get to enjoy a longer coverage (the premiums above are for an insurance policy covering until age 70, regardless of the starting age of coverage).

There are 2 key reasons why total premiums will increase with age. Firstly, as a person ages, his health also deteriorates, thus increasing the risk to the insurer. Secondly, with a shorter policy duration, less time is available for the insurer to invest the premiums to generate the insurance payouts.

In conclusion, it is true that it is better to buy insurance at a young age. Based on the above analysis, the ideal age to buy insurance seems to be before the age of 25. If you have not bought any insurance, it is perhaps a good time to ponder over it. Notwithstanding the above, it is important to note that age is not the only factor in deciding the purchase of insurance. There are many more important factors, such as whether you have set up a family, have children, bought a house, etc. There are other insurance products such as whole-life, reducing term and endowment insurance available on compareFIRST.sg which might be more suitable for you. You can vary some of the parameters and see which insurance is best suited for you.

By the way, when you meet your insurance agent, please let him/ her know that you found out about it on compareFIRST, so that insurers can place more of their insurance products on it for comparison.

See related blog posts:

• The Insurance Cost of Being a Smoker
• Buying the Most Expensive IP When Young and Downgrading When Old
• Doing Your Own Insurance Planning

The Ideal Insurance Payouts

Last week, I blogged about a term insurance that pays out benefits monthly instead of a lump sum. The benefits of such a regular-payout insurance are discussed there, but I will explore further one of the benefits mentioned which is to safeguard the beneficiaries from unwittingly investing the lump sum payout into some risky investments to stretch the duration which the money could last. When the family suddenly receives a large sum of money from insurance, it is also possible that they might be surrounded by friends and relatives who will have no lack of ideas on how to stretch the money. Considering the typical family in which the spouse might not be financially savvy, the parents are old and the children are young, they might not be able to reject risky suggestions. Hence, from this perspective, even a person who has saved enough money and do not actually need insurance could do with a regular-payout insurance, if his family members are not financially savvy to manage the wealth that he will leave behind. A regular-payout insurance provides greater assurance of the amount of money that could be spent monthly as well as how long the money could last. Having said that, this is not the only way of achieving this. The other way is to set up an irrevocable trust that pays out a pre-determined sum of money to the beneficiaries regularly, but I have not set up one and hence not familiar with it.

While a regular-payout insurance has merits, there is an undesirable side effect, which is the beneficiaries will be constantly reminded of the passing of the policy-holder with the monthly receipt of the payout. One suggestion to improve this is to use a "charitable" foundation to pay out the money instead of the insurer. The foundation could provide a disguise for the payouts by claiming that the policy-holder has been a good person helping others in need and hence the foundation is willing to support the family through monthly payouts for a fixed number of years. Only with the last payout would it be finally revealed that the regular payouts are not charitable payouts but a result of the policy-holder's foresight to provide for his family long after his passing.

There is also a need to disguise the insurance policy in case the family finds it and files a claim with the insurer, only to be told that it is a regular-payout insurance policy. The disguise would be to add on a small lump sum payout so that the family would go away thinking it is a traditional lump sum payout insurance policy. The small lump sum payout has financial benefits as well, which helps to pay for unexpected immediate expenses. You can refer to Preference for Regular Payout Insurance for some of the cases in which a lump sum payout is useful.

With all these disguises, the family is probably not aware of the existence of this regular-payout insurance policy. Hence, there is a need to ensure that the insurer will live up fully to its commitment to pay out the benefits for the agreed period. This is where the independent "charitable" foundation could play a role. The insurance policy could include the foundation as a nominal beneficiary of the policy and the foundation could monitor to ensure that the insurer fulfils its commitment.

This is what I think will make the ideal insurance. It will probably cost a bit more, with the inclusion of the independent "charitable" foudation. However, I think it will be worth the cost. I hope insurers will take up the challenge!

