Dataset Information

Effectiveness of government strategies for financial protection against costs of hospitalization Care in India.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In the past decade, India has seen the introduction of many 'publicly funded health insurance' schemes (PFHIs) that claim to cover approximately 300 million people and are essentially forms of purchasing care from both public and private providers to reduce out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) for hospitalization. METHODS:Data from a recent government-organized nationwide household survey, The National Sample Survey 71st Round, were used to analyse the effectiveness and equity of tax-funded public health services and PFHIs as distinct but overlapping approaches to financial protection for hospitalization across different socio-economic categories. Cross-tabulation analysis, multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching were the main analytical methods used. RESULTS:Government hospitals provide access to 45.6% of all hospitalization needs. Although poorer quintiles use public hospitals more often, even in the poorest quintile, as many as 37.2% are utilizing private hospitals. The average OOPE that a household experiences for hospitalization in public hospitals is approximately only one-fifth of the OOPE for hospitalization in the private sector. PFHI schemes cover 12.8% of the population, and coverage is higher in upper quintiles and in urban areas. Hospitalization rates increase with PFHI coverage, and this occurs with both public and private providers. Propensity score matching shows that PFHI contributes to a marginal reduction (1%) in 'catastrophic health expenditure incidence at the 25% threshold' (CHE-25) for the bottom three quintiles. The reported coverage of PFHIs was greater in the upper income quintiles. Utilization of public services was greater in the poorer income quintiles and more marginalized social groups. CONCLUSIONS:Periodic surveys are essential to guide policy choices regarding the appropriate mix of strategies for financial protection in pluralistic systems. There is a need for caution regarding any shift in the role of governments from providing services to purchasing care, given the contexts and limitations of currently available PFHIs. Even with tax-funded public services, although the average OOPE is lower than the care purchased through PFHIs, there is still a modest level of CHE and impoverishment due to health care costs that persist. Both strategies need to be synergized for more effective financial protection.

SUBMITTER: Ranjan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5902925 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many LMICs have implemented Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) programmes to improve access and financial protection. The national PFHI scheme implemented in India for a decade has been recently modified and expanded to cover free hospital care for 500 million persons. Since increase in annual cover amount is one of the main design modifications in the new programme, the relevant policy question is whether such design change can improve financial protection for hospital care. An evaluation of state-specific PFHI programmes with vertical cover larger than RSBY can help answer this question. Three states in Southern India - Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been pioneers in implementing PFHI with a large insurance cover. METHODS:The current study was meant to evaluate the PFHI in above three states in improving utilisation of hospital services and financial protection against expenses of hospitalization. Two cross-sections from National Sample Survey's health rounds, the 60th round done in 2004 and the 71st round done in 2014 were analysed. Instrumental Variable method was applied to address endogeneity or the selection problem in insurance. RESULTS:Enrollment under PFHI was not associated with increase in utilisation of hospital care in the three states. Private hospitals dominated the empanelment of facilities under PFHI as well as utilisation. Out of Pocket Expenditure and incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure did not decrease with enrollment under PFHI in the three states. The size of Out of Pocket Expenditure was significantly greater for utilisation in private sector, irrespective of insurance enrollment. CONCLUSION:PFHI in the three states used substantially larger vertical cover than national scheme in 2014. The three states are known for their good governance. Yet, the PFHI programmes in all three states failed in fulfilling their fundamental purpose. Increasing vertical cover of PFHI and using either 'Trusts' or Insurance-companies as purchasers may not give desired results in absence of adequate regulation. The study raises doubts regarding effectiveness of contracting under PFHIs to influence provider-behavior in the Indian context. Further research is required to find solutions for addressing gaps that contribute to poor financial outcomes for patients under PFHI.

