IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/phd/dpaper/dp_2020-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who Wins and Who Loses from PhilHealth? Cost and Benefit Incidence of Social Health Insurance in a Lifecycle Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Abrigo, Michael Ralph M.

Abstract

The study uses incidence analysis to examine the financial costs and benefits from the Philippine’s National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) through the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) that accrue to different age groups and socio-economic classes. It finds that premium contributions to and benefits payment by PhilHealth are both pro-poor. As a public transfers program, PhilHealth reallocates resources from higher to lower income population. As a pseudo-pension program, it transfers resources from workers to finance health care of retirees. As a health insurance, its premium contributions are not actuarially fair given the benefits it provides. Over the course of an average Filipino’s lifetime, the NHIP is estimated to lose about 40 centavos for every peso an individual contributes directly or indirectly as premium to PhilHealth. Comments to this paper are welcome within 60 days from date of posting. Email publications@mail.pids.gov.ph.

Suggested Citation

  • Abrigo, Michael Ralph M., 2020. "Who Wins and Who Loses from PhilHealth? Cost and Benefit Incidence of Social Health Insurance in a Lifecycle Perspective," Discussion Papers DP 2020-51, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:phd:dpaper:dp_2020-51
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.pids.gov.ph/publication/discussion-papers/who-wins-and-who-loses-from-philhealth-cost-and-benefit-incidence-of-social-health-insurance-in-a-lifecycle-perspective
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    Keywords

    social health insurance; Philippines; National Transfer Account; Benefit incidence analysis; Cost incidence analysis;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:phd:dpaper:dp_2020-51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Aniceto Orbeta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/pidgvph.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.