See related blog posts:

• There is Really a Regular-Payout Term Insurance
• Preference for Regular Payout Insurance
• Doing Your Own Insurance Planning

There is Really a Regular-Payout Term Insurance

About 2 years ago, I wrote a post on my Preference for Regular Payout Insurance. The reasons for this preference are discussed in that post, but I will further illustrate the reasons below again. At that time, I thought that such insurance policies only exist for disability income. For more traditional insurance policies covering death and critical illness, there was none. Recently it turns out that some insurer has heed the call and came up with an insurance policy covering death, terminal illness, total and permanent disability, and critical illness that pays out a regular sum each month. The insurance policy is MyFamilyCover (MFC) from Aviva. Thanks to comments from a reader, E H, on My Considerations on Eldershield, I chanced upon it on compareFIRST.sg, the official website set up by Consumers Association of Singapore, Monetary Authority of Singapore, Life Insurance Association Singapore and MoneySENSE to assist consumers to compare and find life insurance products most suited to their needs.

How MFC works is that you choose how much is the monthly benefit payout and the policy duration. Upon the occurrence of an unfortunate event, the policy will pay the monthly benefit for the remaining duration of the policy or 10 years, whichever is longer. An illustration of how it works is shown below.

How MyFamilyCover Works

In the example above, John enters into a policy that pays $3,000 per month for a duration of 30 years at age 35. At age 45, he is diagnosed with a critical illness. The policy will pay out $3,000 per month for the remaining duration of 20 years to him or his family. This helps the family to meet the daily expenses until say, the children have grown up and are able to earn an income to support the family.

There are 4 different flavours of the policy, as follows:

• Plan 1 - Covers Death, Terminal Illness (TI), Total & Permanent Disability (TPD) and Critical Illness (CI)
• Plan 2 - Covers Death, TI and TPD
• Plan 3 - Covers Death and TI
• Plan 4 - Covers TPD and CI

The policy that I bought is Plan 4. However, for ease of comparison with other traditional insurance policies, I will assume Plan 1 in the subsequent discussion.

As the total amount of payout reduces with time, it is quite similar to a reducing term insurance whose sum assured reduces with time, like the loan principal of a mortage loan. How does MFC compare with a reducing term insurance? The following assumptions are used:

MyFamilyCover
Monthly Cover	$         3,000
No. of Years	30
Reducing Term Insurance
Total Cover	$  1,000,000
No. of Years	30
Interest Rate	5.0%

The reduction in total payout for both MFC and Reducing Term is shown below.

Total Payout for MFC and Reducing Term Insurance Over Time

As shown in the figure above, the total payout for MFC drops faster than Reducing Term as Reducing Term has an interest rate of 5%. The difference reaches $145,000 by Year 18, after which the difference reduces over time. As MFC has a minimum payout duration of 10 years, the total payout remains constant at $360,000 from Year 20 onwards while that for Reducing Term continues to drop. From Year 24 onwards, the sum assured for MFC is higher than that for Reducing Term.

Why did I choose MFC over a more traditional Reducing Term insurance, even though Reducing Term has a higher payout than MFC for most of the policy duration? The key reason is because MFC pays out the benefits regularly whereas Reducing Term pays out the benefits in a lump sum, even though the lump sum may be higher. While the lump sum payout guarantees the amount of payout received, it does not guarantee how much money could be spent monthly to meet daily expenses or how long the money could last. In contrast, for MFC, both the amount that could be spent monthly and how long the money could last are known. Considering a typical family in which the spouse might not be financially savvy, the parents are old and the children are young, a known regular payout for a known duration provides much greater assurance to the family than a known lump sum payout but unknown draw-down amount and unknown duration. Not everyone is financially savvy to be able to manage a lump sum payout. If the family unwittingly invests the lump sum payout into some risky investments in their attempt to stretch the duration which the money could last, it could put the financial sustainability of the family at risk. For the above reason, I have always preferred a regular payout insurance over a lump sum payout insurance. It is good that Aviva has understood the need and came up with an innovative insurance policy that addresses the needs more precisely. I hope more insurers would do the same.

There is currently a 20% discount on all future premiums on MFC. The promotion will end on 31 Jul. So, if you are interested, do hurry. You can contact Aviva on their website (give 2 days for them to call you back). Alternatively, I can refer you to the insurance agent whom I bought MFC from by leaving your contact info here. In the meanwhile, you can check the MFC brochure on Aviva website and the annual premiums on compareFIRST.sg.

By the way, when you meet the insurance agent, please let them know that you found out about MFC on compareFIRST, so that insurers can place more of their insurance products on it for comparison.


