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: Equitable access to services that promote health and wellbeing is an important component of social justice. A community-engaged participatory qualitative study was conducted in Flint, Michigan, USA, to understand the needs of special populations (young women, perinatal women and new mothers, older women, women with disabilities, and LGBTQIA women) and elicit their ideas about solutions. Methods: In-depth interviews (n = 100) were conducted. Participants were either women living in the Flint area, human service providers in the area, or both. A team of community and academic coders analyzed the data using an a priori framework. Results: Participants identified needs of different groups of women and suggested ways to address them. Access to healthy food, reducing healthcare costs, and improving transportation, job opportunities and affordable quality housing were crosscutting themes across all groups of women. Mentoring support was said to protect vulnerable young women from the risk of human trafficking. Older women were said to gain a sense of purpose, build their social support and reduce their loneliness by engaging in mentoring younger women. Women with disabilities were reported to benefit from infrastructure accessibility and authentic inclusion in all areas of life. Providing help that considers their dignity, pride and self-worth were suggested. LGBTQIA women were reported to have housing needs due to discrimination; mostly turned down as renters and can be rejected from faith-based homeless shelters. LGBTQIA women would also benefit from increased sensitivity among healthcare providers. For all groups of women, streamlining access to social services and other resources, building social support networks and increasing awareness about existing resources were recommended. Conclusion: Efforts directed towards improving women's health and wellbeing should include perspectives and suggestions of diverse groups of women from the community. Acting on suggestions that emanate from the community's lived experiences may reduce inequalities in health and wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]