Dataset Information

Impact of public-funded health insurances in India on health care utilisation and financial risk protection: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Universal 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.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Medline (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 criteria

Studies 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 synthesis

Data 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.

Outcomes

Utilisation of healthcare, willingness-to-pay (WTP), out-of-pocket expenditure (including outpatient and inpatient), catastrophic health expenditure and impoverishment.

Results

The 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.

Conclusion

Different 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.

Registration

Not registered.

SUBMITTER: Reshmi B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8704974 | 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:BackgroundExpanding public health insurance seeks to attain several desirable objectives, including increasing access to healthcare services, reducing the risk of catastrophic healthcare expenditures, and improving health outcomes. The extent to which these objectives are met in a real-world policy context remains an empirical question of increasing research and policy interest in recent years.MethodsWe reviewed systematically empirical studies published from July 2010 to September 2016 using Medline, Embase, Econlit, CINAHL Plus via EBSCO, and Web of Science and grey literature databases. No language restrictions were applied. Our focus was on both randomised and observational studies, particularly those including explicitly attempts to tackle selection bias in estimating the treatment effect of health insurance. The main outcomes are: (1) utilisation of health services, (2) financial protection for the target population, and (3) changes in health status.Findings8755 abstracts and 118 full-text articles were assessed. Sixty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria including six randomised studies, reflecting a substantial increase in the quantity and quality of research output compared to the time period before 2010. Overall, health insurance schemes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have been found to improve access to health care as measured by increased utilisation of health care facilities (32 out of 40 studies). There also appeared to be a favourable effect on financial protection (26 out of 46 studies), although several studies indicated otherwise. There is moderate evidence that health insurance schemes improve the health of the insured (9 out of 12 studies).InterpretationIncreased health insurance coverage generally appears to increase access to health care facilities, improve financial protection and improve health status, although findings are not totally consistent. Understanding the drivers of differences in the outcomes of insurance reforms is critical to inform future implementations of publicly funded health insurance to achieve the broader goal of universal health coverage.

Project description:Several publicly financed health insurance schemes have been launched in India with the aim of providing universalizing health coverage (UHC). In this paper, we report the impact of publicly financed health insurance schemes on health service utilization, out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure, financial risk protection and health status. Empirical research studies focussing on the impact or evaluation of publicly financed health insurance schemes in India were searched on PubMed, Google scholar, Ovid, Scopus, Embase and relevant websites. The studies were selected based on two stage screening PRISMA guidelines in which two researchers independently assessed the suitability and quality of the studies. The studies included in the review were divided into two groups i.e., with and without a comparison group. To assess the impact on utilization, OOP expenditure and health indicators, only the studies with a comparison group were reviewed. Out of 1265 articles screened after initial search, 43 studies were found eligible and reviewed in full text, finally yielding 14 studies which had a comparator group in their evaluation design. All the studies (n-7) focussing on utilization showed a positive effect in terms of increase in the consumption of health services with introduction of health insurance. About 70% studies (n-5) studies with a strong design and assessing financial risk protection showed no impact in reduction of OOP expenditures, while remaining 30% of evaluations (n-2), which particularly evaluated state sponsored health insurance schemes, reported a decline in OOP expenditure among the enrolled households. One study which evaluated impact on health outcome showed reduction in mortality among enrolled as compared to non-enrolled households, from conditions covered by the insurance scheme. While utilization of healthcare did improve among those enrolled in the scheme, there is no clear evidence yet to suggest that these have resulted in reduced OOP expenditures or higher financial risk protection.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundEnsuring financial risk protection in health care and achieving universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030 is one of the crucial Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) targets for many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including Bangladesh. We examined the critical trajectory of financial risk protection against out-of-pocket (OOP) health expenditure in Bangladesh.MethodsUsing Bangladesh Household Income and Expenditure Survey data from 2005, 2010, and 2016, we examined the levels and distributions of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) and impoverishment incidences. We used the normative food, housing, and utilities method, refining it by categorizing households with zero OOP expenses by reasons.ResultsOOP expenditure doubled between 2005 and 2016 (USD 115.6 in 2005, USD 162.1 in 2010, USD 242.9 in 2016), accompanied by rising CHE (11.5% in 2005, 11.9% in 2010, 16.6% in 2016) and impoverishment incidence (1.5% in 2005, 1.6% in 2010, 2.3% in 2016). While further impoverishment of the poor households due to OOP expenditure (3.6% in 2005, 4.1% in 2010, 3.9% in 2016) was a more severe problem than impoverishment of the non-poor, around 5.5% of non-poor households were always at risk of impoverishment. The poorest households were the least financially protected throughout the study period (lowest vs. highest quintile CHE: 29.5% vs. 7.6%, 33.2% vs. 7.2%, and 37.6% vs. 13.0% in 2005, 2010, and 2016, respectively). The disparity in CHE among households with and without chronic illness was also remarkable in 2016 (25.0% vs. 9.1%).ConclusionFinancial risk protection in Bangladesh exhibits a deteriorated trajectory from 2005 to 2016, posing a significant challenge to achieving UHC and, thus, the SDGs by 2030. The poorest and chronically ill households disproportionately lacked financial protection. Reversing the worsening trends of CHE and impoverishment and addressing the inequities in their distributions calls for implementing UHC and thus providing financial protection against illness.

