Extending health insurance to the poor in India: An impact evaluation of Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana on out of pocket spending for healthcare.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Karan A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5408909 | biostudies-other | 2017 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Extending health insurance to the poor in India: An impact evaluation of Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana on out of pocket spending for healthcare.
Karan Anup A Yip Winnie W Mahal Ajay A
Social science & medicine (1982) 20170327
India launched the 'Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana' (RSBY) health insurance scheme for the poor in 2008. Utilising 3 waves (1999-2000, 2004-05 and 2011-12) of household level data from nationally representative surveys of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) (N = 346,615) and district level RSBY administrative data on enrolment, we estimated causal effects of RSBY on out-of-pocket expenditure. Using 'difference-in-differences' methods on households in matched districts we find that RSB ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objectives This study aims to assess the impact of the subsidised community health insurance scheme in Senegal particularly on the poor. Design and setting The study used data from a household survey conducted in 2019 in three regions, representing 29.3% of the total population. Inverse probability of treatment weighting approach was applied for the analysis. Participants 1766 households with 15 584 individuals selected through a stratified random sampling with two draws. Main outcome measures The impact of community-based health insurance (CBHI) was evaluated on poor people’s access to care and on their financial protection. For the measurement of access to care, we were interested in the use of health services and non-withdrawal from care in case of illness. To assess financial protection, we looked at out-of-pocket expenditure by type of provider and by type of service, the weight of out-of-pocket expenditure on household income, non-exposure to impoverishing health expenditure and non-exposure to catastrophic health expenditure. Results The results indicate that the CBHI increases primary healthcare utilisation for non-poor (OR 1.36 (CI90 1.02–1.8) for the general scheme and 1.37 (CI90 1.06–1.77) for the special scheme for indigent recipients of social cash transfers), protect them against catastrophic (OR 1.63 (CI90 1.12–2.39)) or impoverishing (OR 2.4 (CI90 1.27–4.5)) health expenditures. However, CBHI has no impact on the poor’s healthcare utilisation (OR 0.61 (CI90 0.4–0.94)) and do not protect them from the burden related to healthcare expenditures (OR: 0.27 (CI90 0.13–0.54)). Conclusion Our study found that CBHI has an impact on the non-poor but does not sufficiently protect the poor. This leads us to conclude that a health insurance programme designed for the general population may not be appropriate for the poor. A qualitative study should be conducted to better understand the non-financial barriers to accessing care that may disproportionately affect the poorest.
| S-EPMC9772627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe burden of chronic conditions is on the rise in India, necessitating long-term support from healthcare services. Healthcare, in India, is primarily financed through out-of-pocket payments by households. Considering scarce evidence available from India, our study investigates whether and how out-of-pocket payments for outpatient care affect individuals with chronic conditions.MethodsA large census covering 9299 households was conducted in Bangalore, India. Of these, 3202 households that reported presence of chronic condition were further analysed. Data was collected using a structured household-level questionnaire. Out-of-pocket payments, catastrophic healthcare expenditure, and the resultant impoverishment were measured using a standard technique.ResultsThe response rate for the census was 98.5%. Overall, 69.6% (95%CI=68.0-71.2) of households made out-of-pocket payments for outpatient care spending a median of 3.2% (95%CI=3.0-3.4) of their total income. Overall, 16% (95%CI=14.8-17.3) of households suffered financial catastrophe by spending more than 10% of household income on outpatient care. Occurrence and intensity of financial catastrophe were inequitably high among poor. Low household income, use of referral hospitals as place for consultation, and small household size were associated with a greater likelihood of incurring financial catastrophe.The out-of-pocket spending on chronic conditions doubled the number of people living below the poverty line in one month, with further deepening of their poverty. In order to cope, households borrowed money (4.2% instances), and sold or mortgaged their assets (0.4% instances).ConclusionsThis study provides evidence from India that the out-of-pocket payment for chronic conditions, even for outpatient care, pushes people into poverty. Our findings suggest that improving availability of affordable medications and diagnostics for chronic conditions, as well as strengthening the gate keeping function of the primary care services are important measures to enhance financial protection for urban poor. Our findings call for inclusion of outpatient care for chronic conditions in existing government-initiated health insurance schemes.
