BACKGROUND

The Division of Colorectal Surgery at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) conducts hundreds of surgeries annually for benign and malignant colorectal conditions. Since 2019, the Division has implemented an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program to improve patient outcomes. However, its impact on hospital costs—critical for a government hospital—has not yet been studied.

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of ERAS on healthcare costs for elective colorectal surgeries performed at PGH in 2021.

A retrospective observational study was conducted on adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgeries under the ERAS protocol in 2021. Medical and billing records were retrieved using the hospital’s electronic medical records (EMR) system, excluding cases with incomplete data. Procedures were categorized by type [stoma closure, colonic or rectal resection, reversal of Hartmann’s, or cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC)] and surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, or robotic). Costs were classified into diagnostics, facility fees, medications, surgery, and hospital supplies. ERAS compliance rates were extracted from the online ERAS Interactive Audit System (EIAS), and linear regression analysis was performed.

Among 114 elective colorectal surgeries, records for 90 cases were analyzed. Surgery-related expenses accounted for the highest mean hospital costs across all procedure types. An inverse correlation between ERAS compliance and total cost was observed for open surgeries, with statistically significant reductions in stoma closures and open colon resections (p-value: 0.0213 and 0.0134, respectively). However, minimally invasive surgeries (MIS) did not demonstrate cost reductions with increasing ERAS compliance, likely due to additional expenses associated with advanced equipment. Linear regression indicated that higher compliance rates generally led to decreased hospital costs.

Standardized care through ERAS has been associated with cost savings compared to traditional perioperative management. This study supports the conclusion that higher ERAS compliance can reduce hospital costs in open colorectal surgeries. However, the higher costs of MIS procedures, driven by equipmentrelated expenses, may offset potential savings from ERAS adherence. Further research is warranted to explore the cost implications of ERAS in MIS cases.

Costs And Cost Analysis ; Delivery Of Health Care

Objective: This paper aims to provide a better understanding of the different engagement, cost, and resource considerations in developing and implementing mHealth solutions in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: First, six participants completed a form to document the estimated costs of developing a pseudo mobile application with features to mitigate the pandemic. Second, ten key informant interviews determined the facilitators, barriers, and resource requirements in developing mHealth tools. Results: The average cost estimate to develop and roll out a mobile application with public health and epidemiology features is Php 4,018,907 (US $78,650). The analysis of the interviews resulted in 12 themes organized in three domains: 1) facilitators and barriers in developing and sustaining mHealth solutions; 2) costs of sustaining mHealth technologies; and 3) factors affecting the costs of development and maintenance of mHealth technologies. Conclusion While differences in the cost estimates are evident, it provides a ballpark figure and the different factors that implementers need to sustain and maintain an mHealth solution. This paper hopes to inform policies and practices in engaging technology solution partners and in scaling up mHealth technologies.
Telemedicine ; COVID-19 ; Costs and Cost Analysis

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

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: This study aims to analyze the cost of patient care among ORL-HNS patients admitted in a tertiary, teaching government hospital in a low- to middle-income country. Methods: This is a prevalence-based, prospective, bottom-up, cost-of-illness analysis among patients of the Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery in a tertiary training government hospital admitted from July 2021 to March 2022. The value assessment method used is the human capital approach. The societal perspective is used for analysis to estimate and reflect payer (insurance providers) and patient perspectives. Results: A total of one hundred fifty seven (157) patients were admitted for elective surgery under the service of ORL-HNS consisting of 75 females and 82 males. The average total overall cost was $3,851.10 (Php 199, 870.50 ± 164, 725.60). The total direct health care cost for all patients within the study period amounted to $3,712.18 (Php 192, 662.22 ± 159, 548.60) while the direct non-health care cost was $58.60. The workforce cost (58.5%) and medication cost (18.8%) comprised the majority of in-patient expenses with a mean cost of $2,221.36 (Php 37,083.66) and $714.51 (Php 44,363.14), respectively. In this study, an average of $80.29 was lost due to illness and hospitalization (± $81.74). The total PHIC coverage pays a range from zero to 67.5% with an average coverage of only 17%. Conclusion Our analysis has shown that workforce and medication expenses are the main cost drivers for the direct healthcare costs among Otolaryngology patients admitted for elective procedures. Stakeholders, such as the otolaryngologists and hospitals should coordinate closely to create a more encompassing coverage of Philhealth to prevent patients from suffering from financial crises due to their illness.
Costs and Cost Analysis ; Otolaryngology ; Philippines

