Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background A national Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) scheme called Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogaya Yojana (PMJAY) was launched by government of India in 2018. PMJAY seeks to cover 500 million persons with an annual cover of around 7000 USD per household. PMJAY claims to be the largest government funded health scheme globally and has attracted an international debate as a policy for Universal Health Coverage. India’s decade-long experience of the earlier national and state-specific PFHI schemes had shown poor effectiveness in financial protection. Most states in India have completed a year of implementation of PMJAY but no evaluations are available of this important scheme. Methods The study was designed to find out the effect of enrolment under PMJAY in improving utilisation of hospital services and financial protection in Chhattisgarh which has been a leading state in implementing PFHI in terms of enrolment and claims. The study analyses three repeated cross-sections. Two of the cross-sections are from National Sample Survey (NSS) health rounds – year 2004 when there was no PFHI and 2014 when the older PFHI scheme was in operation. Primary data was collected in 2019-end to cover the first year of PMJAY implementation and it formed the third cross-section. Multivariate analysis was carried out. In addition, Propensity Score Matching and Instrumental Variable method were applied to address the selection problem in insurance. Results Enrollment under PMJAY or other PFHI schemes did not increase utilisation of hospital-care in Chhattisgarh. Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) and incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure did not decrease with enrollment under PMJAY or other PFHI schemes. The size of OOPE was significantly greater for utilisation in private sector, irrespective of enrollment under PMJAY. Conclusion PMJAY provided substantially larger vertical cover than earlier PFHI schemes in India but it has not been able to improve access or financial protection so far in the state. Though PMJAY is a relatively new scheme, the persistent failure of PFHI schemes over a decade raises doubts about suitability of publicly funded purchasing from private providers in the Indian context. Further research is recommended on such policies in LMIC contexts.

Background India launched a national health insurance scheme named Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY) in 2018 as a key policy for universal health coverage. The ambitious scheme covers 100 million poor households. None of the studies have examined its impact on the quality of care. The existing studies on the impact of AB-PMJAY on financial protection have been limited to early experiences of its implementation. Since then, the government has improved the scheme’s design. The current study was aimed at evaluating the impact of AB-PMJAY on improving utilisation, quality, and financial protection for inpatient care after four years of its implementation. Methods Two annual waves of household surveys were conducted for years 2021 and 2022 in Chhattisgarh state. The surveys had a sample representative of the state’s population, covering around 15,000 individuals. Quality was measured in terms of patient satisfaction and length of stay. Financial protection was measured through indicators of catastrophic health expenditure at different thresholds. Multivariate adjusted models and propensity score matching were applied to examine the impacts of AB-PMJAY. In addition, the instrumental variable method was used to address the selection problem. Results Enrollment under AB-PMJAY was not associated with increased utilisation of inpatient care. Among individuals enrolled under AB-PMJAY who utilised private hospitals, the proportion incurring catastrophic health expenditure at the threshold of 10% of annual consumption expenditure was 78.1% and 70.9% in 2021 and 2022, respectively. The utilisation of private hospitals was associated with greater catastrophic expenditure irrespective of AB-PMJAY coverage. Enrollment under AB-PMJAY was not associated with reduced out-of-pocket expenditure or catastrophic health expenditure. Conclusions AB-PMJAY has achieved a large coverage of the population but after four years of implementation and an evidence-based increase in reimbursement prices for hospitals, it has not made an impact on improving utilisation, quality, or financial protection. The private hospitals contracted under the scheme continued to overcharge patients, and purchasing was ineffective in regulating provider behaviour. Further research is recommended to assess the impact of publicly funded health insurance schemes on financial protection in other low- and middle-income countries.

