Number of Telemedicine Service Providers and Take-up Rate for Their Services

2 Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Health (a) to date, how many telemedicine service providers are operating in Singapore; (b) what has been the take-up rate of these services, including the number of consultations conducted or patients served; (c) whether telemedicine services have contributed to a drop in non-emergency cases at the emergency departments; and (d) whether there are plans to increase public awareness and promote the use of telemedicine services for non-emergency conditions.

The Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Health): Sir, many outpatient medical service providers are approved to provide telemedicine services under the Healthcare Services Act (HCSA), of which 19 are standalone telemedicine providers without physical premises.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not track the take-up rate of telemedicine services. There is also no definitive data on whether telemedicine has reduced non-emergency attendances at Emergency Departments, especially given an ageing population with rising demand for healthcare.

Telemedicine services have been facilitated by MOH in primary care for chronic disease management and in specialist outpatient settings for specific conditions. MOH will continue to facilitate the application of telemedicine service in appropriate settings.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip.

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his response. From a systems perspective, integrating telemedicine into existing care protocols rather than offering them as an optional add-on, is critical for optimising patient care delivery. This balanced approach empowers healthcare professionals to assess the most suitable modality for each patient's needs, avoiding unnecessary telemedicine use. With this in mind, I have two questions.

First, for new hospitals opened to piloting telemedicine, can it be incorporated as a standard part of routine clinical practice? Second, beyond public awareness campaigns, are there plans to incentivise primary care physicians to utilise telemedicine for appropriate consultations? This could potentially reduce strain on emergency services and generate cost savings.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Mr Yip for his questions. Telemedicine is a tool. The technology and the platform are potentially quite useful – and he has illustrated and described some of the ways in which it can change patterns of behaviour. It is a tool that needs to be chosen by two parties: the clinical provider and the potential patient.

Our approach to say it is an option. And where it is a suitable option for the clinical providers because is safe, efficacious, it provides better quality of care; or for the patient because it is convenient and provides better access, then, we want to remove the obstacles for the clinician or the patient from choosing this. So, we are working on standardising the regulatory approach across, as well as reducing some of the barriers in terms of cost and financials associated in terms of the choice that a patient might make.

So, the short answer to both questions is that we would like to see progress for hospitals as well as primary care using telemedicine services appropriately, where it makes a difference to the clinical care, where it becomes more convenient and more acceptable to the patients.