Background: The pharmaceutical subsystem is a complex interrelationship among different stakeholders that ensure access to safe, effective, and quality pharmaceutical products in the market. Understanding the availability and affordability as key areas for access to medicines is essential to appreciate the strategies needed to strengthen the pharmaceutical subsystem. Objectives: This study aimed to determine the availability and affordability of essential antihypertensive medicines in public primary care facilities and private retail drugstores in a 4th class municipality. Further, the study determined the price comparisons of these essential antihypertensive medicines with international reference prices. Methods: This is a quantitative, cross-sectional study design which employed a modified WHO/HAI methodology to quantify antihypertensive medicines’ availability and affordability in public and private primary care drug facilities. Selection of medicines was based on a criteria applicable for the primary care setting. Availability was measured through visual inspection of the selected medicines in the facility, affordability was estimated through the selling price of medicines in the public and private facilities, respectively, and was divided by the local minimum wage of the municipality. Median price ratio was computed using the local median prices over the MSH 2015 international reference prices adjusted for inflation. Results: Availability of essential antihypertensive medicines was found to be 12.96% in public facilities and 60.32% in private facilities (p = 0.0002). Only amlodipine is observed to be available in both public (83.33%) and private (85.71%) facilities, while only metoprolol 50 mg tab (33.33%) and amlodipine 5 mg tab (83.33%) were available in public facilities. All medicines are below 1 MPR, but carvedilol 6.25 mg (1 tab BID: 1.32; 2 tabs BID: 2.65), 25 mg (BID: 2.65), and enalapril 5 mg (BID: 1.14; TID: 1.70) treatment regimens are unaffordable compared to a worker’s day wage. Conclusion Availability of essential antihypertensive medicines is diverse comparing public and private facilities. There is a need to increase the availability of antihypertensive medicines in public facilities as this is an important quality measure of primary care services. Public facilities can leverage on the availability of medicines in private pharmacies by forming Primary Care Provider Networks. While most medicines were deemed affordable in the private setting, there are still drugs such as carvedilol and enalapril, that need to be regulated. There is a need to strengthen the local pharmaceutical subsystem because it is essential to ensure safe, effective, and quality medicines in the local health system through adequate mobilization of resources.
Human ; access to medicines ; health services accessibility ; affordability ; costs and cost analysis

Health economic analyses are comparative analysis of healthcare technologies or health strategies and their alternative options in terms of their costs and consequences.1 By doing health economic analysis, we can obtain incremental cost-outcome ratios, the relation of the estimated additional costs, and the estimated additional outcomes saved or lost using alternative healthcare technology.2 They can provide useful data to doctors, patients, policymakers, and the public about choices that can affect health, especially the use of resources.

In essence, economic evaluation aims to characterize the efficiency of healthcare interventions. It provides a structured approach to measuring and comparing the health outcomes and costs of competing alternative interventions over time and across populations.

This paper reviews the domestic and foreign studies published in 2020 on the application of influenza vaccine in populations at high risk. The importance of influenza vaccination in population at high risk has been proved by larger sample, multicentre, high-quality evidence-based studies. Influenza vaccination is the most cost-effective measure to prevent influenza. However, the coverage rate of influenza vaccine is very low in China, it is necessary to strengthen the health education to promote influenza vaccination in different populations. It is recommended to give influenza vaccination to the population in whom influenza vaccination has been proven safe and effective before influenza season. Research of the safety, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of influenza vaccine should be accelerated for the populations in whom such data are lacking or insufficient.
China ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Humans ; Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects* ; Influenza, Human/prevention & control* ; Vaccination

INTRODUCTION

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS), specifically myocardial infarction, accounted for approximately 41% of deaths due to coronary artery disease in 2013. A large number of Filipinos are affected by ACS; thus, it is important to determine its hospitalization cost. The study objectives were to (1) define the hospital care pathways for ACS; (2) determine the resources used; (3) estimate the hospitalization cost for uncomplicated ACS; and (4) determine the difference between the estimated hospitalization cost and the coverage provided by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth).

A cost analysis study was done. Mixed qualitative and quantitative data collection tools consisted of consultations with local cardiologists, key informant interviews, and self-administered survey forms. Sensitivity analysis was performed through scenario analysis.

The ACS hospital care pathway was derived after consultative meetings with invasive and noninvasive cardiologists. Using this pathway, the resources used for ACS hospitalization were identified, and the total hospitalization costs were calculated. For medical treatment alone, the costs were approximately Philippine peso (₱) 67,000 to ₱90,000, whereas for medical treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the costs were approximately ₱265,000 to ₱425,500. In comparison, Philhealth's maximum coverage for ACS with PCI is ₱39,750.

There is variation in the ACS hospitalization cost, depending on the management strategy used and the type of hospital where a patient is confined. Medical plus reperfusion with PCI increases the cost four to five times when compared with medical treatment alone. Huge out-of-pocket expense is demonstrated because of the large discrepancy between the actual hospitalization costs to Philhealth's ACS coverage.