See related blog posts:

• Preference for Regular Payout Insurance
• The Ideal Insurance Payouts
• My Considerations on Eldershield

My Considerations on Eldershield

Oops. I have become an "elderly" at age 40! That is according to the Eldershield insurance scheme, which automatically covers all Singaporeans and Permanent Residents from age 40 onwards if you do not opt-out. Just to introduce what is Eldershield, it is a disability insurance scheme which provides a monthly payout of $400 for a total of 72 months if you are unable to carry out any 3 of 6 daily activities, such as washing, dressing, feeding, toileting, mobility and transferring. The annual premium depends on the age of entry into the scheme. Since the scheme has been in place since 2002, most people would join the scheme at the age of 40. The annual premium is currently $174.96 for males and $217.76 for females, payable until the age of 65. The benefits would be payable at any time during the life-time of the Insured (for a maximum of 72 months).

When it comes to assessing insurance needs, the key questions to ask are: what are the risks, and can you afford to bear them? In other words, what is the probably of the risk event happening, and if it happens, what is the financial impact? If the risks are bearable, then there is no real need to buy the insurance and transfer the risks away. In the case of Eldershield, the maths are rather simple. The total premium payable is $174.96 x 25 years, or $4,374 (for males), while the total benefits work out to be $400 x 72 months, or $28,800. The benefits are actually not a lot, and should be bearable, i.e. I do not really need the insurance. Still, I took 2 months to ponder whether to join the scheme or not. This is because, underlying the statement "I do not really need the insurance" is an important caveat that I retain full control over my finances when I am in old age. If I were to become senile and lose mental capability, then even funding $400 per month can become a problem. The alternative is to pass over control of my finances to a trusted family member, but I am currently still single, so this option is not available currently.

When you or your trusted ones are not in control of your finances, there are actually additional risks, especially if you have built up a comfortable nest egg for retirement. For example, some other people with ulterior motives could come in and take control of your finances. Just imagine, you have worked, saved and invested diligently for 20 to 30 years to build up a comfortable nest egg only to see it go to someone who do not have your interests at heart. That is quite unacceptable, isn't it?

The best solution is, of course, to keep your body and mind healthy so that you are in full control of everything. The next best solution is to have a family which you can count on to take care of you when you are no longer as healthy. The last resort is to convert your lump-sum nest egg into a recurrent stream of income, i.e. use part of your nest egg to buy an annuity that pays a monthly income. That way, you would not have a large lump-sum nest egg that attracts undesirable interest and you can be assured of having sufficient recurrent income to pay for your daily expenses.

With this, you can probably guess what I would do with CPF Life when the time comes. Although Eldershield does not come close to being an annuity, the regular payouts are consistent with the above-mentioned strategy of creating recurrent income streams. So, to conclude, I signed up for Eldershield.

See related blog posts:

• How Much Does One's Financial Independence Depend on One's Health?
• Preference for Regular Payout Insurance
• There is Really a Regular-Payout Term Insurance

Doing Your Own Insurance Planning

I guess most people are familiar with the concept of insurance planning. Whenever you buy an insurance policy, the insurance agent will first carry out insurance planning to determine your needs. She will ask you some questions related to your monthly income, expenses, amount of assets, liabilities, etc. before proposing a suitable insurance policy. Since this is such an important step to determining your insurance needs, why not do your own insurance planning? 

Benefits of Insurance Planning

There are several benefits to doing your own insurance planning. Firstly, the results are likely to be more accurate. During the discussion with the insurance agent, unless you come prepared, you will be hard-pressed to estimate how much your expenses, assets and liabilities are. Some are also not comfortable disclosing the actual income or assets for whatever reasons. But in the comfort of your home and away from all the strangers, you have all the time to find out all these figures accurately. There is also the advantage of updating the insurance plan as regularly as you wish, without the need to seek another review session with the insurance agent.

The second benefit of insurance planning is knowing how your insurance needs vary with time and the age that you no longer need any insurance. This is important for those who prefer to buy term insurance and invest the rest of the money over life insurance. By knowing when the coverage is no longer needed, you can save more money for investment.

