Validation of the selection process of PhilHealth sponsored members in 4 barangays in a municipality in Batangas using the participatory action research

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to correlate the LGU list of PhilHealth Sponsored Members in a municipality of Batangas with the list of poor residents as identified by the Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology. METHOD: Interview of key informants documented the processes utilized by the LGU in determining PhilHealth beneficiaries for the Sponsored Program and the Participatory Action Research (PAR) survey in the classification of households into poor, middle and rich in four barangays of the municipality. The list of LGU Sponsored members was then cross matched with the PAR household classification. RESULTS:The comparison of the LGU list of Sponsored members and the household classification by the PAR survey showed a wide discrepancy: (1) 464 "Not Found" Sponsored households or 70% of the LGU's Sponsored list; (2) inclusion of the non-poor: 140 middle class families as classified by the PAR survey or 21.1% of the LGU's Sponsored list; and (3) exclusion of 413 or 87.5% of true poor families identified by the PAR Survey. Only 59 families or 8.9% of the LGU Sponsored list were classified as poor families by PAR. CONCLUSION:PAR offers communities, LGUs and the National Health Insurance Program a tool to validate the coverage of the Sponsored program. LGUs and the PhilHealth should consider such tool or similar tools to validate their identification, selection and enrollment of the poor, which is extremely vital in achieving universal coverage. Given the right tool, communities are in the best position to identify the poor for the Sponsored program. By way of collaboration with the underprivileged themselves, the academe has a role in assisting communities in acquiring collective awareness of their own situation and developing capacity for improving their lives. The academe also has a role in assisting LGUs in improving their health systems and national health programs in validating and improving their implementation. Further studies should be done to investigate the following: the identity of the "not found" SP members; the utilization of PhilHealth benefits by the poor; and the prospect of utilizing the PAR method by other non-academic institutions in monitoring the progress of community programs.

Validation of the selection process of PhilHealth sponsored members in 4 barangays in a municipality in Batangas using the participatory action research

Objective. The present study aims to correlate the LGU list of PhilHealth Sponsored Members in a municipality of Batangas with the list of poor residents as identified by the Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology. Method. Interview of key informants documented the processes utilized by the LGU in determining PhilHealth beneficiaries for the Sponsored Program and the Participatory Action Research (PAR) survey in the classification of households into poor, middle and rich in four barangays of the municipality. The list of LGU Sponsored members was then cross matched with the PAR household classification. Results. The comparison of the LGU list of Sponsored members and the household classification by the PAR survey showed a wide discrepancy: (1) 464 "Not Found" Sponsored households or 70% of the LGU's Sponsored list; (2) inclusion of the non-poor: 140 middle class families as classified by the PAR survey or 21.1% of the LGU's Sponsored list; and (3) exclusion of 413 or 87.5% of true poor families identified by the PAR Survey. Only 59 families or 8.9% of the LGU Sponsored list were classified as poor families by PAR. Conclusion. PAR offers communities, LGUs and the National Health Insurance Program a tool to validate the coverage of the Sponsored program. LGUs and the PhilHealth should consider such tool or similar tools to validate their identification, selection and enrollment of the poor, which is extremely vital in achieving universal coverage. Given the right tool, communities are in the best position to identify the poor for the Sponsored program. By way of collaboration with the underprivileged themselves, the academe has a role in assisting communities in acquiring collective awareness of their own situation and developing capacity for improving their lives. The academe also has a role in assisting LGUs in improving their health systems and national health programs in validating and improving their implementation. Further studies should be done to investigate the following: the identity of the "not found" SP members; the utilization of PhilHealth benefits by the poor; and the prospect of utilizing the PAR method by other non-academic institutions in monitoring the progress of community programs.

Level of satisfaction with the national health insurance program in 2006 among PhilHealth accredited service providers from four medical societies

OBJECTIVES: To determine the level of satisfaction with the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) among PhilHealth-accredited members of the four different medical societies (PCP, PPS, PCS and PSA) and identify areas for improvement of the NHIP. METHODS: In 2006, UPM-NIH conducted satisfaction surveys among PhilHealth-accredited members of the Philippine College of Physicians (PCP), Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS), Philippine College of Surgeons (PCS), and Philippine Society of Anesthesiologists (PSA) during their respective national conventions. The survey questionnaire used a Leikert scale to measure level of satisfaction and was based on the key performance areas of the NHIP identified in the validation framework of the InterAgency Validation Team and key informant interviews (KIIs) of selected medical doctors. Data analysis was done using SPSS ver 14. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Respondents from the PCS (surgeons) were only slightly satisfied with PhilHealth in general, while the respondents of the other three societies: (PCP - Internists, PPS - Pediatricians, and PSA - Anesthesiologists) were slightly dissatisfied with PhilHealth. Respondents of the four societies were satisfied with the accreditation process. Respondents were most dissatisfied with the length of time to be reimbursed and the amount reimbursed for their professional services. The respondents from the PCS tended to be more satisfied than the respondents of the PCP, PPS and PSA. Respondents expressed some dissatisfaction with the PhilHealth benefit package formulation. A significant percentage of respondents (about 27%) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with PhilHealth. These respondents could swing PhilHealth satisfaction either way and PhilHealth should make efforts to make them satisfied. The design of the survey tool precluded a qualitative analysis of the reasons for satisfaction/dissatisfaction. But the areas of most dissatisfaction identified by the respondents have to do with reimbursement: length of time and amount. In subsequent small group discussions with different physician service providers, it was observed that there was a general low level of awareness about the principles of social health insurance, benefit design and payment mechanisms. PhilHealth should address this with regular information and service improvement campaigns to engender a more proactive role for the service providers in achieving greater financial access to needed quality health services for all Filipinos. Respondents had recommendations to improve PhilHealth performance in the following areas: accreditation, reimbursement, SPECIAL ARTICLE benefit package formulation, administrative process, and coverage and enrollment. Many of the recommendations had to do with increasing PhilHealth efficiency, unifying the Department of Health (DOH), the Philippine Regulatory Commission (PRC) and PhilHealth standards, simplifying and decreasing requirements for the different processes and improving PHIC's information system. They also recommended revising the relative value scale (PhilHealth's system of assigning a value to a certain procedure which serves as the basis for determining the amount for reimbursement), improving coverage, formulating comprehensive benefit packages focused on the poor, and effective identification of the poor for the Sponsored Program, (PhilHealth's program for enrolling the poor).