Philippines (`ph`) — a filled-out country pack

"ph" — [SAFE], ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 for the Philippines.

• system_id(): not yet named — depends on the answers below.
• Diagnosis coding — [L], NEEDS LOCAL INPUT for the operative detail. The Philippines is a WHO member state, and DOH's own health-statistics reporting is generally understood to use ICD-10 (the WHO edition), not the US clinical modification (ICD-10-CM). NEEDS LOCAL INPUT: does PhilHealth's own electronic-claims (eClaims) technical specification require a specific ICD-10 edition or year release, and has any transition toward ICD-11 begun for claims?
• Procedure coding — NEEDS LOCAL INPUT, no confident answer. Which procedure code set does PhilHealth require on a facility claim — a Relative Value Scale, a procedure-coding volume of ICD-9-CM, a PhilHealth-specific case-rate/procedure code, or something else?
• Lab coding — NEEDS LOCAL INPUT. Does DOH's interoperability program (the Philippine Health Information Exchange) or PhilHealth mandate LOINC, a local lab code list, or leave this unspecified?

• regime_id(): "PH-DPA-2012" — [L]. The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173), enforced by the National Privacy Commission (NPC), is the Philippines' general data-protection law.
• consent_text(scope): NEEDS LOCAL INPUT — deliberately not drafted. The DPA 2012 treats health information as "sensitive personal information" with stricter processing conditions than ordinary personal data, but operative consent text is a question for a Philippine lawyer or the NPC's own published model language, not a plausible paraphrase.
• retention_default_days(resource_type): NEEDS LOCAL INPUT for every resource type (Patient, Encounter, DiagnosticReport, Observation, MedicationRequest). The precise question: what minimum (and, if any, maximum) retention period does Philippine law or DOH regulation set for each resource type, and does the period differ for a minor patient's records?
• export_rule(purpose): NEEDS LOCAL INPUT. RA 10173 is generally understood to hold the Philippine data controller accountable for personal data even after it is transferred abroad [L], but the specific mechanism — required contractual clauses, NPC notification, an outright restriction for certain data categories — needs the NPC's own guidance.

NEEDS LOCAL INPUT, entirely. No evidence was found that a national "PH Core" FHIR R4 implementation guide (analogous to US Core) exists. The precise question: does DOH, PhilHealth, or the Philippine Health Information Exchange publish a FHIR implementation guide today? If not, what does a system actually need to satisfy PhilHealth eClaims' own data-submission format?

"ph-dpa-v1" / "ph-criteria-v1" — [SAFE] as placeholder names only. No compliance-rule engine or policy-pack loader exists in this codebase for any country yet. Not a claim that these strings mean anything operationally today.

[L], with a NEEDS LOCAL INPUT on shape. The Philippine Health Insurance Corporation ("PhilHealth") is the single national social health insurance program — unlike the US split between Medicare and Medicaid, there is one dominant national payer, plus private health-maintenance organizations (HMOs) and out-of-pocket/self-pay. A starting, category-level vocabulary: ("PhilHealth", "HMO", "private", "self-pay"). NEEDS LOCAL INPUT: should specific named private HMOs be enumerated individually, and does PhilHealth's own claims format use a specific payer-type code list this vocabulary should mirror exactly?

"PHP" — [SAFE], ISO 4217 code for the Philippine peso.

"en-PH" — [L], and this is the field this document is most confident about, precisely because it is the reason the Philippines was chosen first: English is the language of medical education, clinical charting, health IT, and PhilHealth's own forms in the Philippines. NEEDS LOCAL INPUT, one open question: should the default still be English, or should Filipino (fil-PH) be the default interface language with English available?

NEEDS LOCAL INPUT — not assumed, despite this document having a guess. The uncertain guess is that Philippine government and clinical forms commonly follow MM/DD/YYYY (consistent with historical US administrative influence), but per the template's own instruction — "this is a patient-safety-adjacent field... do not assume" — this document declines to assert it. The precise question: what date format does the actual PhilHealth claims form and DOH reporting form use?

NEEDS LOCAL INPUT, for the same reason as Field 10: a decimal-point misread in a dose or lab value is a safety error. The mild expectation that the Philippines follows 1,234.56 (comma-thousands, period-decimal) is not a substitute for checking an actual Philippine lab report or prescription template.

NEEDS LOCAL INPUT. Not aware of a Philippine data-residency mandate for health data specifically (RA 10173 does not obviously impose one the way China's laws do), but "not aware of one" is not the same as "confirmed none exists." The precise question: does any NPC circular on cross-border data transfer or outsourcing impose a residency condition specifically for health/sensitive personal information?

NEEDS LOCAL INPUT, with a lean toward None. Not aware of an NPC-published, HIPAA-Safe-Harbor-style enumerated de-identification standard for the Philippines. If a Philippine health-IT contributor confirms none exists, the honest value is None — "no known standard" is a real, valid answer, not a gap to fill by analogy to HIPAA.

NEEDS LOCAL INPUT, with a lean toward None for the same reason as Field 14: no published Philippine Statistics Authority or DOH small-cell suppression rule for health data is known to exist, but that absence has not been confirmed.

[L], moderate confidence. The Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (PHREB) is, to general knowledge, the national body that accredits institutional ethics review committees for health research in the Philippines, and Philippine hospitals commonly operate an Institutional Ethics Review Board/Committee. A starting value: ("Institutional Ethics Review Board", "PHREB-accredited"). NEEDS LOCAL INPUT: the exact naming convention actually used (Board vs. Committee), whether PHREB accreditation is a hard requirement for the specific secondary-use scenarios this field would gate, and whether the NPC plays a separate, additional approval role.