Healthcare Expenditure
in the Philippines
Toche Vic B. Doce
Reporter
Doctor of Public Administration Program
PA 324 Adv. Public Finance and Corp Mgt.
Capiz State University Pontevedra, Capiz
Healthcare System of
Philippines
Healthcare Governance structure
A decentralized health delivery system
DOH-apex regulatory authority
Develop national plans, technical standards
and healthcare guidelines for all Filipinos.
LGUs and Private sector agencies-act as
adjuncts
CHDs (Centers for Health Department)
RHUs (Rural Health Units)-exist in every
municipality to improve access to
healthcare
Pyramidal organization structure for
the three levels of healthcare
National
Health
Services
Regional Health
Services
District Health
Services
Rural(Local
Hospital)Services
RHUs
Barangay Health Stations
Tertiary care
Secondary care
Primary care
Primary level of healthcare
Serves as the foundation of healthcare
based upon which progressive levels of
care are restructured.
Function of primary health workers at 3
levels:a)Village or grass root health worker
b)Intermediate level health worker
c)First line hospital personnel
Health outcomes
In a state of double disease burden
Communicable diseases are the major
causes of morbidity and mortality in
Philippines. Morbidity rate in communicable
diseases-42.8 /100,000 population(2009)
Morbidity Rate in Non Communicable
Diseases-90.4/100,000 population.(2009)
Maternal mortality rate(MMR)-94
deaths/100,000 live births(2009)
Unlikely for Philippines to accomplish
targets for 2015 MDG
Healthcare budget
Low efficiency in health spending.
Health expenditure- 3.8% of GDP
Tax funding system adopted by
Department of Finance and Internal
Revenue Allotment in case of Local
Governments.
three major groups of healthcare payers:
(i) national and local governments, (ii)
social health insurance, (iii) private
sources.
Health expenditure outlay
Private
Expenditure
59.1%
Social
Out Of
Insurance
Pocket Expenditure
Expenditure
Government
Government Expenditure
Expenditure 28.7%
28.7%
11.0%
48.4%
Health Insurance Sector
National Health Insurance Programme (NHIP)
Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, commonly
known as PhilHealth which administers the NHIP
The types of Healthcare/Health Insurance plans in
Philippines-(a) PhilHealth (b)Private health
insurance
(c)Health Maintenance Organization (d)
International health insurance (e) Expatriate health
insurance
Microhealthinsurance MIPSS
Insurance agencies executing MIPSS- DOH with NCC
Health improvement plans
SHIELD (Sustainable Health Improvement
through Empowerment and Local
Development) project in ARMM Philippine
governments Sector development agenda
for health, USAID funded-5 year project
Integrated Community Health Services
Project (ICHSP) and the National Centre for
Health Facility Development (NCHFD)- to
strengthen referral system , enhance local
planning, decision making and monitoring.
Key Challenges in healthcare
prevailing conditions of inequity in health status
poor infrastructure in the healthcare sector which
needs to be worked upon to attract more tourists
lack of IT governance structures
diseases emerging new communicable diseases
adding to the existent prevalence of communicable
common solitary governing body is required to be
set up to coordinate activities of human resources
wide gap between the rich and the poor in terms of
health outcome disparities.
Inter- sectoral linkage
Health Expenditure in the
Phils.
Over
the years, nominal health care
spending has been steadily increasing. Low
efficiency in spending by the government
and low utilization rates of PhilHealth
indicate that the problem is not only the
overall amounts spent but also optimizing
the use of available resources.
Clearly, the most important concern is that the
burden of health care spending falls mostly on private
households as out-of-pocket (OOP) payments, with a
share of over 48% of total health expenditure. This
overreliance on OOP spending is the most worrisome,
especially in the context of a political commitment to a
social health insurance programme with a mandate to
provide universal coverage. Moreover, poor households
are more vulnerable than the richthey are more
prone to illness, their OOP payments are relatively
larger, and they are unable, for structural reasons (such
as a lack of awareness and difficulty in identifying the
truly poor), to maximize the use of social protection
provided by the government.
Philippine
health care financing is a
complex system involving various players,
at times operating in unsynchronized ways.
The public and private sectors, while to
some extent providing similar basic
services, are organized very differently.
Public and private health care professionals
face very different types of financial
incentives.
Public
facilities,
whether
devolved or retained, are generally
autonomous and thus, their performance
depends to a large extent on resources at
their disposal and the ability of their
On the other hand, private health providers respond
primarily to market forces. As such, outcomes (e.g. quality)
across public and private sectors are uneven. The
PhilHealth programme in itself is quite complex. The
benefits package is long and continues to have additions.
