Revilla senior proposal is patronizing populism

SEN. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.Photo from Senate PRIB

SEN. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., evidently inspired by the recent enactment of the expanded Centenarian Law that he co-authored, now wants to lower the age of senior citizenship from 60 to 56. Not only is this proposal rather insulting, as the reactions of several of our colleagues and friends who are of that approximate age immediately indicated upon hearing the news, but it is the same sort of unnecessary, point-missing populism as the increase in the minimum wage recently championed by the Senate: not at all a solution to the problem it purports to address, a measure that will have limited positive impact and perhaps negative unintended consequences.

Revilla shared his proposal with the media over the weekend in Baguio City, where he was attending the annual Panagbenga Flower Festival for the apparent purpose of helping to promote a GMA TV network sitcom, so a preference on his part for legislation with more appearance than substance should perhaps be expected. Under his proposal, the legal age for eligibility for senior citizen discounts would be lowered from age 60 to age 56, and a minimum discount of 10 percent for medicines and food would be mandated, among other unspecified benefits.

The senator explained that there is a need to lower the threshold age of senior citizenship “because of the low life expectancy of Filipinos” and the need for many people to take maintenance medication as early as 40 years old or even younger.

Revilla added that he wants to get the overall sentiment of the people on the matter before filing the measure and that the Senate would conduct public hearings on the proposed measure’s details.

If Senator Revilla is indeed collecting and recording overall sentiments, here is one: there is probably not one Filipino who is or will soon be 56 years of age who regards himself or herself as a “senior citizen” or would approve of being described as one by someone else. The senator, who is 57, certainly does not present the appearance or demeanor of one who considers himself a senior citizen; if he does, we suggest he calm himself and not skip the enjoyment of the afternoon of life for the twilight.

That aspect of his proposal, however, is a minor matter. The bigger and more pertinent issue is the lack of necessity for it, on the one hand, and the manner in which it papers over some critical challenges of public health and wellness rather than actually addressing them.

The main issue that Revilla seems to want to tackle, the cost of medications, has already been addressed by several laws, including the Generics Act of 1988, the Universally Accessible Quality and Cheaper Medicines Act of 2008, and the Universal Health Care Act of 2019. This helps to reduce the cost of medicines, mainly the sort of “maintenance” medications that Revilla alluded to, for everyone regardless of age, and, of course, there is still the additional discount available to those most likely to need them, people over age 60.

Band-aid solution at best

Imposing extended discounts is, at best, a band-aid solution to the problem of medicines that may still be too expensive for many people and could very well result in increases in drug prices for everyone else. A far better solution would be to examine, in detail, where drug cost problems actually need to be solved and then work with the pharmaceutical companies and other suppliers to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions. This is what the US government has recently done to address the high cost of many vital medicines, such as insulin; by all accounts, the effort, while it was not a quick or easy process, has been a success.

In addition, the root causes of the “low life expectancy of Filipinos” need a more careful examination than simply throwing an unrelated expanded senior discount at them. The objective should always be to have a healthier and more active population of older Filipinos who do not need as many medicines in the first place. Medical care and medication should always be accessible and affordable when needed, but if that need can be avoided altogether or at least be postponed until much later in life, everyone will benefit much more than a 10-percent discount could ever provide.