Assessing inequalities in publicly funded health insurance scheme coverage and out-of-pocket expenditure for hospitalization: findings from a household survey in Kerala.

BACKGROUND: Increasing financial risk protection is a key feature of Universal Health Coverage and the path towards health for all. Publicly Funded Health Insurance Schemes (PFHIS) have been considered as one of the pathways to safeguard against financial shocks and potentially reduce Out-of-Pocket Expenditure (OOPE). The south Indian state of Kerala has roughly a decade-long experience in implementing PFHIS. To date, there have been very few assessments of the coverage of these schemes and their impact on expenditure. Aiming to fill this gap, we explored the extent of and inequalities in insurance coverage, as well as choice of providers, and median cost of hospitalization in Kerala among insured and uninsured individuals. METHODS: A cross-sectional household survey was conducted in four districts of Kerala as part of a larger health systems research study from July-October 2019. We employed multistage random sampling to collect data from 13,064 individuals covering 3234 households in the catchment area of eight primary health care facilities. We used descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariate analysis. We evaluated socioeconomic disparities using an absolute measure of inequality-the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and a relative measure-the Relative Concentration Index (RCI). RESULTS: A substantial proportion of our study respondents reported that they were covered by PFHIS (45.8%). Respondents belonging to lowest and middle wealth quintiles of household had significantly greater odds of being covered by insurance than respondents belonging to the richest wealth quintile. The negative magnitude of RCI [-16.8% (95%CI: -25.3, -8.4)] and SII [-21.5% (95%CI: -36.1, -7.0)] suggest a higher concentration of PFHIS coverage among the poor. Median OOPE for hospitalisation at private health facilities was INR 9000 (approx. USD 108.70) among those covered by PFHIS, whereas it was INR 10500 (approx. USD 126.82) at private health facilities among those not covered by insurance. CONCLUSION: While PFHIS seems to be appropriately targeting poorer populations, among the insured, OOPE for hospitalization persists. Among the uninsured, population subgroups with advantage are spending the greatest amount, raising questions about whether those facing relative disadvantage are forgoing care altogether or seeking care using cheaper, public avenues. Further policy action to more effectively reduce financial burden among left behind eligible populations under PFHIS will be essential to UHC progress in the state.

On the forms, contributions and impacts of community mobilisation involved with Kerala's COVID-19 response: Perspectives of health staff, Local Self Government institution and community leaders.

BACKGROUND: Kerala, a south Indian state, has a long and strong history of mobilisation of people's participation with institutionalised mechanisms as part of decentralisation reforms introduced three decades ago. This history formed the backdrop of the state's COVID-19 response from 2020 onwards. As part of a larger health equity study, we carried out an analysis to understand the contributions of people's participation to the state's COVID-19 response, and what implications this may have for health reform as well as governance more broadly. METHODS: We employed in-depth interviews with participants from four districts of Kerala between July and October, 2021. Following written informed consent procedures, we carried out interviews of health staff from eight primary health care centres, elected Local Self Government (LSG, or Panchayat) representatives, and community leaders. Questions explored primary health care reforms, COVID responses, and populations left behind. Transliterated English transcripts were analysed by four research team members using a thematic analysis approach and ATLAS.ti 9 software. For this paper, we specifically analysed codes and themes related to experiences of community actors and processes for COVID mitigation activities. RESULTS: A key feature of the COVID-19 response was the formation of Rapid Response Teams (RRTs), groups of lay community volunteers, who were identified and convened by LSG leaders. In some cases, pre-pandemic 'Arogya sena' (health army) community volunteer groups were merged with RRTs. RRT members were trained and supported by the health departments at the local level to distribute medicine and essential items, provided support for transportation to health facilities, and assisted with funerary rites during lockdown and containment period. RRTs often comprised youth cadres of ruling and opposition political parties. Existing community networks like Kudumbashree (Self Help Groups) and field workers from other departments have supported and been supported by RRTs. As pandemic restrictions eased, however, there was concern about the sustainability of this arrangement as well. CONCLUSION: Participatory local governance in Kerala allowed for the creation of invited spaces for community participation in a variety of roles as part of the COVID 19 response, with manifest impact. However, the terms of engagement were not decided by communities, nor were they involved more deeply in planning and organising health policy or services. The sustainability and governance features of such involvement warrant further study.