In Malaysia, the recent announcement of medical insurance premium hikes ranging from 40% to 70% for 2025 has sparked widespread concern, primarily due to rising private hospital costs. Policyholders, such as Hamidi and Safie Wahab, have expressed frustration over the steep increases, with some contemplating terminating their medical insurance plans. Bayan Baru MP. Sim Tze Tzin and other lawmakers have called on the government to investigate the hikes, which have placed additional strain on the already overwhelmed public healthcare system.
The Association of Private Hospitals Malaysia (APHM) defended the hikes, citing the need for more significant funding for comprehensive medical coverage and escalating operational costs. However, APHM acknowledged that such price increases could lead to a decline in policyholders and an inevitable rise in demand for public healthcare. In response, Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) instructed insurance providers to reconsider their pricing strategies, suggesting staggered increases and introducing more affordable medical insurance plans.
Despite these steps, consumer groups have strongly criticised the hikes, calling for more stringent regulation of private hospital charges and insurance premiums to ease the financial burden on Malaysians. Many argued for better comprehensive coverage, especially for critical illnesses, and demanded measures to ensure medical treatment remains accessible.
Timeline Of Public Engagement In Premium Hike
The public response to the announcement of the premium hikes on 26 November 2024 was swift, with engagements on social media peaking on that day. This surge in reactions demonstrates the level of concern the public had about the increasing premiums and the growing financial burden on policyholders.
Peak Engagement: A Surge In Public Attention
The peak engagement occurred on 26 November 2024, when the insurance premium hikes were announced. Massively 10,126 engagements were recorded across multiple platforms, marking the height of public concern. This surge reflects the intensity of the issue and its impact on a wide range of Malaysians, from everyday citizens to lawmakers and consumer advocates. The primary concern revolved around the unjustifiably high premiums, the challenges of affording comprehensive medical plans, and the burden they place on individuals, especially those with pre-existing health conditions or lower incomes.
Post-Peak Engagement Decline
While engagement remained high in the days following 26 November 2024, it decreased as the initial shock began to wear off. The steady decline in discussions indicated that the immediate response had passed, but the issue still loomed large in public debate.
Channel Volume: Volume & Engagement Across Platforms
Facebook was the dominant platform, accounting for 40.9% of the engagements, reflecting its role in public discussions. The ability to post long-form content and participate in groups meant that users could contribute meaningful opinions about critical illness insurance and medical care.
With 37.8% of engagements, Instagram served as a platform for younger users who shared posts, comments, and memes regarding the hikes. Instagram’s visual nature made it a hotspot for creative campaigns calling for policy changes.
YouTube had 21.3% of engagements, where longer videos discussing the implications of the hikes gained traction. Influencers and thought leaders in the healthcare and finance sectors used the platform to present facts and share opinions, such as insufficient annual limits, helping to elevate public awareness.
Online Media contributed the least, with only 9 engagements, which may indicate that the conversation was mainly happening on interactive and social platforms rather than traditional media outlets.
Word Cloud: Key Themes in Public Sentiment
The word cloud analysis of public sentiment highlighted the core concerns surrounding the healthcare and insurance premium hikes. Prominent terms included “cost,” “hospital,” and “premium,” all of which pointed to the growing financial strain Malaysians are facing. A significant portion of the conversation revolved around “government,” “regulation,” and “BNM,” as the public demanded increased oversight and intervention from Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM). The words “claim” and “coverage” pointed to frustrations regarding the insurance sector’s inadequate coverage and complicated claims processes. Meanwhile, “swasta” (private) reflected criticisms of the profit-driven nature of private healthcare providers, and terms like “tinggi,” “high,” and “increase” underscored the escalating costs, with “sesuka hati” capturing the public’s frustration with arbitrary pricing.
Social Sentiment: Public Outcry Reflected in Key Topics
The sentiment analysis conducted on netizen comments regarding the insurance premium hikes for 2025 reveals a predominantly adverse reaction, with 89% of comments expressing dissatisfaction and frustration over the rising costs. Only 11% of the sentiment was neutral, indicating a cautious openness towards alternative solutions, such as national health insurance and co-pay schemes, though uncertainty remains about their implementation.
The 89% negative sentiment underscores the public’s discontent with the premium hikes and the broader state of private healthcare and insurance in Malaysia. This overwhelmingly negative response points to the deep frustration felt by consumers who believe the current system is unaffordable and lacks sufficient regulation. The neutral sentiment focuses on cautiously supporting potential reforms, yet many still question how such changes could be implemented without further complications.