Background Universal Health Coverage (UHC) aims to ensure universal access to quality healthcare according to health needs. The extent to which population health needs are met should be a key measure for progress on UHC. The indicators in use for measuring access mostly relate to physical accessibility or insurance coverage. Or, utilization of services is taken as indirect measure for access but it is assessed against only the perceived healthcare needs. The unperceived needs do not get taken into account. The present study was aimed at demonstrating an approach for measuring the unmet healthcare needs using household survey data as an additional measure of UHC. Methods A household survey was conducted in Chhattisgarh state of India, covering a multi-stage sample of 3153 individuals. Healthcare need was measured in terms of perceived needs which would be self-reported and unperceived needs where clinical measurement supplemented the interview response. Estimation of unperceived healthcare needs was limited to three tracer conditions- hypertension, diabetes and depression. Multivariate analysis was conducted to find the determinants of the various measures of the perceived and unperceived needs. Results Of the surveyed individuals, 10.47% reported perceived healthcare needs for acute ailments in the last 15 days. 10.62% individuals self-reported suffering from chronic conditions. 12.75% of those with acute ailment and 18.40% with chronic ailments received no treatment, while 27.83% and 9.07% respectively received treatment from unqualified providers. On an average, patients with chronic ailments received only half the medication doses required annually. The latent need was very high for chronic ailments. 47.42% of individuals above 30 years age never had blood pressure measured. 95% of those identified with likelihood of depression had not sought any healthcare and they did not know they could be suffering from depression. Conclusion To assess progress on UHC more meaningfully, better methods are needed to measure unmet healthcare needs, taking into account both the perceived and unperceived needs, as well as incomplete care and inappropriate care. Appropriately designed household surveys offer a significant potential to allow its periodic measurement. Their limitations in measuring the ‘inappropriate care’ may necessitate supplementation with qualitative methods.

Background Many LMICs have implemented Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) programmes to improve access and financial protection. The national PFHI scheme implemented in India for a decade has been recently modified and expanded to cover free hospital care for 500 million persons. Since increase in annual cover amount is one of the main design modifications in the new programme, the relevant policy question is whether such design change can improve financial protection for hospital care. An evaluation of state-specific PFHI programmes with vertical cover larger than RSBY can help answer this question. Three states in Southern India - Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been pioneers in implementing PFHI with a large insurance cover. Methods The current study was meant to evaluate the PFHI in above three states in improving utilisation of hospital services and financial protection against expenses of hospitalization. Two cross-sections from National Sample Survey’s health rounds, the 60th round done in 2004 and the 71st round done in 2014 were analysed. Instrumental Variable method was applied to address endogeneity or the selection problem in insurance. Results Enrollment under PFHI was not associated with increase in utilisation of hospital care in the three states. Private hospitals dominated the empanelment of facilities under PFHI as well as utilisation. Out of Pocket Expenditure and incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure did not decrease with enrollment under PFHI in the three states. The size of Out of Pocket Expenditure was significantly greater for utilisation in private sector, irrespective of insurance enrollment. Conclusion PFHI in the three states used substantially larger vertical cover than national scheme in 2014. The three states are known for their good governance. Yet, the PFHI programmes in all three states failed in fulfilling their fundamental purpose. Increasing vertical cover of PFHI and using either ‘Trusts’ or Insurance-companies as purchasers may not give desired results in absence of adequate regulation. The study raises doubts regarding effectiveness of contracting under PFHIs to influence provider-behavior in the Indian context. Further research is required to find solutions for addressing gaps that contribute to poor financial outcomes for patients under PFHI.

Introduction Understanding the cost of care associated with different kinds of healthcare providers is necessary for informing the policy debates in mixed health-systems like India’s. Existing studies reporting Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) per episode of outpatient care in public and private providers in India do not provide a fair comparison because they have not taken into account the government subsidies received by public facilities. Public and private health insurance in India do not cover outpatient care and for-profit providers have to meet all their costs out of the payments they take from patients. Methods The average direct cost per acute episode of outpatient care was compared for public providers, for-profit formal providers and informal private providers in Chhattisgarh state of India. For public facilities, government subsidies for various inputs were taken into account. Resources used were apportioned using Activity Based Costing. Land provided free to public facilities was counted at market prices. The study used two datasets: a) household survey on outpatient utilisation and OOPE b) facility survey of public providers to find the input costs borne by government per outpatient-episode. Results The average cost per episode of outpatient care was Indian Rupees (INR) 400 for public providers, INR 586 for informal private providers and INR 2643 for formal for-profit providers and they managed 39.3, 37.9 and 22.9% of episodes respectively. The average cost for government and households put together was greater for using formal for-profit providers than the public providers. The disease profile of care handled by different types of providers was similar. Volume of patients and human-resources were key cost drivers in public facilities. Close to community providers involved less cost than others. Conclusions and recommendations The findings have implications for the desired mix of public and private providers in India’s health-system. Poor regulation of for-profit providers was an important structural cost driver. Purchasing outpatient care from private providers may not reduce average cost. Policies to strengthen public provisioning of curative primary care close to communities can help in reducing cost.