The system of charging and collecting premiums varies by
and within programmes. Members perceptions are that
they have insufficient information and that the
transactional requirements to make claims are too large.
Moreover, although estimates of PhilHealth coverage of the
population vary, there are legitimate concerns that the
amount of financial protection provided by the countrys
largest insurance programme is actually small, at least
relative to its infrastructure and available resources.
In 2010 the newly-elected government
launched a major reform effort aimed at
achieving
universal
coverage
which
focused on increasing the number of poor
families enrolled in PhilHealth, providing a
more comprehensive benefits package and
reducing or eliminating co-payments. So far
the results are promising. As of April 2011,
almost 4.4 million new poor families had
been enrolled in PhilHealth, equivalent to a
100 percent increase in enrollment for the
real poor. In 2011, PhilHealth introduced a
no-balanced-billing
policy
for
these
Health Expenditure
Total health care expenditure per capita,
in nominal terms, has increased steadily
from 1995 to 2005 at an average annual
rate of 8.2% (Table 3-1). In real terms,
however, health expenditure per capita has
grown by only 2.1% per year, suggesting
that increases in nominal spending have
been mostly due to inflation rather than
service expansion. The Philippines allotted
3.0-3.6% of its gross domestic product
(GDP) to health between 1995 and 2005
(Table 3-1). This share rose slightly to 3.9%
in 2007 (Figure 3-1), but remains relatively
In the Philippines, there are three major
groups of payers of health care: (1) national
and local governments, (2) social health
insurance, and (3) private sources.
Government accounted for 29-41% of total
health expenditures in the period 19952005. Health as a share of total
government spending in the same period
was about 5.9%, lower than in Thailand
(10%), only slightly higher than Indonesia
(4.1%) and comparable to Viet Nam (6.3%).
The social health insurance programme,
known as PhilHealth, increased its share of
total health spending at an average annual
rate of 9.7% from 1995 to 2005. Public
funding through PhilHealth has been
expected to set the incentive environment
in order to have a greater leverage and
drive forward health system performance.
However, the 2007 share of less than 9%
remains low, at least relative to the 30%
target set by the DOH in the 1999 health
reform agenda to reduce out-of-pocket
share of total health expenditure.
The private sector continues to be the
dominant source of health care financing,
with households out-of-pocket (OOP)
payments accounting for 40-50% of all
health spending in the same period. In
recent years, the trend for OOP payments
has been upward despite the expansion of
social insurance.
The government, as a whole, spent more
on personal health care than public health
care each year from 1995 to 2005 (Table 32). More detailed expenditure accounts
indicate that spending on hospitals
dominated the governments personal
health care expenditures. The government
also allots a much larger share of its
resources
to
salaries
of
employees
compared to maintenance and operations
and capital outlay (Table 3-3). The share of
capital outlay both by national and local
governments to total health expenditures is
Sources of Revenue and
Financial Flows
Figure 3-2 shows a simplified representation of the flow of
health care resources from health care payers to the health
care providers. Government can still be further divided into
local and national and health care providers can be further
segmented into public and [Link] ultimate sources of
health care funds are households and firms, while the pooling
agencies include the government and PhilHealth, as well as
HMOs and private insurance companies. In general, there are
four types of financial flows in the sector: (1) OOP payments
from households to health care providers, (2) premium
contributions or prepayment from households and firms either
to PhilHealth, HMOs or private insurance carriers, (3) budget
appropriations from government for public health care
facilities as well as for PhilHealth, and (4) taxes paid by
households and firms to fund budget appropriations.
Overview of the Statutory
Financing System
Coverage
In the Philippines, the National Health
Insurance Programme (NHIP) is the largest
insurance programme in terms of coverage
and benefit payments. The private insurance
and HMO sector has grown considerably in
recent years, but continues to account for a
small share of total health spending (less
than 7%).
Pooling of Healthcare Resources
by the National Government
Table 3-8 shows that annual budget
allotments of the DOH have been steadily
increasing in recent years (allotments
constitute only a part of the total allocation
to the DOH, so their available budget may
in fact be higher). In 2008, there was a
huge increase in allotments, due mainly to
an increase in revenue collection by the
government and the prioritization of social
services, particularly those related to
achieving
MDGs.
A
comparison
of
allotments and actual spending (obligated
funds), however, points to underutilized
There are two possible explanations for
the inability of the DOH to maximize
spending of available resources. The first
relates to weaknesses in the capacity of the
central DOH, CHDs and LGUs to spend
resources effectively. Another reason for
low fund utilization relates to weak
incentives among managers to push
spending.
