Cost of Care for Non-communicable Diseases: Which Types of Healthcare Providers are the Most Economical in India's Chhattisgarh State?

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) affect a large number of people globally and their burden has been growing. Healthcare for NCDs often involves high out-of-pocket expenditure and rising costs of providing services. Financing and providing care for NCDs have become a major challenge for health systems. Despite the high burden of NCDs in India, there is little information available on the costs involved in NCD care. METHODS: The study was aimed at finding out the average monthly cost of outpatient care per NCD patient. The average cost was defined as all resources spent directly by government and citizens to get a month of care for a NCD patient. The cost borne by the government on public facilities was taken into account and activity-based costing was used to apportion it to the function of providing outpatient NCD care. For robustness, time-driven activity-based costing and sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was conducted in Chhattisgarh State and involved a household survey and a facility survey, conducted simultaneously at the end of 2022. The surveys had a sample representative of the state, covering 3500 individuals above age of 30 years and 108 health facilities. RESULTS: The average monthly cost per NCD patient was Indian Rupees (INR) 688 for public providers, INR 1389 for formal for-profit providers and INR 408 for informal private providers and they managed 53.5, 34.3 and 12.0% of NCD patients respectively. The disease profile of patients handled by different types of providers was similar. The average cost per patient was lowest for the primary care facilities in the public sector. CONCLUSIONS: The average direct cost of NCD care for government and citizens put together was substantially higher in case of formal for-profit providers compared with public facilities, even after taking into account the government subsidies to public sector. This has implications for allocative efficiency and the desired public-private provider mix in health systems.

Impact of community health workers on improving identification and primary care of hypertension among the urban poor - findings from Chhattisgarh state of India.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major health problem globally and in India. Around 60% of people with hypertension in India are not aware that they have the condition. Less than 30% of individuals with hypertension are on treatment. Existing studies have indicated that community health workers (CHWs) can play a useful role in expanding the care for hypertension. Evaluations are needed to study the impact when an intervention is implemented by the government in its existing large-scale CHW programme to improve the identification, regular follow-up and medication adherence for hypertension. METHODS: Chhattisgarh state implemented a pilot intervention to improve screening and follow-up for hypertension by equipping Mitanin-CHWs to measure blood pressure (BP). The study design involved an intervention-group and a comparison-group of urban slum population. The survey covered 5974 individuals (30-79 years age) in intervention-group and 5131 in comparison-group. Multivariate analysis was conducted to find out the effect of intervention on the desired outcomes. RESULTS: In intervention-group, 80.2% of the individuals (30-79 years age) had been screened for hypertension whereas the proportion was 37.9% in comparison-group. For 47.0% of individuals in intervention-group, Mitanin CHW was the provider who measured BP for the first time. Around 16.3% of individuals in intervention-group and 9.5% in comparison-group had been diagnosed with hypertension. Around 85.9% of hypertension cases in intervention-group and 77.0% in comparison-group were on treatment. BP had been measured in preceding 30 days for 81.8% of hypertension-cases in intervention-group and 64.3% in comparison-group. Around 70.3% of hypertension-cases in intervention-group and 55.1% in comparison-group had taken their complete medication for last seven days. Multivariate analysis showed that CHW intervention was associated significantly with improvements in all the desired outcomes. CONCLUSION: Equipping the CHWs to measure BP was effective in increasing the screening and identification of hypertension, regular measurement of BP of individuals with hypertension and the adherence to medication. This shows the potential if the one-million strong work-force of Accredited-Social-Health-Activists (ASHA) CHWs in India gets equipped for this role. Governments need to provide a stronger policy push to get this materialised.

Does government health insurance protect households from out of pocket expenditure and distress financing for caesarean and non-caesarean institutional deliveries in India? Findings from the national family health survey (2019-21).

OBJECTIVE: Institutional deliveries have been promoted in India to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. While the institutional deliveries have increased, they tend to involve large out of pocket expenditure (OOPE) and distress financing for households. In order to protect the families from financial hardship, publicly funded health insurance (PFHI) schemes have been implemented in India. An expanded national health insurance scheme called the Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) was launched in 2018. The current study was aimed at evaluating the performance of PFHI in reducing the OOPE and distress financing for the caesarean and non-caesarean institutional deliveries after the launch of PMJAY. This study analysed the nationally representative dataset of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) conducted in 2019-21. RESULTS: Enrollment under PMJAY or other PFHI was not associated with any reduction in out of pocket expenditure or distress financing for caesarean or non-caesarean institutional deliveries across India. Irrespective of the PFHI coverage, the average OOPE in private hospitals was five times larger than public hospitals. Private hospitals showed an excessive rate of using caesarean-section. Utilization of private hospitals was significantly associated with incurring larger OOPE and occurrence of distress financing.

Role of publicly funded health insurance in financial protection of the elderly from hospitalisation expenditure in India-findings from the longitudinal aging study.