Project description:BackgroundUniversal Health Coverage ensures access to quality health services for all, with no financial hardship when accessing the needed services. Nevertheless, access to quality health services is marred by substantial resource shortages creating service delivery gaps in low-and middle-income countries, including Kenya. The Innovative Partnership for Universal Sustainable Healthcare (i-PUSH) program, developed by AMREF Health Africa and PharmAccess Foundation (PAF), aims to empower low-income women of reproductive age and their families through innovative digital tools. This study aims to evaluate the impact of i-PUSH on maternal and child health care utilization, women's health including their knowledge, behavior, and uptake of respective services, as well as women's empowerment and financial protection. It also aims to evaluate the impact of the LEAP training tool on empowering and enhancing community health volunteers' health literacy and to evaluate the impact of the M-TIBA health wallet on savings for health and health insurance uptake.MethodsThis is a study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) study that uses a four-pronged approach-including year-long weekly financial and health diaries interviews, baseline and endline surveys, a qualitative study, and behavioral lab-in-the-field experiments-in Kakemega County, Kenya. In total, 240 households from 24 villages in Kakamega will be followed to capture their health, health knowledge, health-seeking behavior, health expenditures, and enrolment in health insurance over time. Half of the households live in villages randomly assigned to the treatment group where i-PUSH will be implemented after the baseline, while the other half of the households live in control village where i-PUSH will not be implemented until after the endline. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the AMREF Ethical and Scientific Review Board. Research permits were obtained from the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation agency of Kenya.DiscussionPeople in low-and middle-income countries often suffer from high out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures, which, in turn, impede access to quality health services. Saving for healthcare as well as enrolment in health insurance can improve access to healthcare by building capacities at all levels-individuals, families, and communities. Notably, i-PUSH fosters savings for health care through the mobile-phone based "health wallet," it enhances enrolment in subsidized health insurance through the mobile platform-M-TIBA-developed by PAF, and it seeks to improve health knowledge and behavior through community health volunteers (CHVs) who are trained using the LEAP tool-AMREF's mHealth platform. The findings will inform stakeholders to formulate better strategies to ensure access to Universal Health Coverage in general, and for a highly vulnerable segment of the population in particular, including low-income mothers and their children.Trial registrationRegistered with Protocol Registration and Results System (protocol ID: AfricanPHRC; trial ID: NCT04068571 : AEARCTR-0006089 ; date: 29 August 2019) and The American Economic Association's registry for randomized controlled trials (trial ID: AEARCTR-0006089; date: 26 June 2020).

Project description:BackgroundEvidence on the effectiveness of community-based health insurance (CBHI) in low-income countries is inconclusive. This study assessed the impact of CBHI on health service utilization and financial risk protection in Ethiopia.MethodsWe conducted a comparative cross-sectional study nested within a larger national household survey in 2020. Data was collected from three groups of households-CBHI member households (n = 1586), non-member households from CBHI implementing woredas (n = 1863), and non-member households from non-CBHI implementing woredas (n = 789). Indicators of health service utilization, out-of-pocket health spending, catastrophic health expenditure, and impoverishment due to health spending among CBHI members were compared with non-members from CBHI implementing woredas and households from non-CBHI implementing woredas. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to account for possible selection bias.ResultsThe annual number of OPD visits per capita among CBHI member households was 2.09, compared to 1.53 among non-member households from CBHI woredas and 1.75 among households from non-CBHI woredas. PSM estimates indicated that CBHI members had 0.36 (95% CI: 0.25, 0.44) and 0.17 (95% CI: -0.04, 0.19) more outpatient department (OPD) visits per capita per year than their matched non-member households from CBHI-implementing and non-CBHI implementing woredas, respectively. CBHI membership resulted in a 28-43% reduction in annual OOP payments as compared to non-member households. CBHI member households were significantly less likely to incur catastrophic health expenditures (measured as annual OOP payments of more than 10% of the household's total expenditure) compared to non-members (p < 0.01).ConclusionCBHI membership increases health service utilization and financial protection. CBHI proves to be an important strategy for promoting universal health coverage. Implementing CBHI in all woredas and increasing membership among households in woredas that are already implementing CBHI will further expand its benefits.

Project description:BackgroundA national Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) scheme called Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogaya Yojana (PMJAY) was launched by government of India in 2018. PMJAY seeks to cover 500 million persons with an annual cover of around 7000 USD per household. PMJAY claims to be the largest government funded health scheme globally and has attracted an international debate as a policy for Universal Health Coverage. India's decade-long experience of the earlier national and state-specific PFHI schemes had shown poor effectiveness in financial protection. Most states in India have completed a year of implementation of PMJAY but no evaluations are available of this important scheme.MethodsThe study was designed to find out the effect of enrolment under PMJAY in improving utilisation of hospital services and financial protection in Chhattisgarh which has been a leading state in implementing PFHI in terms of enrolment and claims. The study analyses three repeated cross-sections. Two of the cross-sections are from National Sample Survey (NSS) health rounds - year 2004 when there was no PFHI and 2014 when the older PFHI scheme was in operation. Primary data was collected in 2019-end to cover the first year of PMJAY implementation and it formed the third cross-section. Multivariate analysis was carried out. In addition, Propensity Score Matching and Instrumental Variable method were applied to address the selection problem in insurance.ResultsEnrollment under PMJAY or other PFHI schemes did not increase utilisation of hospital-care in Chhattisgarh. Out of Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) and incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure did not decrease with enrollment under PMJAY or other PFHI schemes. The size of OOPE was significantly greater for utilisation in private sector, irrespective of enrollment under PMJAY.ConclusionPMJAY provided substantially larger vertical cover than earlier PFHI schemes in India but it has not been able to improve access or financial protection so far in the state. Though PMJAY is a relatively new scheme, the persistent failure of PFHI schemes over a decade raises doubts about suitability of publicly funded purchasing from private providers in the Indian context. Further research is recommended on such policies in LMIC contexts.