Background The benefits of early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) are well recognised globally. India’s newborn care guidelines also include an emphasis on ensuring EIBF. Yet, a recent national survey has reported that less than half of the newborns in India received EIBF. This is especially astounding as the proportion of institutional deliveries has reached 89% in India. This study was aimed at finding out the EIBF rate for newborns born in public sector health facilities and the factors associated with it. Methods The study was conducted in Chhattisgarh state where 70% of births took place in public facilities. Data was collected from mothers admitted in different types of public facilities and who had delivered there more than 24 h earlier. A representative sample of public sector health facilities was selected. Data was collected through a structured tool from 487 mothers. Data analysis included cross-tabulations to compare the key indicators across different types of facilities. Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to find the determinants of EIBF. Results Overall, 61.6% mothers started breastfeeding their child within an hour of birth. Around 7.6% mothers had not started breastfeeding despite the passage of 24 h. The EIBF rate was highest in the lower level primary facilities and lowest in the higher level secondary facilities. The multivariable regression analysis showed that the EIBF rate was significantly higher for mothers who had received advice on breastfeeding at the health facility. The caesarean-section deliveries and first order births were associated with poor EIBF. Conclusions The EIBF rates were significantly greater than what the recent national survey had reported for the state. Our study still shows a significant gap in ensuring EIBF, especially at the higher level secondary care facilities. It points towards larger health systems factors that affect the practice of health professionals regarding providing counseling to mothers at health facilities.

Background The elderly face a greater burden of illnesses than other age groups and have a more frequent need of healthcare, including in-patient hospitalisations. Catastrophic expenditure on hospitalisation of the elderly poses a significant challenge to India’s aim of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). India has implemented a policy of Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) to provide free inpatient care by empanelling private and public hospitals. The existing studies have examined the performance of PFHI in financial protection of the elderly. Methods This study utilised the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI) Wave 1, conducted in 2017–18. LASI is a large-scale nationally representative survey collecting data on elderly health including illness burden, healthcare use and out of pocket expenditure (OOPE). It covered a sample 72,250 individuals aged 45 or above. Financial Protection was measured in terms of Catastrophic Health Expenditure (CHE). Multivariate analysis was conducted to find effect of PFHI on OOPE—quantile and logistic models were applied for OOPE and CHE respectively. For robustness, Propensity Score Matching (PSM) model was applied. Results Of the hospitalisations, 35% had taken place in public hospitals. The mean OOPE for a hospitalisation in public sector was Indian Rupees (INR) 8276, whereas it was INR 49,700 in private facilities. Incidence of CHE was several times greater for using private hospitals as compared to public hospitals. Multi-variate analyses showed that enrolment under PFHI was not associated with lower OOPE or CHE. PSM model also confirmed that PFHI-enrolment had no effect on OOPE or CHE. Use of private facilities was a key determinant of OOPE, irrespective of enrolment under PFHI. Conclusions This was the first study in India to examine the performance of PFHI in the context of catastrophic hospitalisation expenditure faced by the elderly. It found that PFHI was not effective in financial protection of the elderly. The ongoing reliance on a poorly regulated private sector seems to be a key limitation of PFHI policy. Governments need to find more effective ways of protecting the elderly from catastrophic health expenditure if the goal of UHC has to be realized.

