ABSTRACT
Background & objectives: India’s Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) is one of the largest programmes in the world in terms of quantities of vaccines administered, number of beneficiaries, number of immunization sessions, and geographical extent and diversity of areas covered. Strategic planning for the Programme requires credible information on the cost of achieving the objectives and the financial resources needed at national, State, and district levels. We present here expenditures on immunization services in India in 2012 (baseline) and projected costs for five years (2013-2017). Methods: Data were collected from the Immunization Division of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and immunization partners, such as the World Health Organization and UNICEF. The cost components were immunization personnel, vaccines and injection supplies, transportation, trainings, social mobilization, advocacy and communication activities, disease surveillance, Programme management, maintenance of cold chain and other equipment, and capital costs. Results: Total baseline expenditure was ` 3,446 crore [1 crore = 10 million] (US$718 million), including shared personnel costs. In 2012, the government paid for 90 per cent of the Programme. Total resource requirements for 2013-2017 are ` 34,336 crore (US$ 5, 282 million). Allocations for vaccines increase from ` 511 crore in 2013 to ` 3,587 crore in 2017 as new vaccines are assumed to be introduced in the Programme. Interpretation & conclusions: The projections show that the government immunization budget will be double in 2017 as compared to 2013. It will increase from ` 4,570 crore in 2013 to ` 9,451 crore in 2017.
ABSTRACT
In this review the existing evidence on the impact of Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) is discussed in the context of international literature available on health insurance. We describe potential pathways through which health insurance can affect health and economic outcomes, discuss evidence from other developing countries, and identify potential biases and inconsistencies in existing studies on RSBY impact. Given the relatively recent introduction of RSBY, lack of quality, verifiable data on utilization patterns, and the absence of reliable evaluation studies, there is a need to exercise caution while assessing the merits of the programme. Considering the enormous potential and cost of the programme, we emphasize the need for a rigorous impact evaluation of RSBY. It will not only help capture the real impact of the scheme, but may also be able to estimate the extent of systemic inefficiencies at the level of the consumer.