The third benefit is you can carry out sensitivity analysis to find out which parameter affects the insurance needs the most. For example, the disability income insurance that I have comes with an option for a 2.5% escalation in benefits every year. Is it better to increase the coverage by another $1,000 per month or opt for the 2.5% escalation? Sensitivity analysis tells me that it is better to increase the coverage than to have the escalation. Similarly, sensitivity analysis also tells me when can I retire given the expected income, expenses, assets and liabilities. Finally, sensitivity analysis tells me which of these parameters are my best friend and worst enemy.

Worst Enemy: Interest Rate

Here, interest rate refers to inflation. Inflation is the worst enemy because all expenses go up, thus increasing the insurance needs. Inflation on medical costs and education is likely to be higher than general inflation. Through insurance planning, I have realised that if a potential liability costs $10,000 today, we should really be covering for 3-4 times that amount (depending on the expected inflation rate), because if and when the liability were to happen in 20-30 years down the road, inflation is going to increase it by 3-4 times.

Best Friend: Interest Rate Too!

If inflation were the worst enemy, investment rate of return would be the best friend. If we could grow our wealth at a higher rate of return than inflation, then our wealth could keep pace with the expenses. The insurance needs will also be much more manageable. After all, when we pay insurance premiums to the insurance companies, they also invest the money to make sure that it grows sufficiently large to cover the sum assured when the liability happens. Insurance is not just about risk pooling but also about investment!

Notwithstanding the above, in my last blog post, I have highlighted that it might be difficult to invest at a high rate of returns when one is not in the best of health. This then becomes a double whammy, because one is unable to generate high returns while at the same time the insurance needs go up. Thus, health is all important and is the capital to generate wealth.

Conclusion

In conclusion, insurance planning is an important step in identifying one's insurance needs. It provides insights into how the insurance needs vary with time and the key parameters that significantly affect the coverage needed. Given its importance, why not do it yourself?

2 words of caution are needed, though. Firstly, the model to determine the insurance needs must be correct, otherwise, it will result in either under-coverage or over-coverage. Secondly, like all models, it is rubbish-in, rubbish-out. Not only the model must be correct, the inputs must also be accurate too! Nevertheless, given its importance, it is worth investing the time in building and fine-tuning the model and establishing accurate input parameters.


See related blog posts:

• How Much Does One's Financial Independence Depend on One's Health?
• Preference for Regular Payout Insurance
• Unforeseen Risk in My Medical Insurance

Preference for Regular Payout Insurance

I have a couple of insurance policies; these can roughly be grouped into 2 categories -- those that I didn't opt out and those that I voluntarily bought. Insurance policies that fall in the former group are CPF's Dependents' Protection Scheme and Home Protection Scheme (HPS) while insurance policies that fall in the latter group are the "as-charged" Medishield plan and disability income insurance. The key difference between the 2 groups is the former has lump-sum, one-time payouts while the latter have variable or regular payouts over a period of time. As shown in the title of this blog post, my preference is always for regular payouts over lump-sum payouts.

For insurance to be effective, the asset (from insurance payout) must match the liability. Not only must the value of the asset and liability match, the timing of these cashflows must match as well. An asset that is realised one year after the liability falls due is no help at all. The reverse is also true, as will be shown later, but it is always better to have the asset earlier than the liability. Thus, when buying insurance, one must estimate the nature of the liability and find the appropriate insurance to match both the value and timing of the liability. 

When an unfortunate incident happens, it is likely to have 2 components, an initial period when there is high cash outlay such as due to surgery, and an recuperation period when the cash outlay is lower than that during the initial period but is regular, such as due to follow-up consultations, medication or loss of employment. Depending on the nature of the incident, the initial period will dominate for some incidents (e.g. accidents) while the recuperation period will dominate for other incidents (e.g. disability). Insurance with lump-sum, one-time payouts will be useful for the first type while insurance with regular payouts will be useful for the second type.

It is not wise to use a lump-sum insurance to cover a liability with regular expenses, as there is no certainty that the one-time payout is sufficient to cover the regular expenses even if the value of the payout and expenses roughly match. Take for example, a one-time $100K insurance payout and a liability that requires $3K in expenses a month over 3 years. The payout only needs to be invested at a rate of 3.1% to support the required cash outflow. It looks simple enough and does not require a bull market to achieve this rate of return. However, how can one be certain that there will not be a bear market that ruins the investment? Hence, there are challenges in trying to convert a lump-sum payout to a regular payout. Moreover, considering that the person is no longer as healthy as before, would he still be able to invest as well as he is when he is healthy? Thus, it is best to leave the risk of investing to the insurer and look for a regular-payout insurance to cover such a liability.

