The bicameral conference committee will face the “double whammy” of having to address the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) after a zero allocation in the 2025 budget and the delayed return of the P60-billion unconstitutional transfer, Senator Christopher “Bong” Go said.

On Saturday, 13 December, Go pressed fellow members of the Bicameral Conference Committee (Bicam) to directly address what he described as a “double whammy” confronting the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. Inc. (PhilHealth), the zero allocation for the agency in the 2025 national budget and the decision to schedule the return of P60 billion in funds only in 2026.

Speaking during the bicameral meeting on the provisions in disagreement on House Bill 4058, Go underscored the fiscal implications for patients, hospitals, and healthcare workers, while reiterating his long-standing call for transparency and public participation in the budget process.

“As you all know, I had my reservations on the Bicam report of the 2025 budget. In fact, I did not sign the Bicam report last year. Particularly, I am saddened by the zero-budget given to PhilHealth,” Go said.

The 2025 zero budget for PhilHealth was a compounded blow to the country’s public health insurer, drawing on his experience conducting multiple hearings on healthcare financing and benefit delivery.

“In a sense, what happened to PhilHealth was a double whammy, and I know this because in 2024 I conducted 14 hearings, including those on the health emergency allowances of healthcare workers.

There, we saw that PhilHealth’s counterpart for its patients was truly inadequate. What you said earlier is correct — that their case rates remain very low,” he explained, recalling the time he was still chairing the Senate Health Committee.

Go recounted how PhilHealth’s own actions in late 2024 demonstrated that higher case rates were feasible if decisive action had been taken earlier in the year. He noted that the belated increase occurred only after the controversy had already erupted.

“In fact, when the controversy erupted in December 2024, they convened a board meeting. In just a few days during that meeting, they increased the case rates. This shows they could raise case rates within days, even in December. Had they done this as early as January — had they increased the case rates then — they would not have had excess funds that the national treasury eventually swept,” Go said.

He traced the sequence of events that followed, noting that the national treasury’s transfer of funds triggered alarm and ultimately led to legal challenges.

Swept in July

“When the national treasury swept the funds in July, that was when we held a hearing. That was when we became alarmed, and we filed a petition with the Supreme Court. Fortunately, the issue has now finally been decided,” he added.

Now, as vice chair of the Senate Health Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, Go described that episode as concluded but emphasized that its repercussions continue to shape the current budget debate.

“In any case, that matter is already settled — it is water under the bridge. The problem now is that the Supreme Court has decided to return the P60 billion in funds. This is a refund, which means it should have been made immediately available for use,” he said.

He questioned the decision to appropriate the refunded amount only in the 2026 budget cycle, noting the gap created by PhilHealth’s zero allocation in 2025.

“But it was appropriated in 2026. What about 2025, when the budget was zero? How many patients were deprived because of PhilHealth’s zero budget in 2025?” Go asked.

This unresolved gap, he said, was a central reason for his refusal to sign the last bicameral report.

“That’s one of the reasons why I didn’t sign in 2025. Maybe the bicameral committee can address this. How about that double whammy? P60 billion will be returned in 2026, but what about the zero budget in 2025?” he said.

Go concluded his remarks by reiterating that budget decisions must ultimately be judged by their consequences for ordinary Filipinos who rely on PhilHealth coverage during illness and medical crises.