| S-EPMC3533578 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about how out-of-pocket burden differs between Medicare and commercial insurance for ultra-expensive drugs.ObjectiveTo investigate out-of-pocket spending for ultra-expensive drugs in the Medicare Part D program vs commercial insurance.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a retrospective, population-based cohort study of individuals using ultra-expensive drugs included in a 20% nationally random sample of prescription drug claims from Medicare Part D and individuals aged 45 to 64 years using ultra-expensive drugs included in a large national convenience sample of outpatient pharmaceutical claims from commercial insurance plans. Claims data from 2013 through 2019 were used, and data were analyzed in February 2023.Main outcomes and measuresClaims-weighted mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug by insurance type, plan, and age.ResultsIn 2019, 37 324 and 24 159 individuals using ultra-expensive drugs were identified in the 20% Part D and commercial samples, respectively (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [11.7] years; 54.9% female). A statistically significant higher share of commercial enrollees vs Part D beneficiaries were female (61.0% vs 51.0%; P < .001), and a statistically significantly lower share were using 3 or more branded medications (28.7% vs 42.6%; P < .001). Mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4478 in Part D (median [IQR], $4169 [$3369-$5947]) compared with $1821 for commercial (median [IQR], $1272 [$703-$1924]); these differences were statistically significant every year. Differences in out-of-pocket spending comparing commercial enrollees aged 60 to 64 years and Part D beneficiaries aged 65 to 69 years exhibited similar magnitudes and trends. By plan, mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4301 (median [IQR], $4131 [$3000-$6048]) in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, $4575 (median [IQR], $4190 [$3305-$5799]) in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), $1208 (median [IQR], $752 [$317-$1240]) in health maintenance organization plans, $1569 (median [IQR], $838 [$481-$1472]) in preferred provider organization plans, and $4077 (median [IQR], $2882 [$1075-$4226]) in high-deductible health plans. There were no statistically significant differences between MAPD plans and stand-alone PDPs in any study year. Mean out-of-pocket spending was statistically significantly higher in MAPD plans compared with health maintenance organization plans and in stand-alone PDPs compared with preferred provider organization plans in each study year.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study demonstrated that the $2000 out-of-pocket cap included in the Inflation Reduction Act may substantially moderate the potential increase in spending faced by individuals who use ultra-expensive drugs when moving from commercial insurance to Part D coverage.
| S-EPMC10220512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Out-of-pocket spending at out-patient departments (OPD) by households is relatively less analyzed compared to hospitalization expenses in India. This paper provides new evidence on the levels and drivers of expenditure on out-patient care, as well as choice of providers, using household survey data from 8 districts in 3 states of India. Results indicate that the economically vulnerable spend more on OPD as a proportion of per capita consumption expenditure, out-patient care remains overwhelmingly private and switches of providers-while not very prevalent-is mostly towards private providers. A key result is that choice of public providers tend to lower OPD spending significantly. It indicates that an improvement in the overall quality and accessibility of government facilities still remain an important tool that should be considered in the context of financial protection.
| S-EPMC5115797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Women, unlike men, are subjected to triple burden of disease, namely, non-communicable and communicable diseases and reproductive health related diseases. To assess prevalence of triple burden of disease of currently married women and to contrast out of pocket maternal care expenditure of these diseases in India.This study uses nationally representative unit level data from the 71st round (2014) of the National Sample Survey Organisation. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis are employed to assess triple burden of diseases by background of currently married women. Mean out of pocket (OOP) expenditure for healthcare care by demographic and household characteristics of women are also compared by type of diseases. Two parts model is adopted for assessment of determents of out of pocket healthcare expenditure of women.Overall medical and non-medical expenses of non-communicable disease are much higher than those of other disease and disability, reproductive health related and communicable diseases. OOP expenditure for treatment of non-communicable diseases, reproductive health and related diseases and other disease and disability are significantly higher than the inpatient treatment of communicable diseases and the differences are statistically significant.Out of pocket expenditure for treatment of non-communicable diseases is the highest, followed by that of other diseases & disability, then reproductive health related diseases and the least is for communicable diseases. OOP expenditures for maternal healthcare in private health facilities are much higher than in public health facilities regardless of types of disease. Women from households having insurance of any member spent less than that of women from households not having health insurance. There is an urgent need to expand the outreach of the public health system in India to rural areas.