Background Calcium supplementation is an essential intervention to prevent hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. During lactation, it can help in improving maternal bone mineral content and breast milk concentration. In 2014, India introduced Calcium supplementation in public programmes for pregnant women and lactating mothers. It relied on the same delivery mechanism as used for maternal Iron and Folic Acid (IFA) supplementation. After close to a decade, there is a need to assess the coverage achieved and the adherence to regular consumption of Calcium. Methods The assessment covered availability, awareness and consumption of Calcium and IFA tablets. A household survey was conducted in rural areas of Chhattisgarh state, interviewing pregnant women in second or third trimester and lactating mothers within 6-months post-partum period. A state-representative sample of 711 pregnant women and 668 lactating mothers was covered. In addition, 157 Auxiliary Nurse cum Midwives (ANMs) were interviewed as they are the key providers of maternal care in India. Results Around 59.1% of pregnant women and 31.4% of lactating mothers had consumed Calcium the preceding day while 66.7% and 37.9% respectively had Calcium tablets available with them. In comparison, the availability of IFA was better and so was the consumption. The ANMs had received inadequate quantity of Calcium tablets from the health system. Only 11.8% of pregnant women and 8.7% of lactating mothers had consumed the recommended full dosage (two tablets of 500 milligrams each per day) and it closely reflected their awareness level. Two-third of the ANMs believed that a single tablet was the recommended daily dosage of Calcium. The knowledge on correct dosage for Calcium was missing irrespective of the type of health provider or facility accessed. Conclusion Calcium supplementation in pregnancy has made significant progress in rural Chhattisgarh. To improve adherence further, efforts on ensuring availability of Calcium will be more fruitful than mainly focusing on maternal behavioral change. Overall post-partum care including Calcium supplementation seem to be a neglected area in Indian health systems. System wide efforts that influence awareness and practices of providers will be needed to address the gap that exists in dosage of Calcium.

Objective Institutional deliveries have been promoted in India to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. While the institutional deliveries have increased, they tend to involve large out of pocket expenditure (OOPE) and distress financing for households. In order to protect the families from financial hardship, publicly funded health insurance (PFHI) schemes have been implemented in India. An expanded national health insurance scheme called the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) was launched in 2018. The current study was aimed at evaluating the performance of PFHI in reducing the OOPE and distress financing for the caesarean and non-caesarean institutional deliveries after the launch of PMJAY. This study analysed the nationally representative dataset of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) conducted in 2019-21. Results Enrollment under PMJAY or other PFHI was not associated with any reduction in out of pocket expenditure or distress financing for caesarean or non-caesarean institutional deliveries across India. Irrespective of the PFHI coverage, the average OOPE in private hospitals was five times larger than public hospitals. Private hospitals showed an excessive rate of using caesarean-section. Utilization of private hospitals was significantly associated with incurring larger OOPE and occurrence of distress financing.

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread illness and a significant proportion of the infected required hospitalisation for treatment. People in developing countries like India were vulnerable to high hospitalisation costs. Despite its crucial importance, few primary studies are available on this aspect of the pandemic. This study was aimed at finding out the out of pocket expenditure (OOPE) and incidence of catastrophic expenditure on hospitalisation of persons infected with COVID-19. A primary survey of 492 randomly selected hospitalisations of individuals tested positive for COVID-19 in high-burden districts during August to November 2020 was carried out telephonically in Chhattisgarh state of India. Results Public hospitals accounted for 69% of the hospitalisations for COVID-19 treatment. Mean OOPE per hospitalisation was Indian Rupees (INR) 4871 in public hospitals and INR 169,504 in private hospitals. Around 3% of hospitalisations in public hospitals and 59% in private hospitals resulted in catastrophic expenditure, at a threshold of 40% of non-food annual household expenditure. Enrolment under publicly or privately funded health insurance was not effective in curtailing OOPE. Multivariate analysis showed that utilisation of private hospitals was a key determinant of incurring catastrophic expenditure.