IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE BARANGAY HEALTH CLINICS OPEN ALL THE TIME EVERYWHERE?

 IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE BARANGAY HEALTH CLINICS OPEN ALL THE TIME EVERYWHERE?

My answer is yes—but only under certain conditions, and only if we are willing to prioritize primary healthcare as a national investment rather than a local afterthought.

Technically speaking, the Barangay Health Clinic (BHC) is the foundation of the Philippine healthcare ladder. Primary care should begin there, followed by referrals to secondary and tertiary facilities. Health planners worldwide agree that when strong primary care exists, hospital congestion decreases because many illnesses are treated early and cheaply. That alone is a compelling reason to strengthen the system.

The common argument against 24/7 BHC operations is manpower shortage, especially the lack of doctors. That concern is real. The Philippines still has fewer than eight doctors per 10,000 people—below the global benchmark of about 10 per 10,000—and the shortage is worse in rural areas. 

But the more interesting fact is this: the country actually has many licensed health professionals who are not practicing locally. Only about 59.7% of registered physicians and roughly half of registered nurses are active in practice.
This suggests that the problem is not purely supply—it is deployment, compensation, and funding priorities.

This is why I believe teleconsultation can become a major equalizer. We do not need a one-doctor-per-clinic ratio to make 24/7 coverage workable. A doctor supervising hundreds of clinics through telehealth systems—supported by nurses, midwives, and trained barangay health workers—could make continuous service feasible. The Netherlands, New Zealand, and several Middle Eastern systems already operate variations of this network model, combining digital consultations with strategically located physical hubs.

Funding, of course, remains the decisive factor. Under the Local Government Code, barangay clinics depend heavily on the resources of local government units (LGUs), and the disparity is obvious: a clinic in Makati may function efficiently, while one in a remote municipality may struggle to maintain basic supplies. If we truly believe in universal healthcare, then the national government must assume stronger responsibility for financing primary care infrastructure nationwide, not leave it mainly to local budgets.

Another point must be emphasized: this is not merely a health policy issue—it is an anti-poverty strategy. Wealthy families will always find access to private hospitals. The poor depend on public primary care. When clinics are closed at night, the poor either delay treatment or crowd emergency rooms, which ultimately increases both suffering and public spending. Preventive care delivered early is far cheaper than emergency treatment delivered late.

Could we open all BHCs 24/7 immediately? Probably not. But a five-to-ten-year roadmap is realistic. The country could begin with clustered coverage—ensuring at least one 24/7 primary care facility for every group of barangays—while gradually expanding staffing, telemedicine, and equipment support. Programs such as the emerging “Super Health Centers” show that this transition has already begun, although expansion must be faster and better coordinated.

In the final analysis, the issue is not whether the Philippines has enough money, technology, or trained people. The issue is whether we will prioritize the health of our citizens at the same level that we prioritize infrastructure, defense, or politics. After all, what kind of productivity can any nation expect if its people are sick—and if the nearest clinic is closed when they need it most?

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-28-2027