Search

Background: This paper examines two state-led public-private demand-side financial support programs aiming to raise hospital delivery rates in two neighbouring Indian states-Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. The national Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) was complemented with a public-private partnership program Janani Sahayogi Yojana (JSaY) in Madhya Pradesh in which private obstetricians were paid to deliver poor women. A higher amount was paid for caesarean sections (CS) than for vaginal deliveries (VD). In Gujarat state, the state program Chiranjeevi Yojana (CY) paid private obstetricians a fixed amount for a block 100 deliveries irrespective of delivery mode. The two systems thus offered an opportunity to observe the influence of supplier-induced demand (SID) from opposite incentives related to delivery mode. Methods: The data from the two programs was sourced from the Departments of Health and Family Welfare, Governments of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, India. Results: In JSaY program the CS rate increased from 26.6 % (2007-2008) to 40.7 % (2010-2011), against the background rate for CS in Madhya Pradesh, of only 4.9 % (2004-2006). Meanwhile in CY program in Gujarat, the CS rate decreased to 4.3 % (2010-2011) against a background CS rate of 8.1 % (2004-2006). Conclusions: The findings from India are unique in that they not only point to a significant impact from the introduction of the financial incentives but also how disincentives have an inverse impact on the choice of delivery method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]