Medical Action Group (MAG) and Action for Economic Reforms (AER) plan to file a motion with the Supreme Court opposing PhilHealth's zero budget for 2025. They argue that the General Appropriations Act (GAA) violates the Universal Health Care Act, Sin Tax Reform laws, and is unconstitutional. The groups warn that the lack of funding will negatively impact healthcare financing for Filipinos and hinder the government's ability to provide healthcare.
GROUPS composed of those in the healthcare industry and other professionals are gearing up to take to the Supreme Court their opposition to the zero budget of the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. this year.
the Sin Tax Reform laws. They also argued that the GAA is unconstitutional since “an appropriations law cannot amend a statute.” In the statement the organizations issued this week, the MAG and the AER said the non-allocation for PhilHealth in the GAA will impact on the ability of the government to provide healthcare financing for Filipinos which will affect health outcomes.
The MAG and the AER also stressed that PhilHealth should explain how it intends to register 25 million indirect members and their 16 million dependents when they have not provided for them in the 2025 Corporate Operating Budget. The MAG and the AER said the full implementation of the Konsulta will cost PhilHealth P194 billion annually in order to provide a P1,700 primary care package for each of the 114 million Filipinos.
“In effect, the zero budget for PhilHealth means that the government is leaving the burden of funding PhilHealth to the workers,” they added.
Philhealth Supreme Court Budget Healthcare Universal Health Care
Philippines Latest News, Philippines Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Court denies TikTok's request to halt enforcement of potential US ban until Supreme Court reviewA federal appeals court on Friday left in place a mid-January deadline in a federal law requiring TikTok to be sold or face a ban in the United States, rejecting a request made by the company to halt enforcement until the Supreme Court reviews its challenge of the statute.
Read more »
Supreme Court Rules Chat Logs and Videos as Evidence Do Not Violate Privacy RightsThe Supreme Court has determined that chat logs and videos used as evidence in criminal cases do not infringe on the right to privacy. The decision came in the case of People v. Rodriguez, where the defendant, involved in online human trafficking, was monitored via a decoy account set up by the police.
Read more »
Supreme Court Upholds Use of Chat Logs and Videos as Evidence in Crime CasesThe Supreme Court has reiterated that chat logs and videos can be used as evidence to determine criminal liability, affirming the conviction of an individual for selling nude shows of girls for profit despite his objections.
Read more »
Transgender rights case lands at Supreme Court amid debate over ban on medical treatments for minorsWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Wednesday in just its second major transgender rights case, which is a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors.
Read more »
Supreme Court Seeks to Uphold Tennessee's Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for MinorsDuring a hearing, the Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, with conservative justices showing skepticism of arguments against the ban. The case's outcome could sway similar laws across the nation.
Read more »
Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Intellectual Disability Witness TestimonyThe Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of two men for murder based on the testimony of a witness with intellectual disabilities. The ruling emphasizes that a person's intellectual disability does not automatically disqualify them from being a credible witness in court if their testimony is coherent.
Read more »