Health minister: Singapore to raise first-time blood donor age limit to 65 from 2026
SINGAPORE, June 29 — From January 1, 2026, the age limit for first-time blood donors in Singapore will be raised from 60 to 65, Health Minister Ong Ye Kung announced yesterday.
According to Channel News Asia (CNA), Ong said the move aims to expand the donor pool amid rising demand and an ageing population.
He also said the decision reflects longer life expectancy and data showing fewer adverse reactions among older donors.
'There is no reason to believe that once you cross 60 years old, suddenly the adverse reaction prevalence rate is going to shoot up,' he reportedly said at a World Blood Donor Day event yesterday.
Singapore's new limit brings it in line with countries such as the United Kingdom and South Korea. Currently, only repeat donors can give blood beyond age 60, if they meet health criteria.
The country's blood supply remains under pressure, with new donor numbers falling and demand increasing — over 35,000 patients required transfusions in 2023.
Seasonal dips and past critical shortages, especially in Group O blood, have also posed challenges.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Can the Democrats Be Losing to These Cruel, Stupid, Inept People?
Senate Republicans have no 'big, beautiful' bill. It isn't close to finalized. The Senate parliamentarian, combing through the details and determining which provisions will need a supermajority to pass, is hammering them. They're locked in ferocious internal debate about the cuts to Medicaid. They haven't held a single hearing on the bill in any committee. And they say they're going to start voting on it tomorrow. Even worse is the complete hypocrisy of the thing, which has been true of every Republican tax bill going back to 1981. Ever since Arthur Laffer sold the GOP on his ridiculous curve, they've been lying to the American people about how their tax cuts will produce more revenue. It has never happened. Ever. Some of the dumber Republicans may believe this, but the smarter ones know Laffer's theory is a lie, and they say it anyway. And so we watch as Senate Republicans argue about the degree to which they want to destroy Medicaid. You've been reading and hearing about this, I'm sure, and you may even have become familiar with the phrase 'provider tax.' Journalistic shorthand usually does a poor job of explaining what that actually is. Bear with me for this brief explanation, because it makes clear how cruel and deliberate these cuts are. Health care services that are reimbursed by Medicaid are, well, provided by a range of different 'providers.' Chief among these are hospitals, but the category also includes nursing homes, other long-term care facilities, doctors, physical therapists, even chiropractors: all sorts of people. But the big money revolves around hospitals, and specifically rural hospitals, which rely heavily on Medicaid dollars because they are poorer on balance than other hospitals. They tend to be run on a nonprofit basis. They are less likely than urban or suburban hospitals to have commercial insurance, and they're more dependent on Medicaid revenue because their client base tends to be poorer. There are about 1,800 rural hospitals in the United States. Here's a map. OK. Starting in the 1980s, during an earlier funding crisis, Congress allowed states to start taxing providers. In many states (this gets very complicated, and I'm not going to go into it that deeply), the cap on the tax that states can charge hospitals is 6 percent of the patient revenue money (it's called the 'safe harbor maximum' in wonkspeak). The Senate bill seeks to lower this cap over a few years to 3.5 percent. To make a long story short, when you reduce a tax, you reduce the amount of revenue it brings in. It's also worth bearing in mind here that Medicaid reimbursements rarely cover the cost of care to begin with, so these cuts will make an already dire situation much worse. Governors and state legislatures will be staring at a quite substantial reduction in Medicaid tax revenue. They will then be faced with three choices: one, raise some other sort of tax; two, cut some other state service, like education; three, cut Medicaid services. As congressional Republicans well know, most states are going to choose number three, because it's the easiest path. And that brings devastation. If you want to see why Republican Senator Thom Tillis is so freaked out, click on that map above and zoom in on his state, North Carolina. You'll see in detail how many rural hospitals there are operating at a loss, and how many have already closed. So this is what Republicans are debating—and deliberately and dishonestly telling the American people that it's a simple case of cutting 'waste, fraud, and abuse,' as if they have no choice in the matter. It's a monstrous lie. They have a choice. But of course it's a choice they'll never make. What is that choice? They could, in theory, reduce the tax cuts to the rich. The problem would be instantly solved. The proposed Medicaid cuts come to around $800 billion. The cost of making the 2017 income tax cuts permanent is around $2.2 trillion. So in other words, canceling the tax cuts would more than cover the proposed Medicaid