The Philippines aims for nearly every health facility to use interoperable records by 2027. For provincial and city health networks, the harder question is whether the data moving between those systems can be used once it arrives.
Picture a rural health unit referring a patient to a provincial hospital. Both facilities now have electronic records, and both systems can technically share information. The referral arrives, but the blood results use different test names, the patient is registered under a slightly different spelling, and the medication history is a free-text note. The systems are connected. The information is not yet usable.
This is the gap that matters most as the Philippines works toward its interoperability targets. Digitising facilities and connecting systems are essential steps, and they are being taken at pace. What makes those investments pay off for patients and health managers is the condition of the data flowing through them.
This guide looks at the national target, what it means for provincial and city health networks, what recent local pilots show, and where networks can start. It draws on our experience at Jonda Health, where our work is turning health records from many different sources into structured, standardised information that clinicians and systems can actually use. Much of our clinical review team is based in the Philippines, so this is close to home for us.
The Philippines National Health Compact commits the country to leveraging digital health for efficient and accessible services. Its indicator for the percentage of health facilities using interoperable electronic medical records is set at 90% in 2026 and 100% in 2027, with the Department of Health, PhilHealth, the Department of Information and Communications Technology, local government units and healthcare providers accountable (Philippines National Health Compact).
Several efforts are moving in parallel toward that goal: national exchange standards through PH Core, PhilHealth's move to certified EMRs and electronic claims, and local health information exchanges built by provinces and cities. We cover the first two in PH Core Explained, Moving Off eKonsulta and Clean Data, Faster Claims.
The Universal Health Care Act calls for province-wide and city-wide Health Care Provider Networks, led by local government units, that coordinate care across primary, secondary and tertiary facilities. Researchers describe secure, interoperable digital health systems as a cornerstone of that reform, and also note the persistent challenges at local level: fragmented and non-standardised information systems, siloed data repositories, limited interoperability between EMRs and hospital systems, and facilities still working on paper (Frontiers in Digital Health).
For a network, interoperability is not an abstract target. It is whether a referral carries a usable history, whether a provincial dashboard reflects what is really happening in each facility, and whether reports to national programmes can be produced without weeks of manual reconciliation.
A study published in January 2026 describes the Smarter and Integrated Local Health Information System (SMILHIS), an open-source local exchange platform that uses a federated model, keeping data in local repositories while sharing it through standards-based interfaces. It was piloted in three very different settings (Zuniga et al., Frontiers in Digital Health).
Figure 1. What local health information exchange can deliver.
The results are encouraging and show what connected local systems can achieve. The lessons the researchers draw are just as useful: stakeholder engagement is critical, digital maturity varies widely between local government units, authoritative registries for patients, facilities and providers are essential foundations, and what each pilot could integrate depended on existing systems and local readiness (Frontiers in Digital Health).
It helps to think of digital readiness in levels. Replacing paper with an EMR, meeting certification requirements and connecting to an exchange are all important system milestones. The value for patients and managers comes at the next level, when records arrive consistent, complete and trusted.
Figure 2. Interoperable in name, or in practice?
In the records we work with across the region, the gaps between level three and level four look familiar. The same patient is registered differently in different facilities. Laboratory tests and medicines are named, abbreviated and coded in several ways. Diagnoses sit in free text. Years of history remain on paper or in scanned documents. None of this reflects poor practice; it is what happens when many facilities, systems and people record care in their own way over time.
AI can help with much of this work at speed, and we use it extensively ourselves. The lesson we have learned is that speed alone is not enough. Clinical review and quality checks are what make shared data trustworthy, which is why we argue that healthcare AI will not work without trusted data infrastructure.
For a provincial or city health office, the most useful first step is usually modest: take a sample of records from several facilities in the network and look at them side by side. How often is the same patient registered twice? Are the most common laboratory tests named the same way? How much of the history a referral would need is still on paper? The answers show quickly whether the network is interoperable in name or in practice, and where to focus.
From there, networks can agree common ways of recording the information that matters most for referrals and reporting, strengthen patient and facility registries, and plan how historical records will be brought into structured form as facilities go digital.
At Jonda Health, we have spent years working with health records across formats, languages and systems, and we know how much of the value of a connected network depends on the data moving through it. Depending on where your network is today, there are three ways we can help.
The Philippines National Health Compact sets targets for the share of health facilities using interoperable electronic medical records: 90% in 2026 and 100% in 2027 and 2028, with the Department of Health, PhilHealth, the Department of Information and Communications Technology, local government units and providers accountable.
Under the Universal Health Care Act, local government units form province-wide and city-wide Health Care Provider Networks that coordinate primary, secondary and tertiary care. Sharing patient information across these networks is central to how they are meant to work.
A local health information exchange connects the systems used by facilities within a province or city, so records can be shared. Some, like the SMILHIS platform piloted in the Philippines, use a federated model where data stays with each facility and is shared through standards-based interfaces.
Not necessarily. Connection means records can move between systems. Whether they are useful when they arrive depends on how consistently each facility records patients, results, medicines and diagnoses, and on how historical records have been handled.
Start with an honest look at a sample of records from several facilities: duplicates, inconsistent naming, missing fields and history held on paper. That shows where the gaps are and what to fix first.
Philippines National Health Compact; Zuniga et al., Development and implementation of an interoperable local health information exchange platform for the attainment of universal health coverage in the Philippines, Frontiers in Digital Health (January 2026); University of the Philippines Manila (July 2026). This article is for general information and is not policy or regulatory advice.
