Dataset Information

Comparing the average cost of outpatient care of public and for-profit private providers in India.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Understanding the cost of care associated with different kinds of healthcare providers is necessary for informing the policy debates in mixed health-systems like India's. Existing studies reporting Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) per episode of outpatient care in public and private providers in India do not provide a fair comparison because they have not taken into account the government subsidies received by public facilities. Public and private health insurance in India do not cover outpatient care and for-profit providers have to meet all their costs out of the payments they take from patients.

Methods

The average direct cost per acute episode of outpatient care was compared for public providers, for-profit formal providers and informal private providers in Chhattisgarh state of India. For public facilities, government subsidies for various inputs were taken into account. Resources used were apportioned using Activity Based Costing. Land provided free to public facilities was counted at market prices. The study used two datasets: a) household survey on outpatient utilisation and OOPE b) facility survey of public providers to find the input costs borne by government per outpatient-episode.

Results

The average cost per episode of outpatient care was Indian Rupees (INR) 400 for public providers, INR 586 for informal private providers and INR 2643 for formal for-profit providers and they managed 39.3, 37.9 and 22.9% of episodes respectively. The average cost for government and households put together was greater for using formal for-profit providers than the public providers. The disease profile of care handled by different types of providers was similar. Volume of patients and human-resources were key cost drivers in public facilities. Close to community providers involved less cost than others.

Conclusions and recommendations

The findings have implications for the desired mix of public and private providers in India's health-system. Poor regulation of for-profit providers was an important structural cost driver. Purchasing outpatient care from private providers may not reduce average cost. Policies to strengthen public provisioning of curative primary care close to communities can help in reducing cost.

SUBMITTER: Garg S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8375109 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of infectious disease deaths worldwide and is the leading cause of death among people with HIV. The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for collaboration between public and private healthcare providers to maximize integration of TB/HIV services and minimize costs. We systematically reviewed published models of public-private sector diagnostic and referral services for TB/HIV co-infected patients.We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Science Direct, CINAHL and Web of Science. We included studies that discussed programs that linked private and public providers for TB/HIV concurrent diagnostic and referral services and used Review Manager (Version 5.3, 2015) for meta-analysis.We found 1,218 unduplicated potentially relevant articles and abstracts; three met our eligibility criteria. All three described public-private TB/HIV diagnostic/referral services with varying degrees of integration. In Kenya private practitioners were able to test for both TB and HIV and offer state-subsidized TB medication, but they could not provide state-subsidized antiretroviral therapy (ART) to co-infected patients. In India private practitioners not contractually engaged with the public sector offered TB/HIV services inconsistently and on a subjective basis. Those partnered with the state, however, could test for both TB and HIV and offer state-subsidized medications. In Nigeria some private providers had access to both state-subsidized medications and diagnostic tests; others required patients to pay out-of-pocket for testing and/or treatment. In a meta-analysis of the two quantitative reports, TB patients who sought care in the public sector were almost twice as likely to have been tested for HIV than TB patients who sought care in the private sector (risk ratio [RR] 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88-2.08). However, HIV-infected TB patients who sought care in the public sector were marginally less likely to initiate ART than TB patients who sought care from private providers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.03).These three studies are examples of public-private TB/HIV service delivery and can potentially serve as models for integrated TB/HIV care systems. Successful public-private diagnostic and treatment services can both improve outcomes and decrease costs for patients co-infected with HIV and TB.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the quality of care-using unplanned acute hospital readmissions as a quality measure-among patients treated at private for-profit hospitals (PFPs), private non-profit hospitals (PNPs) and public hospitals (PUBs) in Norway.DesignA retrospective comparative study using the Norwegian Patient Register. Readmissions were evaluated by logistic regressions both using adjustment for various patient-level and other covariates, and a two-stage model using distance as an instrumental variable.SettingThe Norwegian healthcare system.PopulationAll publicly financed patients having primary total hip (37 897 patients) or primary total knee arthroplasty (25 802 patients) at one of the three hospital types from 2009 to 2014.Primary outcome measure30-day unplanned acute hospital readmission rate.ResultsWe found highest readmission rates among PUBs and lowest among PFPs, for both procedures. However, the patients were on average more than 2 years younger at PFPs. PFPs also treated the least severe patients, while PUBs treated the most severe. Using adjustment for various patient-level and other covariates, compared to PUBs, both PFPs and PNPs had lower odds of readmission following both procedures. However, using the instrumental variable method, the only significant difference found was a lower odds of readmission at PNPs among hip patients when compared with PUBs. No patients in our data set were readmitted to PFPs, those originally treated at PFPs were readmitted to either PNPs or PUBs, and PUBs received most of the readmitted patients across hospital types.ConclusionsQuality differences between hospital types were small; however, PNPs had significantly lower readmission rates compared with PUBs among patients having total hip arthroplasty. PUBs received the larger part of the readmitted patients across hospital types and thus play an essential role in the care of more complex patients and for readmissions, regardless of any quality differences.

