NO CASH NO CURE: A CRUEL POLICY IN PUBLIC HOSPITALS

 NO CASH NO CURE: A CRUEL POLICY IN PUBLIC HOSPITALS

Sometimes we hear stories about wrong practices in government institutions, and we hope they are not true. Unfortunately, many of them are. Among the most disturbing is the persistent allegation that some public hospitals still refuse to admit emergency patients unless a cash deposit is paid first. Even worse, there are reports that certain procedures are delayed until payment is secured. If these stories are accurate, they represent not just administrative failure but a moral tragedy.

The irony is that the Philippines is not lacking in laws designed to prevent this injustice. Republic Act No. 10932, the Anti-Hospital Deposit Law, clearly makes it illegal for hospitals or medical practitioners to demand advance payment before providing emergency treatment or admitting patients in serious cases. Hospitals are legally required to stabilize patients first before discussing payment arrangements.

The law is not symbolic; it carries real penalties. Hospital staff who violate the law may face fines of ₱100,000 to ₱300,000 and imprisonment, while hospital officials responsible for such policies may face even heavier fines and prison terms of up to six years. After repeated violations, a hospital’s license can even be revoked. The law is clear. But the problem is enforcement.

This issue becomes even more alarming when viewed alongside the government’s Zero Balance Billing (ZBB) policy, which aims to ensure that qualified patients in government hospitals pay no out-of-pocket expenses for covered services. In principle, no Filipino should be denied emergency treatment simply because he or she has no cash on hand. Yet if the “no cash, no cure” mentality persists in some facilities, it undermines the entire promise of universal health care.

Why does this continue to happen? Some hospital administrators quietly argue that shortages of supplies, underfunding, and delayed reimbursements force them into unofficial “deposit practices.” While these operational difficulties may be real, they cannot justify the denial of emergency care. A hospital exists to save lives first, not to balance books first.

The human cost of delayed treatment is incalculable. A patient denied immediate care may suffer permanent disability, complications, or even death. Families may be pushed deeper into poverty by rushing to raise emergency funds that should never have been demanded in the first place. More importantly, public trust in the health system erodes each time such incidents occur.

What then should be done? First, enforcement must be swift and visible. Violations should lead to administrative sanctions, criminal prosecution, and public disclosure. Second, government funding for public hospitals must be strengthened so that administrators do not feel compelled to resort to informal deposit systems. Third, patients must be educated about their rights under the Anti-Hospital Deposit Law, because an informed citizenry is often the strongest defense against abuse.

We often repeat the phrase “no one is above the law,” yet the credibility of that statement depends on whether we are willing to apply it even to powerful institutions. Health care is not a privilege reserved for those who can pay cash on demand; it is a fundamental right. If any hospital still operates under a “no cash, no cure” mindset, then the problem is not the absence of law—it is the absence of accountability.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-30-2027