Search

Background: The National Health Mission (NHM), the largest ever publicly funded health programme worldwide, used over half of the national health budget in India and primarily aimed to improve maternal and child health in the country. Though large scale public health investment has improved the health care utilization and health outcomes across states and socio-economic groups in India, little is known on the equity concern of NHM. In this context, this paper examines the utilization pattern and net benefit of public subsidy for institutional delivery by the level of care in India. Methods: Data from the most recent round of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS 4), conducted during 2015–16, was used in the study. A total of 148,645 last birth delivered in a health centre during the 5 years preceding the survey were used for the analyses. Out-of-pocket (OOP) payment on delivery care was taken as the dependent variable and was analysed by primary care and secondary level of care. Benefits Incidence Analysis (BIA), descriptive statistics, concentration index (CI), and concentration curve (CC) were used to do the analysis. Results: Institutional delivery from the public health centres in India is pro-poor and has a strong economic gradient. However, about 28% mothers from richest wealth quintile did not pay for delivery in public health centres compared to 16% among the poorest wealth quintile. Benefit incidence analyses suggests a pro-poor distribution of institutional delivery both at primary and secondary level of care. In 2015–16, at the primary level, about 32.29% of subsidies were used by the poorest, 27.22% by poorer, 20.39% by middle, 13.36% by richer and 6.73% by the richest wealth quintile. The pattern at the secondary level was similar, though the magnitude was lower. The concentration index of institutional delivery in public health centres was − 0.161 [95% CI, − 0.158, − 0.165] compared to 0.296 [95% CI, 0.289, 0.303] from private health centres. Conclusion: Provision and use of public subsidy for institutional delivery in public health centres is pro-poor in India. Improving the quality of service in primary health centres is recommended to increase utilisation and reduce OOP payment for health care in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the catastrophic health expenditure and distress financing of breast cancer treatment in India. Methods: The unit data from a longitudinal survey that followed 500 breast cancer patients treated at Tata Memorial Centre (TMC), Mumbai from June 2019 to March 2022 were used. The catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) was estimated using households' capacity to pay and distress financing as selling assets or borrowing loans to meet cost of treatment. Bivariate and logistic regression models were used for analysis. Findings: The CHE of breast cancer was estimated at 84.2% (95% CI: 80.8,87.9%) and distress financing at 72.4% (95% CI: 67.8,76.6%). Higher prevalence of CHE and distress financing was found among rural, poor, agriculture dependent households and among patients from outside of Maharashtra. About 75% of breast cancer patients had some form of reimbursement but it reduced the incidence of catastrophic health expenditure by only 14%. Nearly 80% of the patients utilised multiple financing sources to meet the cost of treatment. The significant predictors of distress financing were catastrophic health expenditure, type of patient, educational attainment, main income source, health insurance, and state of residence. Conclusion: In India, the CHE and distress financing of breast cancer treatment is very high. Most of the patients who had CHE were more likely to incur distress financing. Inclusion of direct non-medical cost such as accommodation, food and travel of patients and accompanying person in the ambit of reimbursement of breast cancer treatment can reduce the CHE. We suggest that city specific cancer care centre need to be strengthened under the aegis of PM-JAY to cater quality cancer care in their own states of residence. Trial Registration: CTRI/2019/07/020142 on 10/07/2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Economic burden to households due to out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) is large in many Asian countries. Though studies suggest increasing household poverty due to high OOPE in developing countries, studies on association of multidimensional poverty and household health spending is limited. This paper tests the hypothesis that the multidimensionally poor are more likely to incur catastrophic health spending cutting across countries. Data and methods: Data from the Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment (PVA) Survey carried out by the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) has been used in the analyses. The PVA survey was a comprehensive household survey that covered the mountainous regions of India, Nepal and Myanmar. A total of 2647 households from India, 2310 households in Nepal and 4290 households in Myanmar covered under the PVA survey. Poverty is measured in a multidimensional framework by including the dimensions of education, income and energy, water and sanitation using the Alkire and Foster method. Health shock is measured using the frequency of illness, family sickness and death of any family member in a reference period of one year. Catastrophic health expenditure is defined as 40% above the household's capacity to pay. Results: Results suggest that about three-fifths of the population in Myanmar, two-fifths of the population in Nepal and one-third of the population in India are multidimensionally poor. About 47% of the multidimensionally poor in India had incurred catastrophic health spending compared to 35% of the multidimensionally non-poor and the pattern was similar in both Nepal and Myanmar. The odds of incurring catastrophic health spending was 56% more among the multidimensionally poor than among the multidimensionally non-poor [95% CI: 1.35-1.76]. While health shocks to households are consistently significant predictors of catastrophic health spending cutting across country of residence, the educational attainment of the head of the household is not significant. Conclusion: The multidimensionally poor in the poorer regions are more likely to face health shocks and are less likely to afford professional health services. Increasing government spending on health and increasing households' access to health insurance can reduce catastrophic health spending and multidimensional poverty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Benefit Incidence Analysis (BIA) is used to understand the distribution of health care utilization and spending in comparison to income distribution. The results can illustrate how effectively governments allocate limited resources towards meeting the needs of the poor. In analyzing the distribution of public spending on inpatient, outpatient, and deliveries, this paper represents the most recent BIA completed in India. Methods: In order to conduct the BIA statistical analysis for this project, 2014 utilization data from the most recently completed Indian National Sample Survey (NSS) was used. Unit costs were estimated for primary care, hospital inpatient, hospital outpatient, and deliveries. Concentration curves and concentration indices were estimated both at the national and state levels. Analyses were reported for overall utilization, as well as for the gross and net benefits for inpatient, outpatient, and deliveries. Results: According to the results, utilization of government inpatient and delivery services is pro-poor. When gross and net benefits are included in the analysis, services become more