| S-EPMC5945049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOut-of-pocket spending (OOPS) is the major payment strategy for healthcare in Nigeria. Hence, the paper assessed the determinants socio-economic status (SES) of OOPS and strategies for coping with payments for healthcare in urban, semi-urban and rural areas of southeast Nigeria. This paper provides information that would be required to improve financial accessibility and equity in financing within the public health care system.MethodsThe study areas were three rural and three urban areas from Ebonyi and Enugu states in South-east Nigeria. Cross-sectional survey using interviewer-administered questionnaires to randomly selected householders was the study tool. A socio-economic status (SES) index that was developed using principal components analysis was used to examine levels of inequity in OOPS and regression analysis was used to examine the determinants of use of OOPS.ResultsAll the SES groups equally sought healthcare when they needed to. However, the poorest households were most likely to use low level and informal providers such as traditional healers, whilst the least poor households were more likely to use the services of higher level and formal providers such as health centres and hospitals. The better-off SES more than worse-off SES groups used OOPS to pay for healthcare. The use of own money was the commonest payment-coping mechanism in the three communities. The sales of movable household assets or land were not commonly used as payment-coping mechanisms. Decreasing SES was associated with increased sale of household assets to cope with payment for healthcare in one of the communities. Fee exemptions and subsidies were almost non-existent as coping mechanisms in this studyConclusionsThere is the need to reduce OOPS and channel and improve equity in healthcare financing by designing and implementing payment strategies that will assure financial risk protection of the poor such pre-payment mechanisms with government paying for the poor.
| S-EPMC2851710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among privately insured children, the proportion of inflation-adjusted total health care spending accounted for by orphan drugs increased from 4.0 percent to 6.6 percent between 2013 and 2018. This increase was largely driven by price growth. Mean annual out-of-pocket spending for orphan drugs rose from $486 to $866 and was higher for children than adults.
| S-EPMC7968887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Research from 2006 documented substantial variation in medication coverage for residents across Canada. Since then, some provinces have implemented major medication plan reforms. We aimed to update the information on publicly funded medication insurance plans available across Canada and to compare out-of-pocket costs across the country. METHODS:We compared provincial medication insurance plans using data from public websites and other public source documents. Using 2 hypothetical clinical examples, we determined the amount and type of a patient's out-of-pocket costs for 5 different patient subtypes that varied based on medication burden, age and income. RESULTS:Each province offers a plan to all residents. Cost-sharing is employed across all provinces. Some residents must pay a premium to receive insurance or must pay 100% of their medication costs until they reach a deductible amount, above which government funding covers a portion of medication costs. With the scenario of low medication burden (medication cost about $500), out-of-pocket costs ranged from $250 to $2100 for higher-income residents and from $0 to $700 for lower-income residents. With the scenario of high medication burden (medication cost about $1800), the corresponding ranges were $250-$2500 and $0-$1100. The variation was due to province of residence, age and income. INTERPRETATION:Variations in out-of-pocket payments continue to exist across the provinces, with some groups facing high expenses. Further work is required to understand the impact of different cost-sharing mechanisms, develop policies to limit out-of-pocket expenses and improve provincial drug plans.
