View the original article here: 禁医院上市管控医疗费？ 恐衍生新问题 | 财经 | 東方網 馬來西亞東方日報
By 洪荣达 | Oriental Daily | March 24, 2025
（吉隆坡24日讯）国会议员沈志勤此前建议政府禁止私立医院未来上市及私有化官联医院公司，以便更好地应对医疗费速涨问题。惟，市场人士认为，这些措施未必奏效，而且可能衍生其他问题。
沈志勤3月初表示，大马应效仿韩国禁止医院挂牌，因为上市私人医院更注重盈利，才会向病人收取高昂医疗费。
阻碍竞争产生反效果
伟盛集团（Vision Group）董事经理蔡裕廉接受《东方财经》访问时表示，禁止医院上市来管控医疗费用，最终可能适得其反。
伟盛集团（Vision Group）董事经理蔡裕廉
伟盛集团是一家企业顾问公司，同时也从事投资服务。
蔡裕廉认为，沈志勤为政府支招管控医疗费用，其初衷是值得认可的。但他的建议是一个复杂且重大的挑战。
他指出，禁止私立医院上市和国有化医院，可能会产生阻碍竞争的反效果。这或许不是一个抑制医疗费用上涨的有效方法。
“如果政府限制筹集资金的管道（上市），那医院维持或取得最新医疗设备、药品和人才，以扩大医疗服务覆盖范围的难度就会增加。”
他续指，私立医院的经营模式，是以盈利为目的，进而提高效率和创新。
此外，蔡裕廉表示，国有化IHH医疗保健集团（IHH，5225，主板保健股），柔佛医药保健（KPJ，5878，主板保健股），将给政府带来额外的财政负担，而整合也将需要数年时间，并可能影响营运及增加开销。
“这意味著政府可能需要从其他项目中转移资金或进一步提高税收，并造成重大的经济影响。政府也还需要从其他关键公共服务部门重新分配人力或雇用新员工来资助和营运这些医院。”
严格监管 才是上策
另一方面，蔡裕廉提到，医疗费上涨问题，可能由其他原因所造成，与医院上市没有有显著的相关性，因此需要更全面的解决方案，而不是索性禁止私人医院上市。
他建议，与其全面禁止私人医院上市，实施严格的监管来确保病人福利和成本控制，可以让医院获得必要的资金，同时维护公众利益。
“与国有化相比，加强监管框架来控制医疗成本和提高透明度可能是更有效的策略。对特定医疗手续实施收费上限，是解决通胀问题，也不像私有化过程般复杂。”
他还说，透过强制揭露提高医疗收费透明度，也可以进一步鼓励竞争，让消费者向私立医院施加压力。
针对政府是否应该以身作则不参与“牟利”，而全面脱售在医疗集团的持股，蔡裕廉认为政府继续持股的利大于弊。
政府发挥制衡作用
他称，政府的控制权也可以发挥制衡作用，在医疗保健定价和过度的盈利驱动动机之间取得平衡。
“如果政府将两大医疗集团（IHH医疗集团和柔佛医疗保健），全面转售给私人界，可能导致这些公司更加商业化，加剧医疗通胀的风险。”
蔡裕廉补充，两大医疗集团在国内外的表现是有目共睹的，而这得益于政府关联资金的支持。
因此，倘若全面脱售，国库控股（Khazanah）等以回报为导向的基金也将受到影响。
“我相信政府在维持良好的商业和经济生态方面，可发挥著至关重要的作用，同时又不损害国家的医疗保健目标。”
(Kuala Lumpur, 24th) Member of Parliament, Sim Tze Tzin, previously suggested that the government should ban private hospitals from going for Initial Public Offering (IPO) and privatising government-linked hospital companies to better address the issue of rapidly rising medical costs. However, market experts believe that these measures may not be effective and could lead to other problems.
Sim Tze Tzin stated in early March that Malaysia should follow South Korea’s model of banning hospital listings because privately listed hospitals are more focused on profitability and thus charge patients with high medical fees.
Blocking competition is counterproductive
In an interview with Oriental Daily, Mr. Chua Zhu Lian, Group Managing Director of Vision Group, a business consulting and investment services firm, expressed his views on the proposal. He suggested that banning hospital listings to control medical costs may ultimately backfire.
Chua acknowledged that the intention behind Sim’s proposal to manage medical costs is commendable, but he believes the proposal presents a complex and significant challenge.
He pointed out that banning private hospitals from listing and nationalising hospitals may create a negative impact by stifling competition. This might not be an effective way to control rising medical costs.
“If the government restricts hospitals’ ability to raise funds through IPOs, it will become more difficult for hospitals to maintain or acquire the latest medical equipment, drugs, and talent, which are crucial for expanding the scope of medical services,” he said.
He further stated that the business model of private hospitals is profit-driven, which in turn boosts efficiency and innovation.
Additionally, Chua argued that nationalising companies like IHH Healthcare Group (IHH, 5225, Main Board) and KPJ Healthcare (KPJ, 5878, Main Board) would add additional financial burdens to the Government. The integration would also take years and might affect operations and increase costs.
“This means that the government may need to divert funds from other projects or raise taxes, which would have a significant economic impact. The government would also need to reallocate human resources from other key public services or hire new human resources / human capital to fund and operate these hospitals,” he added.
Stricter Regulations as a Better Solution
On the other hand, Chua pointed out that the rising medical costs might stem from other causes, which are not necessarily linked to hospital listings. Therefore, he believes a more comprehensive solution is needed rather than outright banning private hospital listings.
He suggested that, instead of a total ban on private hospital IPOs, implementing strict regulations to ensure patient welfare and cost control would allow hospitals to obtain the necessary funding while safeguarding public interest.
“Compared to nationalisation of existing publicly listed private hospitals, strengthening regulatory frameworks to control medical costs and increase transparency could be a more effective strategy. Imposing caps on certain medical procedure charges is a way to address medial inflation without the complexity of privatisation,” he suggested.
He also mentioned that mandatory disclosures of medical fees to improve the transparency in medical fees could further encourage competition, letting consumers to exert more pressure on private hospitals.
Regarding whether the government should set an example in disengaging profit-making activities in hospitals by divesting from these private hospitals, Chua believes that the government holding a significant stake has more pros than cons.
The Government’s Role in Balance
He stated that government control could serve as a check and balance, finding a balance between healthcare pricing and excessive profit motives.
“If the government fully sold its stakes in IHH and KPJ, these companies might become more commercial-driven, thus exacerbating the risk of medical inflation,” he said.
Chua added that the performance of the two healthcare groups, both domestically and internationally, speaks for itself, and this success is due to the support from government-linked funds.
Therefore, if the government fully divests, funds like Khazanah, which are return-oriented, would also be impacted.
“I believe the government plays a crucial role in maintaining a healthy business and economic ecosystem while not undermining the country’s healthcare goals,” he concluded.