Why PhilHealth deserves a zero subsidy

PhilHealth itself is to blame for its zero subsidy in the national budget. Congress did the right thing and the president made a wise decision in approving this unprecedented move.

Based on my own personal knowledge as a former public official for more than 27 years and as a private sector personnel for no less than 28 years, I can say, without fear of plausible contradiction, that PhilHealth can qualify as one of the worst-managed government financial institutions and one of the most anti-member social agencies of the government. I can be wrong, of course, but to my mind, I am most probably right.

In fact, the best evidence to prove that this view is sound and is with sufficient factual basis is the zero subsidy imposed by Congress to PhilHealth in the 2025 National Budget. Both the House and the Senate in their bicam committee came up with a final decision to delete the subsidy to the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. This agency is not only mismanaged, it has displayed a total lack of social sensitivity. It planned to spend the PhilHealth members' contribution in the whopping amount of ?138 million just to celebrate its anniversary. Had Congress not timely discovered such an irresponsible attempt to squander PhilHealth funds, such an outrageous travesty would have proceeded behind our backs. And nobody would have known. This agency has the propensity to squander our contributions sans our knowledge, much less our approval.

Originally, despite all its unworthiness, the original version of the House gave PhilHealth a subsidy of ?74.4 billion for 2025 alone. The Senate reduced it to ?64.4 billion. But after meeting as a bicam committee, the two Houses of Congress decided to reduce the subsidy to absolute zero. PhilHealth officials admitted that it has a ?600 billion reserve fund and they can manage without any subsidy. The question that begs to be asked is: if PhilHealth has such a huge amount of funds, why has it not increased the benefits to the members considering that such funds come from members' contributions? Well, they said that there was a midnight decision to increase the benefits but it is too late and too little.

Just look at how many executives this agency has and how much in salaries, allowances, perks, and other benefits they are paying such executives. How much do they spend in foreign travels and parties similar to that planned ?137 million anniversary splurge? What kind of luxury vehicles are they giving their executives? I have for a number of times attempted to use PhilHealth in the past to cover some medical and hospitalization expenses. They are the most inefficient, non-customer friendly, delayed and, with due respect, perhaps, the most anti-member agency that does not even accept calls or answer communications.

When I was employed in a global beverage company, I was also teaching in four universities as a Law professor every night. All my five employers deducted from my salaries and remitted PhilHealth contributions for more than 40 years. But when I would try to avail of its services, I get the feeling that I am being given a runaround. The irony is that I am teaching PhilHealth Law as well as SSS Law and Pag-Ibig Law as part of Labor Law and Social Legislations to thousands of future lawyers. Now that we have a universal health law, and now that I am a senior citizen, I do not feel that PhilHealth cares for me at all. Besides, I do not know how much, if at all, of the PhilHealth money was invested in the Maharlika Wealth Fund without the consent of the PhilHealth members. If so, that is betrayal of the members' trust, and is actionable in the court of law.

And so, if PhilHealth gets zero subsidy, I do not feel that such a congressional decision is a punishment imposed on PhilHealth members. It is rather a slap on the faces of its leadership and management of such an uncaring social agency that prospers out of the members' contributions, both employees and employers. That zero subsidy is an appropriate sanction for that agency’s multiple acts of mismanagement.

Definitely, PhilHealth deserves that eloquent chastisement from both Congress and the Office of the President. The members should applaud such a proper and well-deserved course of action. Perhaps, it should even be sanctioned more severely.