Clash of values on PhilHealth funds

The action of Finance Secretary Ralph Recto in reverting to the national treasury P89.9 billion of unused funds of the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) had drawn vigorous protest from the country’s medical community.

According to Recto, those funds should be reallocated to support critical government programs, helping to avoid incurring additional national debt.

Besides, he said his action was authorized by the national budget and that other government-owned and –controlled corporations (GOCC) with excess funds would get the same treatment.

Several former high ranking finance officials had expressed their support for Recto’s move and described it as a prudent measure in light of the country’s present economic condition.

But for the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) and some medical practitioners, the impounding of PhilHealth’s funds is illegal because it, among others, violates the Universal Health Care Act which requires the reduction of the contributions of PhilHealth members or the expansion of medical coverage in case PhilHealth has excess funds.

The outcry over the funds’ diversion is significant in light of PhilHealth’s dismal performance during the COVID-19 pandemic when hospital services for afflicted Filipinos were sorely inadequate and healthcare personnel were deprived of much needed financial support.

The difference in opinion on the handling of Philhealth’s excess funds (a description which is even contentious) reflects the parties’ understanding of their professional responsibilities.

For finance officials, their mission is to ensure that the government has the funds needed to sustain its operation, which includes bankrolling projects that can improve the well-being of majority of Filipinos. Their counterpart in the private business sector would be the CFO, or chief financial officer.

In that capacity, they have to see to it that the government is able to marshal all the financial resources under its command or are available for use in accordance with existing laws.

For the PMA members, the Hippocratic Oath they took when they entered their profession makes it their moral obligation to do what they can to help provide medical assistance to Filipinos, especially those who are poor or underprivileged.

They know that PhilHealth is the only government-managed lifeline that the D and E members of our society can look to for help in case they have health issues that require serious treatment or hospitalization.

And since the law had allocated those funds to meet the medical needs of Filipinos, they should be maintained for that purpose and not be diverted to programs that do not meet that objective.

The fact that other GOCCs would also receive the same treatment as Philhealth is not a plausible justification. It is not “apples to apples,” so to speak, because other GOCCs are engaged in for-profit commercial activities and not for making available suitable medical assistance to Filipinos.

The issue boils down to a question of priority. Which should take precedence on the use of those funds: infrastructure or other programs that have yet to be named, or improving and expanding medical assistance to Filipinos when they need it?

The legality of Recto’s action is now under review by the Supreme Court. From a legal point of view, which the court is traditionally obliged to apply to cases filed before it, the impounding of PhilHealth’s excess funds may be legally permissible.

But as a legal dictum goes, not everything legal is moral. The realignment of those funds may be perfectly legal, but whether or not it is right or just in light of the prevailing health condition of the country is a different story.

The court has to come up with a win-win solution or middle ground on this issue because the health and well-being of millions of less privileged Filipinos are at stake. INQ