This study aimed to share the authors’ preliminary experience with endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy in the Philippines. All medical records of patients who underwent endoscopic mastectomy done by the same surgeons in two institutions from March to October 2019 were collected and analyzed. Surgical margin, operating time, blood loss volume, and post-operative complications were noted. Three cases were recorded during the study period. The mean operative time was 341 minutes and the mean blood loss volume was < 20 mL. All cases had negative margins of resection on final histopathology. One patient developed ecchymosis on the axilla, while the other patients had unremarkable post-operative courses. Endoscopic nipplesparing mastectomy is a potentially safe and feasible alternative in breast cancer management. Further evaluation of the procedure is recommended.

Objective: To compare PhilHealth case rate versus actual charge of hospitalization of common general surgery procedures in a Level 3 government hospital from 2017-2019. Methods: The five most common procedures were determined and records were reviewed. Hospital bills and professional fees (PF) were compared to the PhilHealth rates using t-test. The range of perceived acceptable PF was determined by an online survey. Results: The most common procedures were open appendectomy, open cholecystectomy, initial repair of inguinal hernia, total thyroidectomy and modified radical mastectomy. The study included 1934 charts. For service cases, the hospital bill for appendectomy was significantly lower than the PhilHealth institutional fee, while the rest were significantly higher. For private cases, hospital bills for open cholecystectomy and modified radical mastectomy were significantly higher, while that of open appendectomy was lower. The average PF of private patients in all procedures were significantly higher than the PhilHealth rate, also reflected on the survey. Conclusion The significant discrepancies between the actual charges and the PhilHealth case rates showed that the PhilHealth rates were insufficient for the five most common general surgery procedures in a Level 3 government hospital.
Philippines ; Insurance

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that in 2015, approximately 325 million or 4.4% of the global population were living with chronic hepatitis B or hepatitis C infection. In the same year, around 1.34 million died from this disease.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the burden of hepatitis B in the Philippines and to determine the costeffectiveness of possible interventions.

METHODS

This study utilized the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation’s (CDAF’s) mathematical disease burden model of hepatitis B. Model inputs were collected using literature review, key informant interviews, expert panel interviews, and records review, and were validated through a series of round table discussions with experts.

RESULTS

Results show that in 2017, the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection in the Philippines was 9.7%, equivalent to 10 million infected individuals. Although the model projects a decreasing trend in chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections, liver-related mortality and morbidity due to these viruses are expected to rise if the status quo is maintained. Results show that substantial increase in government subsidy for WHO elimination scenarios would be required to achieve cost-effective outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Hepatitis B remains a huge problem in the Philippines. The HBV modelling exercise reveal that it will be worthwhile and cost-effective to adhere to the WHO elimination targets. A substantial financial investment will be necessary to do so, specifically a significant scale up in the screening, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of patients with HBV. While this modelling exercise does not yield burden of disease as accurate as a prevalence survey, experts consulted in the round table discussions agreed with the modelling inputs.

Human ; Hepatitis B ; Philippines ; Burden Of Disease ; Cost Of Illness

Key Findings Current evidence does NOT support use of IgM/IgG rapid test kits for the definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 in currently symptomatic patients. • The present standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 is through qualitative detection of COVID-19 virus nucleic acid via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). • Due to long turnaround times and complicated logistical operations, a rapid and simple field test alternative is needed to diagnose and screen patients. • An alternative to the direct detection and measurement of viral load (RT-PCR) is the qualitative detection of specific antibodies to COVID-19. ELISA (discussed in a separate rapid review) and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) IgM/IgG rapid test kits are two currently available, qualitative, antibody tests for COVID-19. • Two low quality clinical trials showed that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of IgM/IgG rapid test kits for the definitive diagnosis of COVID-19. Diagnostic accuracy varies greatly depending on the timing of the test. The test performed very poorly during the early phase of the disease (i.e., less than eight days from onset of symptoms). • Existing guidelines do not recommend serologic antibody tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in currently symptomatic patients.
Coronavirus ; Covid-19

OBJECTIVES

During the early COVID-19 pandemic (2020 to mid-2021), the Philippine government relied on nonpharmaceutical interventions such as lockdowns and Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ). With the emergency use authorization of vaccines, assessing their potential impact became essential. This study develops a Philippine model to evaluate the epidemiologic and economic effects of COVID-19 vaccination, estimating its impact on mortality, hospitalization, and mild/asymptomatic cases under various prioritization strategies, including booster doses and the presence of variants of concern.

METHODS

A dynamic transmission model (DTM) with an SEIR (Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered) structure was calibrated using local data, including case numbers, deaths, seroprevalence, vaccination coverage, and intervention costs. The model’s outputs informed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from health system and societal perspectives over a two-year horizon. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were calculated, with costs adjusted to 2020 prices and discount rates of 3%-10% applied. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic approaches, assessed robustness, while a budget impact analysis (BIA) estimated government expenditures in 2020 and 2021.

RESULTS

Without vaccination, daily cases could have peaked at 400,000 between February and May 2021. A vaccination campaign was projected to reduce cases to around 20,000, significantly lowering mortality.  

From the health system perspective, the estimated cost without vaccination was PhP 14.46 trillion, with 93.83 million QALYs. With vaccination, costs dropped to PhP 2.36 trillion, while QALYs increased to 101.79 million. From the societal perspective, costs were PhP 14.68 trillion without vaccination and PhP 2.38 trillion with vaccination, with the same QALY outcomes.

CEA results confirmed that vaccination was cost-saving, with ICERs of -PhP 1,520,727.28 per QALY (health system) and -PhP 1,546,171.63 per QALY (societal). Sensitivity analyses supported these findings, with oneway sensitivity analysis showing minimal impact from parameter changes and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirming cost-saving outcomes. The BIA estimated government expenditures of PhP 983.45 billion in 2020 and PhP 1.47 trillion in 2021 for the vaccine scenario, lower than the no-vaccine scenario.

CONCLUSION

Indeed, our modeling has shown that COVID-19 vaccines could mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and provide good value for money.

Human ; Covid-19 ; Cost-effectiveness Analysis ; Vaccines ; Philippines