Writing pages (3): common questions, treatment facts and risk pages

5.9 ⑥ One question, one page: Medisave-type questions

What you'll do in this section: Give each high-frequency question about MediSave, CHAS and similar schemes its own page (one question, one page), with the first sentence giving a straight Yes/No or a number. Keep the regulation section and the price section apart: this page carries only the regulation section, and the final tax-inclusive price stays on the single-service price page. When you're done, you'll have a regulation-section template you can fill in as it stands, and you won't get into trouble by squeezing both sections onto the same screen.

What the figure cannot show: why the clinic's own price does not go on this page. Putting the official figure and the clinic's own price side by side in the same table is banned by Statute text (see Appendix A.1), and by default the two do not appear even in the paragraphs directly above or below each other [Conservative line (not statute text)]; the short version of this page type has only a few paragraphs to begin with, so two sections on the same page are hard to keep truly apart. For how to judge this, see chapter 1, 1.3.

Dental-specific approach:

1. The answer is general information, not a diagnosis for a specific patient. If the question contains any word for a symptom or complication, do not use this page type; switch to the 5.11 clinical skeleton instead.
2. For subsidy figures such as MediSave and CHAS, check them word for word against the official CPF and MOH pages, and note the check date on the page.
3. The regulation section states the table number and the check date; not a single one of the clinic's prices appears inside it, and it does not sit next to the clinic's own-price section.
4. The brand name appears only in the own-price section, and that section states only the final tax-inclusive price and the mandatory inclusions. Until you have settled how to keep the two sections apart, put the whole own-price section on the single-service price page and leave only one link to it on this page (Conservative line (not statute text)). Do not link to vendor pages.

Example (dental) An official CPF page answers the question whether MediSave can be used for dental implants, with the H1 "Can I use MediSave to pay for my dental implant?": the H1 matches the buyer's original wording, and the answer section runs three sentences — first Yes with the condition attached, then the claim limit, and the last sentence is a worked example. Both AI legs cited this passage.

See → General Edition 5.17 One question, one page (pt06) for the general-edition approach.

5.10 ⑦ Eligibility and process page: can I have it, how many visits, how long

What you'll do in this section: Write the H1 as a task-style statement, and put the spec strip first and the step table after it; write eligibility conditions as "to be judged by the treating doctor after an examination", and state duration only as how long the procedure itself takes. When you're done, you'll have an eligibility and process page template that never hands the reader a self-diagnosis.

What the figure cannot show: why the first cell on the left cannot stay. Writing the eligibility conditions as a checklist the reader can test themselves against is the same as letting the reader diagnose themselves. That is a safety issue, not a style preference.

Outside the figure, one more point: state only the final tax-inclusive price; where it can only be fixed after an examination, write "to be determined after examination". Do not link to vendor pages; government pages may be linked.

Example (dental) Sample wording, not a measured original sentence. Own sentence: "At <clinic>, a single implant without bone grafting takes 2 surgeries and 4–6 months from placement to the final crown; whether bone grafting is needed is decided by the treating dentist after reviewing the CBCT." Market sentence: "In Singapore, a single implant generally takes 3–9 months, depending on bone volume, whether an extraction is needed first, and healing time."

See → General Edition 5.18 Eligibility and process page (pt07) for the general-edition approach.

5.11 ⑧ Remedy and second-opinion page: the clinical skeleton

What you'll do in this section: Lay out the blocks by the clinical skeleton — safety first, causes after — and do not move a single block out of order. Write the subject as the patient's situation, assign no blame, state no rescue rate, and put no CTA after the red-flag section. When you're done, you'll have a remedy-page template you can hand straight to the medical reviewer for written sign-off and launch.

The cited sample for this type is only 2 pages (n = 2); treat the basis for the blueprint as a small sample.

The exception the figure cannot show: the H1 may neutrally mention where earlier treatment was done (for example, "including implants placed at another clinic"); what's banned is only assigning blame, disparaging another clinic, and unproven claims of failure. For the fixed public-facing wording, see chapter 4, 4.2.

