The document discusses the Program Expenditure Classification Restructuring (PREXC) approach which aims to simplify the budget structure, link planning and budgeting, and measure performance. It does this by grouping all recurring activities and projects under the programs they contribute to and providing performance indicators for each program objective. This shifts the focus from line-item inputs to the intended outcomes of allocations. It also defines what constitutes a program and provides an example comparing the old and PREXC structures, showing how the PREXC approach organizes budget items by program and associated outcome indicators.

2. Program Expenditure
Classification (PREXC)Restructuring an agency’s
budget by grouping all recurring
activities and projects under the
Program they contribute to
Understanding a Program’s
Objective and providing
performance indicators (outputs
and outcomes) for each

3. Objective Effect Through
1. Simplify the
budget structure
Reduce the enormous
information requirement of
budget preparation and ease
the burden of both the DBM and
agency staff involved in budget
formulation.
Grouping of the
PAPs into Major
Final Outputs
(MFOs)
2. Linking planning
and budgeting to
provide a
strategic
perspective
Shift the focus of budget
analysis in the DBM and
discussion in Congress from
detailed line-item inputs to what
the allocations will achieve
Integration of
performance
information
Why do PREXC?
Objectives of the PIB

4. Objective Through
1. Re-focus the grouping of
budget items from Outputs
to Outcomes
Shift the grouping of PAPs from MFOs to
Programs
Include Outcome Indicators for every
Program
2. Include Projects in
measuring performance
Align Projects under Programs together
with Activities
3. Simplify the budget Remove Sub-PAPs to ensure that all items
of expenditure are in the same level in the
UACS code
4. Respond to the lessons
learned in terms of
measuring performance
indicators
Revise Performance Indicators based on
an improved criteria
Why do the PREXC Approach?

5. Program
An integrated grouping of activities and
projects that contributes to a particular
outcome of an agency
Should have the following:
• Unique expected results/outcomes
• A clear target population/client group external
• A defined method of intervention (strategy/ies)
to achieve the desired result/s
• A clear management structure that defines
accountabilities

7. PROGRAM NAME REGULAR ACTIVITY PROJECT (LFP)
Example of Program
DOH- OSEC
310300000000000 Public Health Program 478,245,000 19,065,769,000 19,544,014,000
310303000000000 National Immunization Sub Program 7,437,044,000 7,437,044,000
310303100001000 National Immunization 7,437,044,000 7,437,044,000

8. Outcomes and
Programs
Activities and projects contribute to the
same outcome, they are part of the same
program
Any item of expenditure that have the
same objective falls under the same
program
Any change, effect, or result brought
about by an agency’s programs or
strategies upon individuals, social
structures or the physical environment

9. DOH OSEC
GAS
General
Management and
Supervision
Administration of
Personnel
Benefits
SUPPORT TO
OPERATIONS
Health
information
systems and
technology dev’t
Support to
regional delivery
to services
OPERATIONS
MFO 1: Health
Sector Policy
Services
Formulation and
development of
National Health
Policies and
Plans including
essential National
Health Research
Dev’t of policies,
support
mechanisms and
collaboration for
int’l health
cooperation
Health system
dev’t program
including policy
support
Formulation of
policies,
standards and
plans for
hospitals and
other health
facilities
Nat’l Pharmaceutical
Policy Dev’t including
provision of drugs and
medicines , medical and
dental supplies to make
affordable quality drugs
available
Public health
dev’t program Health policy
development
MFO 2: Technical
Support Services
Health Human
Resource
Development
Health Human
Resource
Development
HHR Policy Dev’t and
Planning for LGU and
regional support
Implementation of the
Doctors to the Barrios
and RH Practice
Program
Local health
systems dev’t
and assistance
Health care
assistance
Assistance to
private sector
health centers
Disease
prevention and
control
Epidiomology
and disease
surveillance
Elimination of
disease as public
threat
Rabies control EPI
TB control
Other infectious
diseases
Environmental
and occupational
health
Non-
communicable
diseases
Family health and
responsible
parenthood
Operation of
PMAC secretariat
Health promotion
Health
emergency
management
HFEP
Barangay Health
Stations
Rural Health
Units
Public/LGU
Hospitals
Special Hospitals
Operation of
Regional Medical
Centers
Operation of
Dangerous Drug
Abuse Treatment
and Rehab
Centers
Other Health
Care Facilities
MFO 3: Hospital
Services
National
voluntary blood
services program
and operation of
blood centers
Operation of
special hospitals
Operation of
regional medical
centers
Operation of drug
abuse treatment
and rehab
centers
MFO 4: Health
Sector Regulation
Services
Implementation
of health
regulations
Regulation of
health facilities
and services
Regulation of
devices and
radiation health
Regulation of
food and drugs
Operations of
satellite
laboratories
Quarantine
services
Regional health
regulations
Access to preventive primary health care
services improved
Access to quality hospital services
improved
Safe and quality health commodities,
health devices, health facilities and food
ensured
Department of Health - Office of the Secretary
Legend: Agency Name Cost Structure Organizational Outcome
MFO Activity/Project
Based on 2017 GAA

13. Example: Difference between old PIB (2017) vs PRECX
Structure (2018)
OLD PIB (FY 2017)
Organization Outcomes/Performance Indicators
 Access to promotive and preventive health care services improved
Percentage of children fully immunized (with BCG, OVP3, DPV3, HepaB, measles
vaccines) before 12 months of age increased
95%
Percentage of birth delivered in health facilities increased (RHUs, birthing
homes, district and provincial hospitals, DOH hospitals and private hospitals)
85%
Treatment success rate of Tuberculosis increased 95%

14. Example: Difference between old PIB (2017) vs PRECX
Structure (2018)-cont.
MFO 2: Technical Support Services (Disease Prevention)
Performance Indicators 2017 Targets
Number of commodities and services to LGUs:
Vaccination, Doctors Hours, Nurses and
Midwives
2,828,493,944
% of stakeholders who rate the commodity
supply/service good or better 89%
% of requests for commodities and human
resource services met in full within 48 hours 90%

15. Example: Difference between old PIB (2017) vs PRECX
Structure (2018) – cont.
PRECX Structure 2018
Organization Outcomes (OOs)
 Access to promotive and preventive health care services improved
 Public Health Program
 Output Indicators
1. Percentage of external clients who rated the technical
assistance provided as satisfactory or better
85%
2. Percentage of fully immunized children 95%
3. Modern contraceptive prevalence rate 32.50%
4. Number of malaria-free provinces
Additional 13 provinces (cumulative: 45
provinces)
5. Number of filariasis-free provinces
Additional 6 provinces (cumulative: 41
provinces)
6. Number of rabies-free areas
Additional 6 provinces (cumulative: 47
areas)

16. Example: Difference between old PIB (2017) vs PRECX
Structure (2018)-cont.
7. Percentage of Anti-Retroviral Treatment (ART)
eligible people living with HIV on ART 90%
8. Treatment success rate for all forms of Tuberculosis 90%
9. Premature mortality rate attributed to
cardiovascular disease, cancer diabetes, and chronic
respiratory diseases No annual target
Output Indicators
1. Percentage of LGUs and other health partners
provided with technical assistance on public health
programs 80%
2. Average percentage of LGUs provided with at least
80% of commodities 80%