cuts. In fact, the Republicans could leave nearly two-thirds of the tax cuts intact, and just pare them back, and leave Medicaid untouched. In a fantasy world, they could, dare I say it, eliminate the tax cuts altogether. They'd have $2.2 trillion to play with, and they could expand rural health care—you know, actually do something of substance for all the people who vote for them, besides scaring them into thinking that Democrats want to steal their guns and neuter their children. But you notice: No one ever, ever, ever discusses the tax cuts. No one. None of the, ahem, moderates—not Senator Susan Collins, not Representative Mike Lawler (at least that I've heard). Tax cuts aren't written in ink and on paper, to Republicans. They're written in lightning on tablets from Mount Sinai. They cannot be discussed. And these aren't just your usual, run-of-the-mill GOP tax cuts. They're worse. They're the most redistributive tax cuts in modern American history, and by redistributive, I don't mean from the top down. I mean to the top from the rest of us. Here are a few facts about the House's version of the bill, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, or ITEP: The richest 1 percent of Americans would receive a total of $121 billion in net tax cuts in 2026. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers on the income scale, a group that is 20 times the size of the richest 1 percent, would receive less than half that much: $56 billion in tax cuts that year. The $121 billion in net tax cuts going to the richest 1 percent next year would exceed the amount going to the entire bottom 60 percent of taxpayers (about $79 billion). The poorest fifth of Americans would receive less than 1 percent of the bill's net tax cuts in 2026, while the richest fifth of Americans would receive 70 percent. The richest 5 percent alone would receive 45 percent of the net tax cuts that year. There's a lot more. The richest 1 percent ($916,900 and above) will get an average cut of $68,430, or 2.5 percent. The poorest 20 percent (up to $27,000) will get a whopping cut of $30, or 0.2 percent. In percentage terms, the cut for the rich is 10 times the cut for the poor. But wait—incredibly, it gets worse. ITEP estimates that when you throw in the costs of Donald Trump's tariff proposals, the net impact on the bottom 20 percent will be a tax increase of 2.2 percent. The tariffs aren't finalized, of course, so we can't really know the hard number, but as a general rule, tariffs cost poorer people more since they're spending a far higher percentage of their income on imported necessities. The whole thing is just a disgrace. A policy disgrace. A moral disgrace. Rural hospitals will close, and working-class people will die so that Trump's golf buddies can get tax cuts of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The American people don't know all the above facts and figures, but they do seem to know in their bones that this bill is a heist. It's deeply unpopular. But even so, the Democrats could be doing much more here. Why don't they fan out across the country one day next month and have events at money-losing rural hospitals that face potential closure? Back in the spring, when they did those anti-DOGE events in Republican districts, it seemed to have an impact. At least they were visibly doing something. There are rural hospitals in every state. Democrats could do a lot worse than to try to show rural Americans that they care. But it's like Jon Lovitz, playing Michael Dukakis, said on Saturday Night Live back in 1988: I can't believe we're losing to these guys. If Democrats were more aggressive, this bill would kill Republicans off in 2026 and 2028. It's that cruel, it's that stupid, it's that inept. Democrats need to find dramatic ways of saying so. This article first appeared in Fighting Words, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by editor Michael Tomasky. Sign up here.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
G.O.P. Bill Has $1.1 Trillion in Health Cuts and 11.8 Million Losing Care, C.B.O. Says
Republicans' marquee domestic policy bill that is making its way through the Senate would result in deeper cuts and more Americans losing health insurance coverage than the original measure that passed the House last month, according to new estimates from the Congressional Budget Office. According to a report published late Saturday night, the legislation would mean 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034. Federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare would be reduced by more than $1.1 trillion over that period — with more than $1 trillion of those cuts coming from Medicaid alone. The fresh estimates make official what many analysts had already predicted and some Republican lawmakers had feared. The size and scope of the health care cuts in the bill, particularly from Medicaid, have been hotly debated, with fiscal hawks pressing for bigger reductions and other Republicans resisting them as they consider the impact on their constituents and health providers in their districts and states. They are also at odds with President Trump's vow not to touch Medicaid except to do away with waste and fraud. The scale of the proposed reductions in Medicaid is unprecedented in the history of the program, which has tended to expand coverage over time since its creation in 1965. The cuts in the bill are achieved through numerous provisions, but the bulk of the Medicaid savings come from two big features. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US supreme court ruling sets stage for more politicized science under RFK Jr