Dental-specific approach:

1. Do not move a single block out of order: what to do now → three levels of red flag → what you should not judge yourself → the examination process → possible pathways (the first time "cause" appears on the whole page) → itemised fees → complaints and regulatory channels → author bio and References. When AI answers this type of question itself, it puts safety first 2 times out of 2 — order the page this way to match.
2. Use these exact table headers: red flags If you notice / Do this / How soon; pathways If the assessment finds / Possible pathway / Who does it; indications and contraindications May be suitable / Not suitable; triggers and prevention Trigger / Why It Matters / Prevention Step.
3. State the final tax-inclusive price for the check-up and CBCT; write the treatment fee as "to be determined in writing after the examination" — never dress up a range as a final price. Do not link to vendor pages.
4. Before the page goes live, the medical-accuracy reviewer gives a written sign-off. A written sign-off resolves only the three stop-and-escalate situations; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable. Before-and-after photos, for one, cannot go back on the page even with a sign-off (see chapter 1, 1.1; see Appendix A.1, A.2).

Example (dental) Sample wording, not a measured original sentence. Own sentence: "At <clinic>, an implant review + CBCT costs S$___ (incl. GST); any treatment fee is determined in writing after this examination." Market sentence: "In Singapore, a problem implant is generally treated by salvage, removal and replacement, or a different restoration, depending on infection, bone loss and whether the implant is still stable." Both cited pages carry close to 0 numbers across the whole page; they rely on conditions and indications instead.

Besides the last row in the figure (that's a safety issue, not a formatting one), the most common mistake is a page using multiple H1s: one of the cited-sample pages marked TL;DR, FAQ and CTA all as H1. A page is allowed only one H1.

See → General Edition 5.19 Remedy and second-opinion page (pt08) for the general-edition approach.

5.12 ⑫ Definition page: MedicalWebPage

What you'll do in this section: Nail down the reviewer line, the six fixed H2 blocks and the schema — all three. Write every H3 as the buyer's original question, and the first sentence under each one must be a conditional "if … then …" sentence: AI can write the definition itself; what it goes online to find is the conditions. When you're done, you'll have a definition-page template that passes compliance review.

What the figure cannot show: why the "Recovery" block is where you are most likely to cross the line. It is one of the fixed H2 blocks the medical version must have, and it runs straight into the banned item "recovery time" in chapter 1, 1.5. This block holds only the original text and aftercare instructions quoted word for word from the IFU / NEA, with the source marked; do not write a recovery time in the clinic's own words (Conservative line (not statute text)). Handle the "how long to recover" sentence in the first-screen summary the same way. See 5.15 for the full approach.

Dental-specific approach:

1. The reviewer line is mandatory, placed above the H1: named doctor + SDC/SMC registration number + month and year.
2. The medical version has six fixed H2 blocks, in this order, not to be changed: Overview, Procedure Details, Risks and Benefits, Recovery, When to See a Doctor, Doctor's Note.
3. Use the MedicalWebPage + Person (reviewer) schema.
4. Align the risk section item by item with the IFU / NEA original text and mark the source; handle the "Recovery" block the same way — see the previous paragraph.
5. Do not state a success rate, and do not use superlatives such as "most advanced".

Example (dental) A hospital's bone-grafting definition page was copied 10 times, every time landing on the first sentence under an H3 question, and every one a conditional sentence — not once was the first-screen summary copied.

See → General Edition 5.23 Tier-B questions and rules types (1): regulatory obligations, definitions for the general-edition approach.

5.13 ⑬ Procedure steps, ⑭ preparation lists and ⑯ schedule pages

What you'll do in this section: All three types are pure fact pages — write one page each for steps, the checklist and the dates, with no efficacy adjectives mixed in anywhere. When you're done, you'll have three page skeletons you can fill in directly, where the time field states only how long the process takes, never when the results arrive.

Step-by-step procedure page (pt13)

Dental-specific approach:

1. State time frames only as how long the process takes, never as when results show up: the regulator lists claims like "straight teeth in 2 weeks" directly as soliciting (Statute text; see Appendix A). Writing that into the step table is the same as slipping a results promise into a facts field.
2. Keep the application steps for official subsidies in their own section, not mixed in with ordinary visit steps.

Preparation and bring-list page (pt14)

Dental-specific approach:

1. This is the second-safest page type in the industry, after the store/branch page — the whole page is factual items, with no price or efficacy content.
2. Three ways to lay it out, ranked by how copyable they are: grouped by who the reader is > grouped by timing > a one-page PDF with checkboxes. Prefer the one ranked higher.
3. Do not use efficacy adjectives such as "painless" or "quick recovery".