1. Criticism of Private Hospitals Overcharging (22%)
A significant 22% of the comments focused on the overcharging by private hospitals, with many Malaysians expressing frustration over the escalating healthcare costs in these facilities. They felt that private hospitals had become increasingly profit-driven, charging excessively for essential services like consultations, diagnostic tests, and hospital stays. There was widespread dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency in pricing, with many patients encountering unexpected medical bills. The public also criticised the private hospitals for prioritising financial gains over providing quality care, contributing to the growing financial strain on policyholders and patients.
2. Call for Government Regulation (16%)
16% of the netizen comments were centred around the call for government regulation. Many people demanded that the government take a more active role in overseeing the healthcare and insurance sectors, as they were dissatisfied with the rising costs and unfair practices in the private healthcare system. The public called for more apparent oversight and greater accountability from private hospitals and insurance companies. This sentiment reflected a desire for greater transparency in pricing, fairer premiums, and more stringent regulations to prevent the exploitation of consumers.
3. General Criticism of the Madani Government (13%)
13% of the comments were directed at the Madani government, with critics arguing that the government had failed to address the rising costs of healthcare and insurance premiums effectively. Despite promises of reform, many Malaysians believed that the government had not done enough to tackle the financial burden placed on citizens. There was significant frustration with the lack of action on regulating private hospitals and insurance companies, leading to disillusionment with the government’s ability to enact meaningful change in the healthcare system.
4. Criticism of Insurance Companies Profiting (12%)
12% of the sentiment focused on insurance companies profiting at the expense of consumers. Many netizens felt that insurance companies were exploiting the public by raising premiums without offering corresponding improvements in coverage. There was a strong perception that insurers were more interested in making profits than in protecting the welfare of policyholders. This sentiment reflected widespread distrust in the insurance sector, with many demanding greater transparency in how premiums were set and more fair pricing models.
5. Concerns Over Premium Affordability (11%)
11% of the comments raised concerns over the affordability of premiums. As insurance premiums continued to rise, especially for comprehensive critical illness coverage, many Malaysians, especially those in the B40 and M40 income groups, expressed concern about their ability to afford adequate health coverage. The increasing costs of premiums were seen as a financial burden, with many people fearing that they would be forced to cancel their policies or go without coverage, leaving them vulnerable to a medical emergency. This issue underscored the public’s demand for more affordable insurance options accommodating all income levels.
6. Comparison with Government Hospitals (9%)
9% of the comments focused on comparing private hospitals with government hospitals, with many netizens expressing a preference for public healthcare due to its lower costs. While public hospitals offered more affordable services, there were frustrations over long waiting times and overcrowding in these facilities. Despite the affordable care provided by government hospitals, the quality of service was often questioned, leading some to opt for private healthcare despite the higher costs. This highlighted the complex relationship between affordability and quality of care in the healthcare sector.
7. Proposals for National Health Insurance (8%)
8% of the comments supported the idea of a national health insurance system, which they believed could provide universal coverage for all Malaysians. Many Malaysians felt that a national health insurance scheme could make healthcare more accessible and affordable, especially for those who could not afford private insurance. This sentiment indicated a growing interest in a public healthcare system ensuring basic health coverage for all citizens, irrespective of income. However, there were concerns about the feasibility of such a system and whether it would be able to meet the diverse needs of the population.
8. Highlighting Inefficiencies in Private Hospitals (6%)
Despite their high fees, 6% of the comments pointed to the inefficiencies within private hospitals. Many patients felt that the quality of service in private facilities did not justify the high costs. Complaints included long waiting times, understaffing, and perceived poor management in some private hospitals. These inefficiencies were seen as exacerbating the public’s dissatisfaction with the high charges at private hospitals, contributing to the perception that private healthcare providers were not living up to the expectations set by their premium prices.
9. Support for Co-Pay Schemes and Alternative Models (3%)
Finally, 3% of the comments supported co-pay schemes and other alternative insurance models, which are potential solutions to the rising healthcare costs. Co-pay schemes, where patients share the cost of medical expenses with insurance companies, were viewed as a way to reduce the financial burden of rising premiums while still providing access to essential healthcare services. There was also support for alternative models, such as community-based insurance schemes or health savings accounts. However, these ideas are still emerging, and there needs to be more certainty about their effectiveness in addressing the broader healthcare crisis.
