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: Equity and justice in healthcare payment form an integral part of health policy and planning. In the majority of low and middle-income countries (LMICs), healthcare inequalities are further aggravated by Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE). This paper examines the pattern of health equity and regional disparities in healthcare spending among Indian states by applying Andersen's behavioural model of healthcare utilization. Methods: The present study uses data from the 66th quinquennial round of Consumer Expenditure Survey, of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), conducted in 2009-10 by Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), Government of India (GoI). To measure equity and regional disparities in healthcare expenditure, states have been categorized under three heads on the basis of monthly OOPE i.e., Category A (OOPE > =INR 100); Category B (OOPE between INR 50 to 99) and Category C (OOPE < INR 50). Multiple Generalised Linear Regression Model (GLRM) has been employed to explore the effect of various socio-economic covariates on the level of OOPE. Results: The gap in the ratio of average healthcare spending between the poorest and richest households was maximum in Category A states Category B (richest/poorest = 14.60), followed by (richest/poorest 11.70) and Category C (richest/poorest 11.40). Results also indicate geographical concentration of lower level healthcare spending among Indian states (e.g., Odisha, Chhattisgarh and all the north-eastern states). Results from the multivariate analysis suggest that people residing in urban areas, having higher economic status, belonging to non-Muslim communities, non-Scheduled Tribes (STs), and non-poor households spend more on healthcare than their counterparts. Conclusions: In spite of various efforts by the government to reduce the burden of healthcare spending, widespread inequalities in healthcare expenditure are prevalent. Households with high healthcare needs (SCs/STs, and the poor) are in a more disadvantaged position in terms of spending on health care. It has also been observed that spending on healthcare was comparatively lower among backward or isolated states. No doubt, the overall social security measures should be enhanced, but at the same time, looking at the regional differences, more priority should be assigned to the disadvantaged states to reduce the burden of OOPE. It is proposed that there is need to increase government spending, especially for the disadvantaged states and population, to minimise the burden of OOPE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of hygienic products, such as sanitary napkins, tampons, and menstrual cups, to absorb menstrual blood is vital for the health and well-being of adolescent girls in India. However, the degree of inequity in the use of such products among this subpopulation remains inadequately explored. To fill this critical knowledge gap, this study aims to investigate the spatiotemporal dynamics of hygienic product use among adolescent girls in India from 2015 to 2020. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from 117,749 to 114,839 adolescent girls aged 15–19, obtained from two consecutive rounds of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) conducted in India during 2015-16 and 2019-21. Our approach involved utilizing Erreygers' Concentration Index (ECI) and Concentration Curve to quantitatively assess and visually represent socioeconomic inequality in hygienic product usage. Additionally, we investigated the spatiotemporal variation in this inequality over the study period and decomposed the ECI to identify the key contributing factors. Results: The findings reveal that hygienic product usage among adolescent girls in India has increased by 13 percentage points (PP), from 37% in 2015-16 to 50% in 2019-21. This increase is also visible across all household wealth quintiles. However, the bottom quintiles experienced a greater rise (+ 15 to 16 PP) than the top quintile (+ 8 PP). During the study period, the ECI reduced marginally, from 0.48 in 2015-16 to 0.43 in 2019-21. However, the extent of this reduction varied across different states. The greatest reduction in ECI was recorded in Punjab (-0.23 points), Telangana (-0.16 points), and West Bengal (-0.14 points). In contrast, there were a number of states with high socioeconomic inequality (ECI > 0.30) in 2015-16, where inequality reduction was minimal (< 0.05 points) over the study period. This included more developed states of Kerala, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat and relatively less developed states of Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and Assam. Some states, such as Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, recorded an increase in socioeconomic inequality over the study period, with ECI rising to 0.31 and 0.46 (highest in the country) in 2019-21. The decomposition analysis revealed that the inequality in using hygienic products was primarily explained by place of residence, exposure to mass-media, education, and region of residence. Conclusions: The findings suggest the need for targeted policies to reduce existing socioeconomic inequality in the usage of hygienic products among adolescent girls in India. Specifically, interventions should target regions with low use of hygienic products, economically disadvantaged groups, and poor and vulnerable populations. State-specific policies and programs are also necessary to address the disparities in socioeconomic inequality. Additionally, efforts to reduce inequality should address the underlying factors contributing to inequality. [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]

