Tale of two Countries

“Thailand moved like a bus traveling 40 kilometers at a steady speed. The Philippines is moving at 20 kilometers per hour but stops every few kilometers to change drivers, reroute, or redesign the entire vehicle.”

This analogy captures the difference between steady systems-building and stop-start policy cycles. According to World Bank data, Thailand allocates around 16.1 percent of its national budget to health, while the Philippines allocates just 7 percent.

Thailand, for instance, launched its universal health system in 2002 with its iconic 30-baht program. In just two decades, it built a service delivery network that reaches even the most rural provinces, backed by strategic purchasing, a robust district health system, and health information infrastructure. It wasn’t flashy governance that drove Thailand’s success. It was stability.

Bureaucracies were allowed to do their work. Health workers were empowered, and regional hospitals were strengthened. As a result, the public began to trust the system.

The stop-start cycle has long characterized the Philippine health sector. Well-meaning reforms often falter because they are too tightly bound to personalities rather than institutions. A new direction brings a new list of priorities, reorganizes internal structures, and resets partnerships. While change can be healthy, constant change erodes momentum.

UHC: Slogan to implementation

The past two years have seen a mix of progress and growing pains. New benefit packages were introduced by PhilHealth, aiming to reduce out-of-pocket costs. New urgent care centers were built. Digital health pilots are ongoing, and expanded PhilHealth benefit packages are gradually being rolled out to reduce out-of-pocket costs. These developments have been welcomed by the public, even if uneven in pace and scope.

But the progress is fragile. Monitoring systems are still catching up. LGUs remain uneven in capacity and financing. And the trust between national agencies, PhilHealth, and service providers — critical for UHC’s long-term success — is still being rebuilt.

It is in this context that the public health community is quietly sounding the alarm. The concern is not simply about who steers the Department of Health, but whether the system will commit to a long-haul strategy rather than a tactical reset.

Looking 15 years ahead

The Philippines is in a critical position. Holding the presidency of the 78th World Health Assembly, it has a rare platform to project leadership, attract partnerships, and secure long-term funding for global health initiatives.

UHC requires stewardship — the kind that doesn’t stop at every fork in the road to reorient the map. What would it look like if the Philippines took the 15-year view seriously?

It would mean investing in people — not just buildings. It would also require building a strong pipeline of technical public health bureaucrats. Young civil servants must be given clear, viable career paths, along with the institutional backing to work consistently across administrations.

Shielding them from undue political influence is essential if we want long-term planning, evidence-based policy, and program continuity to take root.

It would also mean resisting the temptation to constantly repackage reforms for branding purposes. The public doesn’t need a new slogan every three years. What they need is assurance that the system is moving in one direction —toward equity, access and quality.

With the UHC Law now in place, the Philippines is entering its most critical phase —implementation. Thailand got there not because it avoided mistakes, but because it stayed the course. The Philippines, too, can travel far — but only if it stops stopping.

□ □ □ □ □

Dr. Jaemin Park leads Heal Venture Lab, a Singapore-based regional venture accelerator focused on access and affordability in healthcare. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of the Philippines College of Public Health. He works closely with innovators, investors, and public institutions across Southeast Asia.