equal and less pro-poor. Gross benefits, which are measured with state-level unit costs, are virtually equal for all services. Although there are some pro-poor gross benefits trends for national outpatient services, the results also show that the equality of national gross benefits trends hides a significant disparity across Indian States. While a number of Indian States have outpatient gross benefits that are pro-poor, few show pro-poor benefits for inpatient and delivery services. Net benefits, which considers both unit costs for each respective service, and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, trend similarly to gross benefits. In addition, those who use public facilities spend considerable OOP to supplement government services. Conclusions: This BIA reveals that government spending on public health care has not resulted in significantly pro-poor services. While some progress has been made relative to deliveries and outpatient services, inpatient stays are not pro-poor. In addition, national results mask significant disparities across Indian states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Estimates of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) are counterintuitive to researchers, policy makers, and developmental partners due to data and methodological limitation. While inferences drawn from use of capacity-to-pay (CTP) and budget share (BS) approaches are inconsistent, the non-availability of data on food expenditure in the health survey in India is an added limitation. Methods: Using data from the health and consumption surveys of National Sample Surveys over 14 years, we have overcome these limitations and estimated the incidence and intensity of CHE and impoverishment using the CTP approach. Results: The incidence of CHE for health services in India was 12.5% in 2004, 13.4% in 2014 and 9.1% by 2018. Among those households incurring CHE, they spent 1.25 times of their capacity to pay in 2004 (intensity of CHE), 1.71 times in 2014 and 1.31 times by 2018. The impoverishment due to health spending was 4.8% in 2004, 5.1% in 2014 and 3.3% in 2018. The state variations in incidence and intensity of CHE and incidence of impoverishment is large. The concentration index (CI) of CHE was − 0.16 in 2004, − 0.18 in 2014 and − 0.22 in 2018 suggesting increasing inequality over time. The concentration curves based on CTP approach suggests that the CHE was concentrated among poor. The odds of incurring CHE were lowest among the richest households [OR 0.22; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.24], households with elderly members [OR 1.20; 95% CI:1.12, 1.18] and households using both inpatient and outpatient services [OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.66, 2.95]. Access to health insurance reduced the chance of CHE and impoverishment among the richest households. The pattern of impoverishment was similar to that of CHE. Conclusion: In the last 14 years, the CHE and impoverishment in India has declined while inequality in CHE has increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite substantial reductions in perinatal deaths (stillbirths and early neonatal deaths), India's perinatal mortality rates remain high, both nationally and in individual states. Rates are highest among disadvantaged socio-economic groups. To address this, India's National Health Mission has trained community health workers called Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) to counsel and support women by visiting them at home before and after childbirth. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the roles of ASHAs' home visits in improving equity in perinatal health between socio-economic position groups in rural Uttar Pradesh (UP), India. Methods: We conducted social mapping in four villages of two districts in UP, followed by three focus group discussions in each village (12 in total) with ASHAs and women who had recently given birth belonging to 'higher' and 'lower' socio-economic position groups (n = 134 participants). We analysed the data in NVivo and Dedoose using a thematic framework approach. Results: Home visits enabled ASHAs to build trusting relationships with women, offer information about health services, schemes and preventive care, and provide practical support for accessing maternity care. This helped many women and families prepare for birth and motivated them to deliver in health facilities. In particular, ASHAs encouraged women who were poorer, less educated or from lower caste groups to give birth in public Community Health Centres (CHCs). However, women who gave birth at CHCs often experienced insufficient emergency obstetric care, mistreatment from staff, indirect costs, lack of medicines, and referrals to higher-level facilities when complications occurred. Referrals often led to delays and higher fees that placed the greatest burden on families who were considered of lower socio-economic position or living in remote areas, and increased their risk of experiencing perinatal loss. Conclusions: The study found that ASHAs built relationships, counselled and supported many pregnant women of lower socio-economic positions. Ongoing inequities in health facility births and perinatal mortality were perpetuated by overlapping contextual issues beyond the ASHAs' purview. Supporting ASHAs' integration with community organisations and health system strategies more broadly is needed to address these issues and optimise pathways between equity in intervention coverage, processes and perinatal health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite large investment in central and state sponsored schemes for maternal care, out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) and catastrophic health spending (CHS) on institutional delivery remain high over time, across states and across socio-economic groups. Though many studies have examined the OOPE and CHS, few studies have examined the nature and extent of distress financing on institutional delivery in India. Data: Data from the fourth round of National Family Health Survey (NFHS 4), 2015–16 was used for the analysis. Distress financing was defined as borrowing money or selling assets to meet the OOPE on delivery care. Composite variables, descriptive analyses, concentration index (CI), concentration curve (CC) and predicted probability were used to estimate the extent of distress financing for institutional delivery in India. Results: The OOPE on institutional delivery has strong economic and educational gradient. One in four mothers resorted to borrowing or selling to meet the OOPE on institutional delivery. The extent of distress financing on institutional delivery was high in poorer state of Bihar and Odisha and in the state of Telangana that had highest prevalence of caesarean delivery. Savings was more prevalent among mothers compared to those who met the OOPE by borrowing/selling of assets. Finding are robust across the states of India. The predicted probability of incurring distress financing was 0.31 among mothers belonging to the poorest wealth quintile compared to 0.09 in the richest quintile, and 0.40 for those who incurred OOPE of more than INR 20,000. The probability of incurring distress financing was higher for mothers who had caesarean birth, delivered in private health centers and incurred high OOPE on institutional delivery. Conclusion: Distress financing on institutional delivery was higher among the less educated, poor and in private health centers. Increasing use of public health centers, reducing caesarean births, improving the availability of medicine and diagnostic services can reduce the extent of distress financing in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]