Background: Health inequities in the Philippines are driven by health workforce maldistribution and health system fragmentation. These can be addressed by strengthening primary care through central social health insurance (PhilHealth) coverage. However, high reported PhilHealth population coverage and health provider accreditation have not necessarily increased health benefit utilization or financial risk protection. Objective: This study aims to examine the impact of an enhanced, comprehensive primary care benefits package at a university-based health facility. This paper reports baseline utilization of health services and health benefits, and out-of-pocket health spending in two socioeconomic strata of the catchment population, for outpatient and inpatient services. Methods: A questionnaire-guided survey was done among randomly selected faculty (higher income group) and non-faculty (lower income group) employees to determine the frequencies and costs of using outpatient and inpatient health services, and amounts paid out-of-pocket. Results: Annually, both groups had approximately 1 consultation/patient and about 15 hospitalizations per 100 families annually. For hospitalizations, non-faculty inpatients utilized health insurance more frequently than faculty inpatients (75.7% vs. 66.7%), but paid higher out-of-pocket proportions (73.3% or Php 92,479/hospitalization vs. 57.4% or Php 16,273/hospitalization). For outpatient care, health benefit utilization rates were higher among non-faculty (12.4% vs 2.1% of consultations) although low overall, with similar total (Php 2,319 vs Php 1,741) and out-of-pocket expenses (100%). Conclusion These findings confirm inequities in accessing outpatient and inpatient health services and utilizing health insurance benefits in the target population.
Primary Health Care ; Health Equity ; Insurance, Health

BACKGROUND

The Philippine Primary Care Studies (PPCS) is a network of pilot studies that developed, implemented, and tested strategies to strengthen primary care in the country. These pilot studies were implemented in an urban, rural, and remote setting. The aim is to use the findings to guide the policies of the national health insurance program (PhilHealth), the main payor for individualized healthcare services in the country.

The objective of this report is to compare baseline outpatient benefit utilization, hospitalization, and health spending, including out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses, in three health settings (urban, rural, and remote). These findings were used to contextualize strategies to strengthen primary care in these three settings.

Cross-sectional surveys were carried out using an interviewer-assisted questionnaire on a random sample of families in the urban site, and a stratified random sample of households in the rural and remote sites. The questionnaire asked for out-patient and hospitalization utilization and spending, including the OOP expenses.

A total of 787 families/households were sampled across the three sites. For outpatient benefits, utilization was low in all sites. The remote site had the lowest utilization at only 15%. Unexpectedly, the average annual OOP expenses for outpatient consults in the remote site was PhP 571.92/per capita. This is 40% higher than expenses shouldered by families in the rural area, but similar with the urban site. For hospital benefits, utilization was lowest in the remote site (55.7%) compared to 75.0% and 78.1% for the urban and rural sites, respectively. OOP expenses per year were highest in the remote site at PhP 2204.44 per capita, probably because of delay in access to healthcare and consequently more severe conditions. Surprisingly, annual expenses per year for families in the rural sites (PhP 672.03 per capita) were less than half of what families in the urban sites spent (PhP 1783.38 per capita).

Compared to families in the urban site and households in the rural sites, households in remote areas have higher disease rates and consequently, increased need for outpatient and inpatient health services. When they do get sick, access to care is more difficult. This leads to lower rates of benefit utilization and higher out-of-pocket expenses. Thus, provision of “equal” benefits can inadvertently lead to “inequitable” healthcare, pushing disadvantaged populations into a greater disadvantage. These results imply that health benefits need to be allocated according to need. Families in poorer and more remote areas may require greater subsidies.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe the pattern of prescription and laboratory use in the management of infectious acute gastroenteritis (AGE) in children seen in a rural service delivery network (SDN) and to determine their adherence to the 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Acute Infectious Diarrhea in Children and Adults from the Department of Health (DOH).

A descriptive retrospective study was done using the electronic medical records (EMR) of patients less than 19 years old seen by the rural SDN from April 2019-2021 and diagnosed with infectious AGE. Data were extracted on diagnostic and therapeutic management. Adherence to strong CPG recommendations focusing on rehydration, zinc supplementation, rational laboratory use, and antibiotic prescription was chosen as indicator of quality of care. Adherence of less than 70% was defined as low.

There were 227 infectious AGE cases, with 72% diagnosed under non-specific infectious AGE. Fifty two percent (52%) were prescribed with low-osmolarity oral rehydration solutions (ORS), while 74% were given zinc. Stool eISSN 2094-9278 (Online) Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024 Published: September 13, 2024 https://doi.org/10.47895/amp.v58i16.7513 Corresponding author: Paul Johnny C. Diaz, MD Department of Pediatrics Philippine General Hospital University of the Philippines Manila Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila 1000, Philippines Email: pcdiaz1@up.edu.ph ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0088-4541 analysis was done in 25% of cases while CBC was done in 20%. Top antibiotics given were metronidazole at 44% and cotrimoxazole at 33%. There was low adherence to prescribing low-osmolarity ORS for rehydration (52%) and to deferring routine antibiotic prescription for non-specific infectious AGE cases (24%). Adherence to deferring routine stool analysis and CBC were relatively high at 73% and 70%, respectively while adherence to antibiotic use for indicated cases was high at 95%.

Frequency of diagnostics ordered were low resulting to high adherence rates to recommendations concerning judicious laboratory use. Prescription frequency of appropriate antibiotics and interventions for AGE were low, leading to low adherence rates to recommendations concerning rational antibiotic use and prescription of cornerstone therapies for infectious AGE.

