Investigating the nature of competition facing private healthcare facilities: the case of maternity care in Uttar Pradesh, India.

The private healthcare sector in low- and middle-income countries is increasingly seen as of public health importance, with widespread interest in improving private provider engagement. However, there is relatively little literature providing an in-depth understanding of the operation of private providers. We conducted a mixed methods analysis of the nature of competition faced by private delivery providers in Uttar Pradesh, India, where maternal mortality remains very high. We mapped health facilities in five contrasting districts, surveyed private facilities providing deliveries and conducted in-depth interviews with facility staff, allied providers (e.g. ambulance drivers, pathology laboratories) and other key informants. Over 3800 private facilities were mapped, of which 8% reported providing deliveries, mostly clustered in cities and larger towns. 89% of delivery facilities provided C-sections, but over half were not registered. Facilities were generally small, and the majority were independently owned, mostly by medical doctors and, to a lesser extent, AYUSH (non-biomedical) providers and others without formal qualifications. Recent growth in facility numbers had led to intense competition, particularly among mid-level facilities where customers were more price sensitive. In all facilities, nearly all payment was out-of-pocket, with very low-insurance coverage. Non-price competition was a key feature of the market and included location (preferably on highways or close to government facilities), medical infrastructure, hotel features, staff qualifications and reputation, and marketing. There was heavy reliance on visiting consultants such as obstetricians, surgeons and anaesthetists, and payment of hefty commission payments to agents who brought clients to the facility, for both new patients and those transferring from public facilities. Building on these insights, strategies for private sector engagement could include a foundation of universal facility registration, adaptation of accreditation schemes to lower-level facilities, improved third-party payment mechanisms and strategic purchasing, and enhanced patient information on facility availability, costs and quality.

District decision-making for health in low-income settings: a qualitative study in Uttar Pradesh, India, on engaging the private health sector in sharing health-related data.

Health information systems are an important planning and monitoring tool for public health services, but may lack information from the private health sector. In this fourth article in a series on district decision-making for health, we assessed the extent of maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH)-related data sharing between the private and public sectors in two districts of Uttar Pradesh, India; analysed barriers to data sharing; and identified key inputs required for data sharing. Between March 2013 and August 2014, we conducted 74 key informant interviews at national, state and district levels. Respondents were stakeholders from national, state and district health departments, professional associations, non-governmental programmes and private commercial health facilities with 3-200 beds. Qualitative data were analysed using a framework based on a priori and emerging themes. Private facilities registered for ultrasounds and abortions submitted standardized records on these services, which is compulsory under Indian laws. Data sharing for other services was weak, but most facilities maintained basic records related to institutional deliveries and newborns. Public health facilities in blocks collected these data from a few private facilities using different methods. The major barriers to data sharing included the public sector's non-standardized data collection and utilization systems for MNCH and lack of communication and follow up with private facilities. Private facilities feared information disclosure and the additional burden of reporting, but were willing to share data if asked officially, provided the process was simple and they were assured of confidentiality. Unregistered facilities, managed by providers without a biomedical qualification, also conducted institutional deliveries, but were outside any reporting loops. Our findings suggest that even without legislation, the public sector could set up an effective MNCH data sharing strategy with private registered facilities by developing a standardized and simple system with consistent communication and follow up.