Notwithstanding the above, it may be possible to modify the cashflow of the original liability such that the asset and liability now match. For example, a loan obligation may require regular monthly repayments. It is possible to make a lump-sum repayment to either extinguish or reduce the amount of monthly repayment required in the future. A lump-sum insurance will work well in such cases. CPF's HPS plan falls into this category by extinguishing the loan when an unfortunate incident happens. 

In conclusion, it is important to match the asset to the liability. Buying the right insurance matters.

See related blog posts:

• There is Really a Regular-Payout Term Insurance
• The Ideal Insurance Payouts
• Doing Your Own Insurance Planning

Unforeseen Risk in My Medical Insurance

Insurance should always be the first "investment" in any investment plan, because any major medical expenses could easily wipe out years of hard-earned savings and investment gains. However, insurance is usually not discussed as much as investments because it is a boring and taboo subject. A common thinking among investors is to try to grow one's wealth through investment quickly enough so that one does not need insurance. However, how many of us could ensure that we could grow wealthy before we grow old? A well thought through insurance plan would go towards ensuring that we are well covered during the period when we're still growing our wealth and are most vulnerable to any major expenses. However, sometimes, even the best laid plans can go awry when one is not in the best of health.

I have a private "as-charged" Medishield plan (Plan B) that covers me for hospitalisation in a Class B ward. When I was healthier and bought the insurance, I thought I would stay in a Class B2 ward if I were to be hospitalised. I did not buy any rider to cover the deductible and co-insurance portions of the medical bill, as I believe that medical insurance should be to cover large medical expenses. Hence, the coverage of a Medishield Plan B was adequate -- stay in B2 ward, covered up till B1 ward. I could not imagine myself staying in a Class A or even a private hospital ward. The money saved from not staying in these more expensive wards could be spent on a nice little holiday later. In fact, I have occasionally thought about staying in a Class C ward to save more on the deductible and co-insurance portions.

Unfortunately, Man proposes, Heaven disposes. I have not been in the best of health in the last few years. This has exposed gaps in my thinking and a major risk in my medical insurance coverage. I have seen specialists as a subsidised patient in a public hospital, private patient in a public hospital and private patient in a private hospital. Needlessly to say, seeing the specialist as a subsidised patient is the cheapest, but it can take 1-2 months to make an appointment. Seeing as a private patient costs more than as a subsidised patient, but the cost differential between a public and private hospital is not major. The lead time for an appointment as a private patient in a public hospital can range from 1/2 week to 3 weeks, while a private patient in a private hospital can see the specialist on the same day. Hence, in my haste to seek medical attention, I have seen a private specialist in a private hospital on a few occasions. This then exposes me to the risk of being hospitalised in a private hospital ward. The Medishield Plan B that I have only covers 50% of the insurable expenses in a private hospital ward, which is as good as not having any insurance.

Is it a case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish in not buying the most expensive Medishield plan? I don't think so, because if that is the case, I would not have upgraded to an "as-charged" Medishield plan. It is a case of not being able to foresee how I would act when I am not well. 

What will I do now? One option is to upgrade to a Medishield Plan P that covers private hospital wards, provided I am still insurable. But frankly speaking, the annual premiums of Plan P are not cheap. If this option is chosen, at some point in time, I might downgrade to Plans A or B to manage the premiums. Anyway, there are going to be changes to the plans with the introduction of Medishield Life. I will wait and see the benefits and premiums of each Medishield plan before deciding.

If I am no longer insurable, I could only continue on Plan B, and if the specialist in the private hospital diagnoses that I need to be hospitalised, I would go to the Accident & Emergency Department of a public hospital to seek hospitalisation. That probably seems the best way to manage this risk. 

The moral of the story is, always plan for the unexpected.


See related blog posts:

• Buying the Most Expensive IP When Young and Downgrading When Old
• Doing Your Own Insurance Planning
• How Much Does One's Financial Independence Depend on One's Health?