Search

Background: Health policy interventions were expected to improve access to health care delivery, provide financial risk protection, besides reducing inequities that underlie geographic and socio-economic variation in population access to health care. This article examines whether health policy interventions and accelerated health investments in India during 2004–2018 could close the gap in inequity in health care utilization and access to public subsidy by different population groups. Did the poor and socio-economically vulnerable population gain from such government initiatives, compared to the rich and affluent sections of society? And whether the intended objective of improving equity between different regions of the country been achieved during the policy initiatives? This article attempts to assess and provide robust evidence in the Indian context. Methods: Employing Benefit-Incidence Analysis (BIA) framework, this paper advances earlier evidence by highlighting estimates of health care utilization, concentration and government subsidy by broader provider categories (public versus private) and across service levels (outpatient, inpatient, maternal, pre-and post-natal services). We used 2 waves of household surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) on health and morbidity. The period of analysis was chosen to represent policy interventions spanning 2004 (pre-policy) and 2018 (post-policy era). We present this evidence across three categories of Indian states, namely, high-focus states, high-focus north eastern states and non-focus states. Such categorization facilitates quantification of reform impact of policy level interventions across the three groups. Results: Utilisation of healthcare services, except outpatient care visits, accelerated significantly in 2018 from 2004. The difference in utilisation rates between poor and rich (between poorest 20% and richest 20%) had significantly declined during the same period. As far as concentration of healthcare is concerned, the Concentrate Index (CI) underlying inpatient care in public sector fell from 0.07 in 2004 to 0.05 in 2018, implying less pro-rich distribution. The CI in relation to pre-natal, institutional delivery and postnatal services in government facilities were pro-poor both in 2004 and 2018 in all 3 groups of states. The distribution of public subsidy underscoring curative services (inpatient and outpatient) remained pro-rich in 2004 but turned less pro-rich in 2018, measured by CIs which declined sharply across all groups of states for both outpatient (from 0.21 in 2004 to 0.16 in 2018) and inpatient (from 0.24 in 2004 to 0.14 in 2018) respectively. The CI for subsidy on prenatal services declined from approximately 0.01 in 2004 to 0.12 in 2018. In respect to post-natal care, similar results were observed, implying the subsidy on prenatal and post-natal services was overwhelmingly received by poor. The CI underscoring subsidy for institutional delivery although remained positive both in 2018 and 2004, but slightly increased from 0.17 in 2004 to 0.28 in 2018. Conclusions: Improvement in infrastructure and service provisioning through NHM route in the public facilities appears to have relatively benefited the poor. Yet they received a relatively smaller health subsidy than the rich when utilising inpatient and outpatient health services. Inequality continues to persist across all healthcare services in private health sector. Although the NHM remained committed to broader expansion of health care services, a singular focus on maternal and child health conditions especially in backward regions of the country has yielded desired results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although India has made significant progress in institutional delivery after the implementation of the National Rural Health Mission under which the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) is a sub-programme which played a vital role in the increase of institutional delivery in public facilities. Therefore, this paper aims to provide an understanding of the JSY coverage at the district level in India. Further, it tries to carve out the factors responsible for the regional disparity of JSY coverage at district levels. Methods: The study used the National Family Health Survey data, which is a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2015–16, India. The sample size of this study was 148,145 women aged 15–49 years who gave last birth in the institution during 5 years preceding the survey. Bivariate and multivariate regression analysis was used to fulfill the study objectives. Additionally, Moran's I statistics and bivariate Local Indicator for Spatial Association (LISA) maps were used to understand spatial dependence and clustering of JSY coverage. Ordinary least square, spatial lag and spatial error models were used to examine the correlates of JSY utilization. Results: The value of spatial-autocorrelation for JSY was 0.71 which depicts the high dependence of the JSY coverage over districts of India. The overall coverage of JSY in India is 36.4% and it highly varied across different regions, districts, and even socioeconomic groups. The spatial error model depicts that if in a district the women with no schooling status increase by 10% then the benefits of JSY get increased by 2.3%. Similarly, if in a district the women from poor wealth quintile, it increases by 10% the benefits of JSY also increased by 4.6%. However, the coverage of JSY made greater imperative to understand it due to its clustering among districts of specific states only. Conclusion: It is well reflected in the EAGs states in terms of spatial-inequality in service coverage. There is a need to universalize the JSY programme at a very individual level. And, it is required to revisit the policy strategy and the implementation plans at regional or district levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]