| S-EPMC5741433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study, we analyzed healthcare provision and health expenditure across six Mediterranean countries that adopt the National Health System (Beveridge model) and that form part of the European Union (EU) with the main aim being that of analyzing and comparing out-of-pocket health spending in countries with a European Mediterranean connection. To this end, we considered various economic indicators and statistics to derive commonalities and differences across these countries and also compared trends in these indicators to those observed across the rest of the EU. We then analyzed these findings in light of other data related to the quality of healthcare delivery and the infrastructure of the health system and discussed recent developments in healthcare within each country and the main challenges faced by the respective health systems. The results show that on average, Mediterranean countries spend less on total healthcare expenditure (THE) than the EU average, both as a proportion of GDP, as well as in per capita terms. This is primarily driven by lower-than-EU-average public funding of healthcare. The 2008/2009 macro-economic and financial crisis had a significant impact on the countries under review, and explains the persistent reductions in public health spending as part of the austerity measures put in force across sectors. On the flipside, Mediterranean countries have a higher presence of private health providers in total funding, thereby explaining the higher Out-of-Pocket (OOPs) health expenditures in these countries relative to the EU-average. With regard to the overall health infrastructure in these countries, we observed that although the supply of physicians is largely in line with the rest of the EU, there is under-supply when it comes to hospital beds. This may be symptomatic of lower government funding. Nonetheless, all countries score highly in the evaluation of the quality of health services, as recorded by international rankings like the WHO's 2000 metric, whereas health system performance indicators, namely mortality rates and life expectancy reveal favorable health outcomes in the Mediterranean EU countries. The findings in this paper may be seen in light of the Mediterranean region's lifestyle in terms of diet, health behavior, health beliefs and shared culture. In particular, the higher out-of-pocket expenditure may reflect the tendency for one-to-one relationships with private clinicians and the pursuit of person-centered care (1). Additionally, the Mediterranean people may not be as disciplined as their European counterparts in accessing and using the public health sector. The lower THE also reflects the fact that the Mediterranean countries are less wealthy than the more economically-advanced European countries.
| S-EPMC5974227 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:With total and out-of-pocket spending for oral oncolytics rising, there is increased interest in choosing oncology treatments based on their clinical value relative to cost. OBJECTIVE:To determine if out-of-pocket spending varied for higher versus lower benefit oral oncology drugs reimbursed by commercial insurers. METHODS:This study was a retrospective analysis of commercial insurer prescription drug claims filed between 2007 and 2014 for 13 oral oncolytics approved before 2009. We calculated mean monthly out-of-pocket payment for each fill by patient. We then categorized oral oncolytics by their overall and progression-free survival benefits for each FDA-approved indication, using evidence from published studies. We assessed the relationship of survival benefit with mean monthly out-of-pocket payment, adjusting for demographic and plan characteristics. RESULTS:Our population included 44,113 patients aged 18-65 years (mean 52.5 [SD 9.4]) with a cancer diagnosis who filled 731,354 prescriptions. The most commonly represented oncolytics were imatinib (37.4% of fills), lenalidomide (17.7% of fills), and dasatinib (10.0% of fills). Approximately 32.3% of fills were for drug-indication pairs with an overall survival benefit of 4+ years. In adjusted analyses, there was no clear pattern to suggest that out-of-pocket payments differed with drug indication-specific survival benefits. Drugs for indications providing > 0 to 1 year of overall survival benefit were significantly more likely to have a lower out-of-pocket payment versus those prescribed off-label, but there were no significant differences in out-of-pocket payments between drugs and associated indications in any other survival category versus drugs used off-label. CONCLUSIONS:Out-of-pocket payments for oral oncolytics were not clearly related to indication-specific value in commercially insured patients. This finding suggests that despite increased attention to value- and indication-based drug pricing, cost sharing for oral oncolytics does not currently reflect these goals. DISCLOSURES:This project was supported by Research Scholar Grant RSGI-14-030-01-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society; the NIH Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) K12 Program; the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (UL1TR001111) Grant; and K24CA181510 from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have no disclosures. Data from this study were presented at the 2017 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 5, 2017, in Chicago, Illinois.
| S-EPMC6052860 | biostudies-literature