Background: The Philippine Primary Care Studies (PPCS) is a network of pilot studies that developed, implemented, and tested strategies to strengthen primary care in the country. These pilot studies were implemented in an urban, rural, and remote setting. The aim is to use the findings to guide the policies of the national health insurance program (PhilHealth), the main payor for individualized healthcare services in the country. Objective: The objective of this report is to compare baseline outpatient benefit utilization, hospitalization, and health spending, including out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses, in three health settings (urban, rural, and remote). These findings were used to contextualize strategies to strengthen primary care in these three settings. Methods: Cross-sectional surveys were carried out using an interviewer-assisted questionnaire on a random sample of families in the urban site, and a stratified random sample of households in the rural and remote sites. The questionnaire asked for out-patient and hospitalization utilization and spending, including the OOP expenses. Results: A total of 787 families/households were sampled across the three sites. For outpatient benefits, utilization was low in all sites. The remote site had the lowest utilization at only 15%. Unexpectedly, the average annual OOP expenses for outpatient consults in the remote site was PhP 571.92/per capita. This is 40% higher than expenses shouldered by families in the rural area, but similar with the urban site. For hospital benefits, utilization was lowest in the remote site (55.7%) compared to 75.0% and 78.1% for the urban and rural sites, respectively. OOP expenses per year were highest in the remote site at PhP 2204.44 per capita, probably because of delay in access to healthcare and consequently more severe conditions. Surprisingly, annual expenses per year for families in the rural sites (PhP 672.03 per capita) were less than half of what families in the urban sites spent (PhP 1783.38 per capita). Conclusions Compared to families in the urban site and households in the rural sites, households in remote areas have higher disease rates and consequently, increased need for outpatient and inpatient health services. When they do get sick, access to care is more difficult. This leads to lower rates of benefit utilization and higher out-of-pocket expenses. Thus, provision of “equal” benefits can inadvertently lead to “inequitable” healthcare, pushing disadvantaged populations into a greater disadvantage. These results imply that health benefits need to be allocated according to need. Families in poorer and more remote areas may require greater subsidies.

Methods: Data on governance issues were obtained from participant observation and regular meetings facilitated over one year. Conducted across urban, rural, and remote settings, the present study outlines experience-near insights throughout a hierarchy of system implementers—from those in positions of authority to frontline workers. These insights were thematically analyzed and organized following the Health System Dynamics Framework. Results: This study identified six governance challenges: 1) establishing a health information system; 2) engaging leaders, healthcare staff, and communities; 3) assuring efficient financing; 4) assuring health workforce sufficiency; 5) addressing legal challenges; and 6) planning evaluation and monitoring. To address these challenges, this study forwards systemic solutions to advance effective governance and improve healthcare performance. Conclusion A renewed approach to strengthening primary care systems is fundamental to achieving universal healthcare. This entails good governance that develops strategies, equips people with tools for proper implementation, and provides data for evidence-based policies. The experiences outlined in the present study envisions guiding policymakers toward improving health outcomes in a devolved setting.
primary care ; universal healthcare ; health systems ; interventions

OBJECTIVES

PhilHealth’s present health benefit scheme is largely centered on in-patient services. This inadvertently incentivizes hospital admissions for increased access to benefit coverage. To address this problem, this study proposes a costing method to comprehensively finance outpatient care. The objective of this paper is to estimate an annual primary care benefit package (PCBP) cost based on experience analysis (actual benefit usage) on the first year of implementation at an urban pilot site.

A cost analysis was conducted to assess a disease-agnostic primary care benefit package for an urban outpatient government facility over the first year of implementation. Costing information was gathered through staff interviews, accounting documents, and usage data from the electronic health records system available on-site.

The annual primary care cost was defined as the estimated financial coverage for eligible employees and their eligible dependents (n=15,051). The annual utilization rate for consultations was reported at 51%. Of patients who consulted, approximately 38% accessed free available diagnostic procedures and 48% availed of free available medicines. Based on these usage rates, the annual primary care cost for the first year was computed at PhP 403.22 per capita.

Our study shows that on the first year of coverage in a government run urban outpatient facility, an allocation of PhP 403.22 per capita can allow coverage for a disease-agnostic package (comprehensive); this amount excludes out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the target population of this study. This amount is feasible only when coopted with opportunistic registration, reduction of untargeted check-ups, prior contextual community engagement, and streamlining of patient-transactions through an electronic health record (EHR).

Objectives: PhilHealth’s present health benefit scheme is largely centered on in-patient services. This inadvertently incentivizes hospital admissions for increased access to benefit coverage. To address this problem, this study proposes a costing method to comprehensively finance outpatient care. The objective of this paper is to estimate an annual primary care benefit package (PCBP) cost based on experience analysis (actual benefit usage) on the first year of implementation at an urban pilot site. Methods: A cost analysis was conducted to assess a disease-agnostic primary care benefit package for an urban outpatient government facility over the first year of implementation. Costing information was gathered through staff interviews, accounting documents, and usage data from the electronic health records system available on-site. Results: The annual primary care cost was defined as the estimated financial coverage for eligible employees and their eligible dependents (n=15,051). The annual utilization rate for consultations was reported at 51%. Of patients who consulted, approximately 38% accessed free available diagnostic procedures and 48% availed of free available medicines. Based on these usage rates, the annual primary care cost for the first year was computed at PhP 403.22 per capita. Conclusion Our study shows that on the first year of coverage in a government run urban outpatient facility, an allocation of PhP 403.22 per capita can allow coverage for a disease-agnostic package (comprehensive); this amount excludes out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the target population of this study. This amount is feasible only when coopted with opportunistic registration, reduction of untargeted check-ups, prior contextual community engagement, and streamlining of patient-transactions through an electronic health record (EHR).
Healthcare Financing ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Primary Health Care