Project description:BackgroundIn response to the need for competitive recruitment of nurses resulting from the worldwide nursing shortage, employers need to attract and retain nurses by promoting their competitive strengths in their working conditions (WCS) and by addressing their competitive weaknesses. This study investigated workplace differences between public hospitals (PuHs), private for-profit hospitals (PrHs), socio-medical institutions (SOMEDs), home care services (HCs), private medical offices (PrOs) and non-profit organisations (NPOs), helping to provide a foundation for competition-oriented institutional employer branding and to increase transparency in the labour market for nurses.MethodsData from the Swiss Nurses at Work study of the career paths of 11 232 nurses who worked in Switzerland between 1970 and 2014 were subjected to secondary analysis, assessing the effect of institutional characteristics on self-reported determinants of job satisfaction (such as WCS) using multivariate linear regression and post hoc tests with Bonferroni-adjusted significance levels. Principal component analysis was used to reduce the number of WCS in the original study.ResultsNurses at PuHs and PrHs were less likely to experience autonomy, flexibility of work hours and participation in decision-making than those at other workplaces. Although PuHs were rated higher than PrHs in terms of satisfaction with salary and advancement opportunities, they were associated with more alienating work factors, such as stress and aggression. SOMED workplaces were significantly more often associated with alienating conditions and low job satisfaction, but were rated higher than the other institutions in terms of participation in decision-making. The nurses' ratings implied that PrO workplaces were more likely to offer a mild work environment, social support and recognition than other institutions, but that advancement opportunities were limited. NPO workplaces were associated with the highest degree of autonomy, flexibility, participation, recognition, organisational commitment and job satisfaction. In these respects, HC and NPO workplaces received similar ratings, although the HC workplaces were associated with a significantly lower organisational commitment and significantly lower job satisfaction.ConclusionsDue to their structural characteristics, NPOs, SOMEDs and HCs can attract nurses seeking greater self-determination, PuHs can attract career-oriented nurses, and PrOs and PrHs are likely to attract nurses through offering less-stressful working conditions.

Project description:ImportanceContemporary data directly comparing experiences between individuals with public and private health insurance among the 5 major forms of coverage in the US are limited.ObjectiveTo compare individual experiences related to access to care, costs of care, and reported satisfaction with care among the 5 major forms of health insurance coverage in the US.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used data from the 2016-2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System on 149 290 individuals residing in 17 states and the District of Columbia, representing the experiences of more than 61 million US adults.ExposurePrivate (individually purchased and employer-sponsored coverage) or public health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Health Administration [VHA] or military coverage).Main outcomes and measuresA pairwise multivariable analysis was performed, controlling for underlying health status of US adults covered by private and public health insurance plans, and responses to survey questions on access to care, costs of care, and reported satisfaction with care were compared. Estimates are weighted.ResultsA total of 149 290 individuals responded to the survey (mean [SD] age, 50.7 [0.2] years; 52.8% female). Among the respondents, most were covered by private insurance (95 396 [63.9%]), followed by Medicare (35 531 [23.8%]), Medicaid (13 286 [8.9%]), and VHA or military (5074 [3.4%]) coverage. Among those with private insurance, most (117 939 [79.0%]) had employer-sponsored coverage. Compared with those covered by Medicare, individuals with employer-sponsored insurance were less likely to report having a personal physician (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.48-0.57) and were more likely to report instability in insurance coverage (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.30-1.83), difficulty seeing a physician because of costs (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.77-2.27), not taking medication because of costs (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.62), and having medical debt (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 2.69-3.17). Compared with those covered by Medicare, individuals with employer-sponsored insurance were less satisfied with their care (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.56-0.64). Compared with individuals covered by Medicaid, those with employer-sponsored insurance were more likely to report having medical debt (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.83-2.32) and were less likely to report difficulty seeing a physician because of costs (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) and not taking medications because of costs (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.92). No difference in satisfaction with care (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.06) was found between individuals with employer-sponsored private health insurance and those with Medicaid coverage.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, individuals with private insurance were more likely to report poor access to care, higher costs of care, and less satisfaction with care compared with individuals covered by publicly sponsored insurance programs. These findings suggest that public health insurance options may provide more cost-effective care than private options.