Background: In 2005, the Indian Government introduced the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) scheme - a conditional cash transfer program that incentivizes women to deliver in a health facility -- in order to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. Our study aimed to measure and explain socioeconomic inequality in the receipt of JSY benefits. Methods: We used prospectively collected data on 3,682 births (in 2009-2010) from a demographic surveillance system in five districts in Jharkhand and Odisha state, India. Linear probability models were used to identify the determinants of receipt of JSY benefits. Poor-rich inequality in the receipt of JSY benefits was measured by a corrected concentration index (CI), and the most important drivers of this inequality were identified using decomposition techniques. Results: While the majority of women had heard of the scheme (94% in Odisha, 85% in Jharkhand), receipt of JSY benefits was comparatively low (62% in Odisha, 20% in Jharkhand). Receipt of the benefits was highly variable by district, especially in Jharkhand, where 5% of women in Godda district received the benefits, compared with 40% of women in Ranchi district. There were substantial pro-rich inequalities in JSY receipt (CI 0.10, standard deviation (SD) 0.03 in Odisha; CI 0.18, SD 0.02 in Jharkhand) and in the institutional delivery rate (CI 0.16, SD 0.03 in Odisha; CI 0.30, SD 0.02 in Jharkhand). Delivery in a public facility was an important determinant of receipt of JSY benefits and explained a substantial part of the observed poor-rich inequalities in receipt of the benefits. Yet, even among public facility births in Jharkhand, pro-rich inequality in JSY receipt was substantial (CI 0.14, SD 0.05). This was largely explained by district-level differences in wealth and JSY receipt. Conversely, in Odisha, poorer women delivering in a government institution were at least as likely to receive JSY benefits as richer women (CI -0.05, SD 0.03). Conclusion: JSY benefits were not equally distributed, favouring wealthier groups. These inequalities in turn reflected pro-rich inequalities in the institutional delivery. The JSY scheme is currently not sufficient to close the poor-rich gap in institutional delivery rate. Important barriers to institutional delivery remain to be addressed and more support is needed for low performing districts and states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Inequities in a population in spending on food and non-food items can contribute to disparities in health status. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) was launched in rural India in 2006, aimed at providing at least 100 days of manual work to a member in needy households. Methods We used nationally representative data from the consumer expenditure surveys of 2004-05 and 2009-10 and the employment survey of 2009-10 conducted by National Sample Survey Organisation to assess the effect of MGNREGS in reducing inequities in consumption of food and non-food items between poor and non-poor households in the states of India. Variations among the states in implementation of MGNREGS were examined using the employment and unemployment survey data, and compared with official programme data up to 2012-13. Inequity in spending on food and non-food items was assessed using the ratio of monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) between the most vulnerable (labourer) and least vulnerable categories of households. Results The survey data suggested 1.42 billion person-days of MGNRGES employment in the 2009-10 financial year, whereas the official programme data reported 2.84 billion person-days. According to the official data, the person-days of MGNRGES employment decreased by 43.3% from 2009-10 to 2012-13 for the 9 large less developed states of India. Survey data revealed that the average number of MGNREGS work days in a year per household varied from 42 days in Rajasthan to less than 10 days in 14 of the 20 major states in India in 2009-10. Rajasthan with the highest implementation of MGNRGES among the 9 less developed states of India had the highest relative decline of 10.4% in the food spending inequity from 2004-05 to 2009-10 between the most vulnerable and less vulnerable households. The changes in inequity for non-food spending did not have any particular pattern across the less developed states. In the most vulnerable category, the households in Rajasthan that got 100 or more days of work in a year under MGNREGS had a 25.9% increase in MPCE. Conclusion MGNREGS seems to have contributed to the reduction in food consumption inequity in rural Rajasthan in 2009-10, and has the potential of making a similar contribution with higher level of implementation of this programme in other states. Non-food consumption inequities benefited less from MGNRGES until 2009-10. The reported decrease in the MGNRGES employment person-days in the less developed states of India from 2009-10 to 2012-13 is of concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]