Project description:ObjectiveUniversal Health Coverage aims to address the challenges posed by healthcare inequalities and inequities by increasing the accessibility and affordability of healthcare for the entire population. This review provides information related to impact of public-funded health insurance (PFHI) on financial risk protection and utilisation of healthcare.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline (via PubMed, Web of Science), Scopus, Social Science Research Network and 3ie impact evaluation repository were searched from their inception until 15 July 2020, for English-language publications.Eligibility criteriaStudies giving information about the different PFHI in India, irrespective of population groups (above 18 years), were included. Cross-sectional studies with comparison, impact evaluations, difference-in-difference design based on before and after implementation of the scheme, pre-post, experimental trials and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was performed by three reviewers independently. Due to heterogeneity in population and study design, statistical pooling was not possible; therefore, narrative synthesis was performed.OutcomesUtilisation of healthcare, willingness-to-pay (WTP), out-of-pocket expenditure (including outpatient and inpatient), catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment.ResultsThe impact of PFHI on financial risk protection reports no conclusive evidence to suggest that the schemes had any impact on financial protection. The impact of PFHIs such as Rashtriya Swasthy Bima Yojana, Vajpayee Arogyashree and Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana showed increased access and utilisation of healthcare services. There is a lack of evidence to conclude on WTP an additional amount to the existing monthly financial contribution.ConclusionDifferent central and state PFHIs increased the utilisation of healthcare services by the beneficiaries, but there was no conclusive evidence for reduction in financial risk protection of the beneficiaries.RegistrationNot registered.

Project description:BackgroundDespite global guidance for maintaining essential non-Covid health services during the pandemic, there is a concern that existing services faced a major disruption. The access as well as affordability of healthcare could have suffered during the pandemic, especially in developing countries including India. There are no population based studies available in India on changes in access and financial risk for non-Covid hospitalisation during the pandemic. India has a policy of Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) to ensure access and financial protection for hospital care but no information is available on its performance during the pandemic. The current study was aimed to find out the change in access and financial protection for non-Covid hospitalisations during the Covid-19 pandemic and to examine the performance of PFHI in this context.MethodsPanel data was analyzed, from two rounds of annual household surveys conducted in Chhattisgarh state for year 2019 and 2020. The survey followed a two-stage population based sample of around 3000 households, representative for the state. Two kinds of measures of catastrophic health expenditure were used - based on annual household consumption expenditure and on non-food consumption expenditure. Multivariate analysis was carried out to find determinants of utilisation and spending. In addition, Propensity Score Matching method was applied to find effect of PFHI schemes.ResultsUtilisation of hospital care per 1000 population reduced from 58.2 in 2019 to 36.6 during the pandemic i.e. in 2020. The share of public hospitals in utilisation increased from 60.1% in 2019 to 67.0% in 2020. Incidence of catastrophic expenditure was significantly greater during the pandemic. The median Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) in private hospitals doubled from 2019 to 2020. The size of OOPE and occurrence of catastrophic expenditure were significantly associated with utilisation in private hospitals. Enrolment under PFHI schemes including the Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogaya Yojana (PMJAY) was not effective in reducing OOPE or catastrophic expenditure.ConclusionWhile the utilisation of hospital care dropped during the pandemic, the private hospitals became further unaffordable. The government policy for financial protection through health insurance remained ineffective during the pandemic.

Project description:ImportanceDelayed appendicitis diagnosis is associated with worse outcomes. Appendicitis hospital care costs associated with delayed diagnosis are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether delayed appendicitis diagnosis was associated with increased appendicitis hospital care costs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from patients receiving an appendectomy aged 18 to 64 years in 5 states (Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Wisconsin) that were captured in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and Emergency Department databases for the years 2016 and 2017 with no additional follow-up. Data were analyzed January through April 2023.ExposuresDelayed diagnosis was defined as a previous emergency department or inpatient hospital encounter with an abdominal diagnosis other than appendicitis, and no intervention 7 days prior to appendectomy encounter.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was appendicitis hospital care costs. This was calculated from aggregated charges of encounters 7 days prior to appendectomy, the appendectomy encounter, and 30 days postoperatively. Cost-to-charge ratios were applied to charges to obtain costs, which were then adjusted for wage index, inflation to 2022 US dollar, and with extreme outliers winsorized. A multivariable Poisson regression estimated appendicitis hospital care costs associated with a delayed diagnosis while controlling for age, sex, race and ethnicity, insurance status, care discontinuity, income quartile, hospital size, teaching status, medical school affiliation, percentage of Black and Hispanic patient discharges, core-based statistical area, and state.ResultsThere were 76 183 patients (38 939 female [51.1%]; 2192 Asian or Pacific Islander [2.9%], 14 132 Hispanic [18.5%], 8195 non-Hispanic Black [10.8%], 46 949 non-Hispanic White [61.6%]) underwent appendectomy, and 2045 (2.7%) had a delayed diagnosis. Delayed diagnosis patients had median (IQR) unadjusted cost of $11 099 ($6752-$17 740) compared with $9177 ($5575-$14 481) for nondelayed (P < .001). Patients with delayed diagnosis had 1.23 times (95% CI, 1.16-1.28 times) adjusted increased appendicitis hospital care costs. The mean marginal cost of delayed diagnosis was $2712 (95% CI, $2083-$3342). Even controlling for delayed diagnosis, non-Hispanic Black patients had 1.22 times (95% CI, 1.17-1.28 times) the adjusted increased appendicitis hospital care costs compared with non-Hispanic White patients.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, delayed diagnosis of appendicitis was associated with increased hospital care costs.