Example (dental) A national dental centre's pre-treatment preparation page had 3 items copied by AI — arrange for someone to take you home if you're having sedation or general anaesthesia; bring your NRIC, referral letter and Medisave-related documents; call ahead if you have upper respiratory symptoms such as fever or cough — AI laid the answer out directly as checkboxes, one checkbox per page item.

Schedule and deadline page (pt16)

Dental-specific approach:

1. State appointment windows and follow-up intervals only as how long the process takes, never as when results happen.

See → General Edition 5.24 Tier-B questions and rules types (2): procedure steps, preparation lists for the general-edition approach to the step-by-step procedure page and the preparation list page; see → General Edition 5.25 Tier-B questions and rules types (3): schedules, collected FAQ, policy hubs, change notices, misconceptions for the schedule page.

5.14 ㉒ Collected FAQ page: the most useful page for dental and aesthetics

What you'll do in this section: Turn ten real questions about the brand's services into one page — one block per question, 40–80 words per answer, the conclusion in the first sentence, and a footnoted source for every key number. When you're done, you'll have the most useful page type for regulated clinics, where a single URL can feed several citations at once.

What the figure cannot show: this type can be built on the regulated sides, and it's the most useful one for regulated clients (measured sample); but an FAQ is not an exempt zone: every answer sentence still goes through the banned-word list in chapter 1, 1.5.

Dental-specific approach:

1. Scale claims such as "2 million cases worldwide" go up only after passing the six checks for numbers; see → General Edition 5.10 Shared parts for all page types: six checks for numbers, no public price, billing units, dates and schema for how.
2. Align the side-effects section item by item with the IFU / NEA original text — no softening, no omissions; see 5.15 for how. The "Pain" and "Recovery" blocks hold only the side-effects text and aftercare instructions quoted word for word from the IFU / NEA, with the source marked; do not write a pain level or recovery time in the clinic's own words (Conservative line (not statute text)).
3. Do not write "free consultation".

Example (aesthetics) On an aesthetic clinic's FAQ page, 3 of the 7 citations in a single answer came from this page, copied respectively from its what-it-is, pain and recovery question-and-answer blocks — one page supplied three fragments.

See → General Edition 5.25 Tier-B questions and rules types (3): schedules, collected FAQ, policy hubs, change notices, misconceptions for the general-edition approach.

5.15 ㉜ Regulatory document alignment page: side-effect sections for aesthetic devices

What you'll do in this section: Align the side-effects section item by item with the regulatory document's original text and mark the source, in the fixed format "Per <document> (<version>): 'original text'". Link only to government sources; for vendor documents, state only the document name and version. When you're done, you'll have a side-effects section that can stand next to the regulatory document, without the compliance risk of writing a softer version than the original.

What the figure cannot show: why writing it "softer" is actually more dangerous — for claims about efficacy and side effects, AI trusts only the regulator's wording, not the clinic's own account. A softer version you write yourself won't get cited, and being inconsistent with the regulator's wording is itself a compliance risk. The cited regulatory documents come in three formats: an IFU relay page with only 30 words of body text and three PDF links; an NEA educational page written in four blocks (what the device is / who can operate it / what adverse reactions it has / how long they take to ease); and an FDA 510(k) filing that lists indications item by item — all three were cited.

Outside the figure, two more points:

1. On the "don't link to vendor pages" cell: for dental pages this is Statute text (SDC 5.4.6, last paragraph; see Appendix A.2). That rule only governs dentists; on aesthetic pages the practitioner is a doctor, and Appendix A has no equivalent original sentence on the doctors' side (the original SMC ECEG document was not opened), so for aesthetic pages this cell is treated as Original text not obtained (still no vendor links; see 1.1).
2. Aesthetic devices fall under HSA, matching switch C (regulated products); see 0.2 for how that's decided. Of the 46 page types, dental clinics do not build the case-law page; in healthcare, this page is its equivalent (see 0.3).

Example (aesthetics) The side-effects sentence on NEA's page about high-intensity focused ultrasound devices, which lists pain, swelling, bruising, tingling and erythema during or after treatment as mostly temporary and easing in about a week (paraphrased), was carried almost verbatim into the AI's answer.

See → General Edition 5.28 Tier-B primary sources (1): legislation, regulator guidance, official replies, device documents, case law for the general-edition approach.