A US supreme court decision affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare sets the stage for more politicized science in the future, health law experts said about the court's decision. The court's majority opinion in Kennedy v Braidwood Management found that an expert panel – the preventive services taskforce – convened under the Affordable Care Act is under the direct oversight of the health secretary. 'This is your classic good news, bad news,' said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown Law. 'In a sane world, with a secretary of health that believes in science and doesn't bring in conspiracy theories and agendas, you would applaud this decision.' With health policy now in the hands of the Trump administration, 'it gives Secretary [Robert F Kennedy Jr] complete power about what to recommend and what not to recommend,' Gostin said. The court issued the opinion only hours after an expert vaccine advisory panel (ACIP) handpicked by Kennedy subverted the scientific consensus by recommending against vaccines containing thimerosal, a preservative overwhelmingly considered safe. Thimerosal has been a subject of misinformation and anti-vaccine advocacy for decades. Much like the expert panel in question in the Braidwood case, the recommendations of the vaccine advisory committee are a key link in the treatment distribution pipeline. Recommendations from both panels are typically affirmed by the leadership of the health department, and then become the basis on which insurers base coverage decisions. In the case of the ACIP, those recommendations typically concern vaccines. In the preventive taskforce context, they include a wide range of treatments – from statins to cancer screenings to HIV prevention. It was widely recognized that Kennedy had the authority to hire and fire people for the vaccine panel – but legal controversy existed about whether health secretaries have the same power over the preventive services taskforce. 'The president and the Senate are accountable 'for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one',' wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the six-vote majority. In other words, the court said, if you don't like it, go to the ballot box. MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate professor of health law management at the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, told the Guardian: 'We have that structure in place – and that is a really great structure if the folks in charge are actually deferring to the experts and the science and what the evidence says.' She added: 'To the extent that we are going to make decisions based on bad science – that has really serious public health implications.' The panel at the center of the vaccine decision is the ACIP vaccine panel. Until June, the advisory panel was made up of 17 experts vetted by CDC career scientists. Their recommendations, while not binding, were almost always approved by CDC leadership. Kennedy fired all 17 members unilaterally in June and stocked the panel with eight ideological allies – including vaccine skeptics and medical professionals with little experience in vaccines. One panelist withdrew after a government financial review, and after it was widely publicized that the secretary's claims about the panelist's affiliation with two universities was false. Wayne Turner, a senior attorney for the National Health Law Program, which advocates for the medically underserved, said that he and others were 'certainly breathing a sigh of relief with the court's decision today' because a key provision of Obamacare was found to be constitutional. 'But that sigh of relief is really short-lived,' Turner said. 'We have long anticipated with the appointment of RFK Jr, and certainly with his actions with the ACIP, that we can fully expect the preventive services taskforce to be the next battleground in the ideological war this administration seems to be waging. And the war is against science.' The subject of the Braidwood case provides a salient example. Plaintiffs were suing the government to claim that the taskforce was wrongly appointed. Although their legal argument was thorny, one treatment they specifically cited as wrong was insurance coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV prevention drug. Although the plaintiffs' claim that the taskforce was unconstitutional was swatted down, it provides activists with a roadmap to get what they want – if they can convince Kennedy to appoint more ideological allies to the taskforce. The preventive services taskforce may have one protective mechanism: a requirement that they be guided by evidence written into Obamacare, the legislation that impaneled them. Gearing up for another fight, Turner said: 'That's going to be an important thing for us to point to in the weeks and months ahead, and years, quite frankly.'