Project description:BackgroundDemographic and epidemiological transitions are changing the disease burden from infectious to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) in low- and middle-income countries, including Bangladesh. Given the rising NCD-related health burdens and growing share of household out-of-pocket (OOP) spending in total health expenditure in Bangladesh, we compared the country's trends and socioeconomic disparities in financial risk protection (FRP) among households with and without NCDs.MethodsWe used data from three recent waves of the Bangladesh Household Income and Expenditure Survey (2005, 2010, and 2016) and employed the normative food, housing (rent), and utilities method to measure the levels and distributions of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and impoverishing effects of OOP health expenditure among households without NCDs (i.e. non-NCDs only) and with NCDs (i.e. NCDs only, and both NCDs and non-NCDs). Additionally, we examined the incidence of forgone care for financial reasons at the household and individual levels.ResultsBetween 2005 and 2016, OOP expenses increased by more than 50% across all households (NCD-only: USD 95.6 to 149.3; NCD-and-non-NCD: USD 89.5 to 167.7; non-NCD-only: USD 45.3 to 73.0), with NCD-affected families consistently spending over double that of non-affected households. Concurrently, CHE incidence grew among NCD-only families (13.5% to 14.4%) while declining (with fluctuations) among non-NCD-only (14.4% to 11.6%) and NCD-and-non-NCD households (12.9% to 12.2%). Additionally, OOP-induced impoverishment increased among NCD-only and non-NCD-only households from 1.4 to 2.0% and 1.1 to 1.5%, respectively, affecting the former more. Also, despite falling over time, NCD-affected individuals more frequently mentioned prohibiting treatment costs as the reason for forgoing care than the non-affected (37.9% vs. 13.0% in 2016). The lowest quintile households, particularly those with NCDs, consistently experienced many-fold higher CHE and impoverishment than the highest quintile. Notably, CHE and impoverishment effects were more pronounced among NCD-affected families if NCD-afflicted household members were female rather than male, older people, or children instead of working-age adults.ConclusionsThe lack of FRP is more pronounced among households with NCDs than those without NCDs. Concerted efforts are required to ensure FRP for all families, particularly those with NCDs.

Project description:India, a persistently significant contributor to the global malaria burden, rolled out several anti-malaria interventions at the national and state level to control and recently, to eliminate the disease. Odisha, the eastern Indian state with the highest malaria burden experienced substantial gains shown by various anti-malaria initiatives implemented under the National Vector-borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP). However, recalcitrant high-transmission "pockets" of malaria persist in hard-to-reach stretches of the state, characterised by limited access to routine malaria surveillance and the forested hilly topography favouring unbridled vector breeding. The prevalence of asymptomatic malaria in such pockets serves as perpetual malaria reservoir, thus hindering its elimination. Therefore, a project with the acronym DAMaN was initiated since 2017 by state NVBDCP, targeting locally identified high endemic 'pockets' in 23 districts. DAMaN comprised biennial mass screening and treatment, provisioning of long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) and behavioural change communication. Subsequently, to inform policy, assessment of DAMaN was conceived that aims to estimate the coverage of the various components of the project; the prevalence of malaria, even at sub-patent level especially among pregnant/lactating women and children; and its impact on malaria incidence. A survey of DAMaN beneficiaries will measure coverage; and knowledge and practices related to LLIN; along with collection of blood specimens from a probability sample. A multi-stage stratified clustered sample of 2228 households (~33% having pregnant/lactating women) will be selected from 6 DAMaN districts. Routine DAMaN project data (2017-2018) and NVBDCP data (2013-2018) will be extracted. Rapid Diagnostic Test, Polymerase Chain Reaction and blood smear microscopy will be conducted to detect malarial parasitemia. In addition to measuring DAMaN's coverage and malarial prevalence in DAMaN pockets, its impact will be estimated using pre-post differences and Interrupted Time Series analysis using 2017 as the "inflection" point. The assessment may help to validate the unique strategies employed by DAMaN.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of government strategies for financial protection against costs of hospitalization Care in India.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets