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]

Background: Health outcomes in India are characterized by pervasive inequities due to deeply entrenched socio-economic gradients amongst the population. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate these systematic disparities in health, however, evidence of inequities does not commensurate with its policy objectives in India. Thus, our paper aims to examine the magnitude of and trends in horizontal inequities in self-reported morbidity and untreated morbidity in India over the period of 2004 to 2017–18. Methods: The study used cross-sectional data from nationwide healthcare surveys conducted in 2004, 2014 and 2017–18 encompassing sample size of 3,85,055; 3,35,499 and 5,57,887 individuals respectively. Erreygers concentration indices were employed to discern the magnitude and trend in horizontal inequities in self-reported morbidity and untreated morbidity. Need standardized concentration indices were further used to unravel the inter-regional and intra-regional income related inequities in outcomes of interest. Additionally, regression based decomposition approach was applied to ascertain the contributions of both legitimate and illegitimate factors in the measured inequalities. Results: Estimates were indicative of profound inequities in self-reported morbidity as inequity indices were positive and significant for all study years, connoting better-off reporting more morbidity, given their needs. These inequities however, declined marginally from 2004(HI: 0.049, p< 0.01) to 2017–18(HI: 0.045, P< 0.01). Untreated morbidity exhibited pro-poor inequities with negative concentration indices. Albeit, significant reduction in horizontal inequity was found from 2004(HI= − 0.103, p< 0.01) to 2017–18(HI = − 0.048, p< 0.01) in treatment seeking over the years. The largest contribution of inequality for both outcomes stemmed from illegitimate variables in all the study years. Our findings also elucidated inter-state heterogeneities in inequities with high-income states like Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and West Bengal evincing inequities greater than all India estimates and Northeastern states divulged equity in reporting morbidity. Inequities in untreated morbidity converged for most states except in Punjab, Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh where widening of inequities were observed from 2004 to 2017–18. Conclusions: Pro-rich and pro-poor inequities in reported and untreated morbidities respectively persisted from 2004 to 2017–18 despite reforms in Indian healthcare. Magnitude of these inequities declined marginally over the years. Health policy in India should strive for targeted interventions closing inequity gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: Reaching hard to reach populations is key to reduce health inequities. Despite targeted interventions, status of crucial public health indicators like neonatal and maternal mortality is still far from optimal. Complex interplay of social determinants can influence both communities and health care workers to effectively access each other. We argue that culturally sensitive and contextually relevant healthcare provision has potential to increase health care utilization by the vulnerable communities living in remote areas. Methods: The study is an exploratory case study using rapid ethnographic techniques to understand the interplay of social determinants in hard to reach areas of Odisha state, India. We used in-depth interviews, focus group discussion, participatory action research and key informant interviews as tools for data collection. The analysis of data has been guided by thematic analysis approach. Results: We found that there are further layers within the designated hard to reach areas and those can be designated as-i) extremely remote ii) remote and iii) reachable areas. Degree of geographic difficulties and cultural dynamics are deciding the 'perceived' isolation and interaction with health care providers in hard to reach areas. This ultimately leads to impacting the utilization of the facilities. At extremely remote areas, felt health needs are mainly fulfilled by traditional healers and ethno-medical practices. In reachable areas, people are more prone to seek care from the public health facilities because of easy accessibility and outreach. Being in middle people in remote areas, diversify health care seeking depending upon social (e.g. patient's gender) economic (e.g. avoid catastrophic expenditure) and health system (timely availability of health human resources, language barriers) factors. Conclusion: Our research highlights the need to value and appreciate different worldviews, beliefs and practices, and their understanding of and engagement with the pluralistic health care system around them. Other than pursuing the 'mainstreaming' of a standardized health system model across hard to reach areas, strategies need to be adaptive as per local factors. To handle that existing policies need revision with a focus on culturally sensitive and contextual care provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuum of Maternal Health Care Services (CMHS) has garnered attention in recent times and reducing socio-economic disparity and geographical variations in its utilisation becomes crucial from an egalitarian perspective. In this study, we estimate inequity in the utilisation of CMHS in India between 2005 and 06 and 2015-16. Methods: We used two rounds of National Family Health Survey (NFHS) - 2005-06 and 2015-16 encompassing a sample size of 34,560 and 178,857 pregnant women respectively. The magnitude of horizontal inequities (HI) in the utilisation of CMHS was captured by adopting the Erreygers Corrected Concentration indices method. Need-based standardisation was conducted to disentangle the variations in the utilisation of CMHS across different wealth quintiles and state groups. Further, a decomposition analysis was undertaken to enumerate the contribution of legitimate and illegitimate factors towards health inequity. Results: The study indicates that the pro-rich inequity in the utilisation of CMHS has increased by around 2 percentage points since the implementation of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), where illegitimate factors are dominant. Decomposition analysis reveals that the contribution of access related barriers plummeted in the considered period of time. The results also indicate that mother's education and access to media continue to remain major contributors of pro-rich inequity in India. Considering, regional variations, it is found that the percentage of pro-rich inequity in high focus group states increased by around 3% between 2005 and 06 and 2015-16. The performance of southern states of India is commendable. Conclusions: Our study concludes that there exists a pro-rich inequity in the utilisation of CMHS with marked variations across state boundaries. The pro-rich inequity in India has increased between 2005 and 06 and high focus group states suffered predominantly. Decentralisation of healthcare policies and granting greater power to the states might lead to equitable distribution of CMHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]