BACKGROUND: The elderly face a greater burden of illnesses than other age groups and have a more frequent need of healthcare, including in-patient hospitalisations. Catastrophic expenditure on hospitalisation of the elderly poses a significant challenge to India's aim of achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC). India has implemented a policy of Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) to provide free inpatient care by empanelling private and public hospitals. The existing studies have examined the performance of PFHI in financial protection of the elderly. METHODS: This study utilised the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI) Wave 1, conducted in 2017-18. LASI is a large-scale nationally representative survey collecting data on elderly health including illness burden, healthcare use and out of pocket expenditure (OOPE). It covered a sample 72,250 individuals aged 45 or above. Financial Protection was measured in terms of Catastrophic Health Expenditure (CHE). Multivariate analysis was conducted to find effect of PFHI on OOPE-quantile and logistic models were applied for OOPE and CHE respectively. For robustness, Propensity Score Matching (PSM) model was applied. RESULTS: Of the hospitalisations, 35% had taken place in public hospitals. The mean OOPE for a hospitalisation in public sector was Indian Rupees (INR) 8276, whereas it was INR 49,700 in private facilities. Incidence of CHE was several times greater for using private hospitals as compared to public hospitals. Multi-variate analyses showed that enrolment under PFHI was not associated with lower OOPE or CHE. PSM model also confirmed that PFHI-enrolment had no effect on OOPE or CHE. Use of private facilities was a key determinant of OOPE, irrespective of enrolment under PFHI. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study in India to examine the performance of PFHI in the context of catastrophic hospitalisation expenditure faced by the elderly. It found that PFHI was not effective in financial protection of the elderly. The ongoing reliance on a poorly regulated private sector seems to be a key limitation of PFHI policy. Governments need to find more effective ways of protecting the elderly from catastrophic health expenditure if the goal of UHC has to be realized.

How much do government and households spend on an episode of hospitalisation in India? A comparison for public and private hospitals in Chhattisgarh state.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in the financing of healthcare services are important for developing countries like India to make progress towards universal health coverage. Inpatient-care contributes to a big share of total health expenditure in India. India has a mixed health-system with a sizeable presence of private hospitals. Existing studies show that out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) incurred per hospitalisation in private hospitals was greater than public facilities. But, such comparisons have not taken into account the healthcare spending by government. METHODS: For a valid comparison between public and for-profit private providers, this study in Indian state of Chhattisgarh assessed the combined spending by government and households per episode of hospitalisation. The supply-side and demand-side spending from public and private sources was taken into account. The study used two datasets: a) household survey for data on hospital utilisation, OOPE, cash incentives received by patients and claims raised under publicly funded health insurance (PFHI) schemes (n = 903 hospitalisation episodes) b) survey of public facilities to find supply-side government spending per hospitalisation (n = 64 facilities). RESULTS: Taking into account all relevant demand and supply side expenditures, the average total spending per day of hospitalisation was INR 2833 for public hospitals and INR 6788 for private hospitals. Adjusted model for logarithmic transformation of OOPE while controlling for variables including case-mix showed that a hospitalisation in private hospitals was significantly more expensive than public hospitals (coefficient = 2.9, p < 0.001). Hospitalisations in private hospitals were more likely to result in a PFHI claim (adjusted-odds-ratio = 1.45, p = 0.02) and involve a greater amount than public hospitals (coefficient = 0.27, p < 0.001). Propensity-score matching models confirmed the above results. Overall, supply-side public spending contributed to 16% of total spending, demand-side spending through PFHI to 16%, cash incentives to 1% and OOPE to 67%. OOPE constituted 31% of total spending per episode in public and 86% in private hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Government and households put together spent substantially more per hospitalisation in private hospitals than public hospitals in Chhattisgarh. This has important implications for the allocative efficiency and the desired public-private provider-mix. Using public resources for purchasing inpatient care services from private providers may not be a suitable strategy for such contexts.

Household expenditure on non-Covid hospitalisation care during the Covid-19 pandemic and the role of financial protection policies in India.

BACKGROUND: Despite 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. METHODS: Panel 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. RESULTS: Utilisation 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. CONCLUSION: While 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.

Catastrophic health expenditure due to hospitalisation for COVID-19 treatment in India: findings from a primary survey.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread illness and a significant proportion of the infected required hospitalisation for treatment. People in developing countries like India were vulnerable to high hospitalisation costs. Despite its crucial importance, few primary studies are available on this aspect of the pandemic. This study was aimed at finding out the out of pocket expenditure (OOPE) and incidence of catastrophic expenditure on hospitalisation of persons infected with COVID-19. A primary survey of 492 randomly selected hospitalisations of individuals tested positive for COVID-19 in high-burden districts during August to November 2020 was carried out telephonically in Chhattisgarh state of India. RESULTS: Public hospitals accounted for 69% of the hospitalisations for COVID-19 treatment. Mean OOPE per hospitalisation was Indian Rupees (INR) 4871 in public hospitals and INR 169,504 in private hospitals. Around 3% of hospitalisations in public hospitals and 59% in private hospitals resulted in catastrophic expenditure, at a threshold of 40% of non-food annual household expenditure. Enrolment under publicly or privately funded health insurance was not effective in curtailing OOPE. Multivariate analysis showed that utilisation of private hospitals was a key determinant of incurring catastrophic expenditure.

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

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.

Performance of India's national publicly funded health insurance scheme, Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogaya Yojana (PMJAY), in improving access and financial protection for hospital care: findings from household surveys in Chhattisgarh state.

BACKGROUND: A 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Enrollment 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. CONCLUSION: PMJAY 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.