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]

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: Multimorbidity in primary care is a challenge not only for developing countries but also for low and medium income countries (LMIC). Health services in LMIC countries are being provided by both public and private health care providers. However, a critical knowledge gap exists on understanding the true extent of multimorbidity in both types of primary care settings. Methods: We undertook a study to identify multimorbidity prevalence and healthcare utilization among both public and private primary care attendees in Odisha state of India. A total of 1649 patients attending 40 primary care facilities were interviewed using a structured multimorbidity assessment questionnaire collecting information on 22 chronic diseases, medication use, number of hospitalization and number of outpatient visits. Result: The overall prevalence of multimorbidity was 28.3% and nearly one third of patients of public facilities and one fourth from private facilities had multimorbidity. Leading diseases among patients visiting public facilities included acid peptic diseases, arthritis and chronic back pain. No significant difference in reporting of hypertension and diabetes across the facilities was seen. Besides age, predictors of multimorbidity among patients attending public facilities were, females [AOR: 1.6; 95% CI 1.1–1.3] and non-aboriginal groups [AOR: 1.6; 95%CI 1.1–2.3] whereas, in private females [AOR: 1.6; 95%CI 1.1–2.4], better socioeconomic conditions [AOR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0–2.1] and higher educational status [primary school completed [AOR 2.6; 95%CI 1.6–4.2] and secondary schooling and above [AOR 2.0; 95%CI 1.1–3.6] with reference to no education were seen to be the determinants of multimorbidity. Increased number of hospital visits to public facilities were higher among lower educational status patients [IRR: 1.57; 95% CI 1.13–2.18] whereas, among private patients, the mean number of hospital visits was 1.70 times more in higher educational status [IRR: 1.70; 95%CI 1.01–3.69]. The mean number of medicines taken per day was higher among patients attending private hospitals. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that, multimorbidity is being more reported in public primary care facilities. The pattern and health care utilization in both types of settings are different. A comprehensive care approach must be designed for private care providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]