Illnesses and hardship financing in India: an evaluation of inpatient and outpatient cases, 2014-18

Perceptions of health and healthcare needs in low-resource settings: qualitative insights from Bengaluru's urban slum and rural areas

Background

Despite the multitude of healthcare services available in India, health inequalities persist. People in low-resource settings are both disadvantaged and have the greatest need for healthcare. To address these disparities and achieve universal health coverage, healthcare services need to be tailored to the specific needs of this population.

Objective

This study aimed to understand health and healthcare perceptions of people in slums and villages in and around Bengaluru, a city in the southern part of India. It was conducted in partnership with Bangalore Baptist Hospital, a charity hospital dedicated to supporting underserved populations in this region.

Methods

The study employed qualitative methods. Twenty-eight open-ended interviews and eight focus groups were conducted with residents of selected slums and villages in and around Bengaluru. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, translated to English and analyzed applying thematic analysis.

Results and conclusion

The study finds that participants defined health as the absence of illness, the ability to work, and the result of a good lifestyle. With regards to healthcare expectations, the analysis shows the themes of the "good doctor," recovering quickly, cost affordability, cleanliness, and emergency services and diagnostic facilities. In addition, stigma related to healthcare, was identified, especially among residents of villages. Participants highlight the importance of good relationships with healthcare providers and accessible healthcare facilities to improve healthcare uptake in Bengaluru's slums and rural areas. This study also shows that achieving universal health coverage requires addressing not only direct costs but also other associated expenses like travel and lost wages, considering healthcare costs as a comprehensive expense tied to patients' living conditions. These results contribute to the growing body of literature on health and healthcare perceptions in low-resource settings, offering insights that may inform future research and context-specific strategies for improving healthcare access and delivery.

Assessment of out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures on essential medicines for acute and chronic illness: a comparative study across regional and socioeconomic groups in India

BACKGROUND

Substantial out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures push a large portion of the population below the poverty line, especially those residing in rural areas having low incomes. Individuals from economically disadvantaged states in India incur higher healthcare costs for hospitalization in public health centers than do those from more developed states. Economically poorer households in states such as Bihar and Odisha face significantly higher OOP expenditures for hospitalization in public health centers than do those in economically developed states such as Tamil Nadu.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare households by using the wealth index and demographic factors concerning OOP expenditures on medicines for acute and chronic illnesses in Odisha, India.

METHODOLOGY

A cross-sectional household survey was adopted to conduct the research. Access to medicines focused on OOP expenditures in Odisha is being studied by purposively selecting six districts: Rayagada, Kalahandi, Angul, Keonjhar, Khordha, and Kendrapara. A total of 902 households were surveyed. A stratified random sampling procedure was adopted to select the locations and households. The survey took place from October 2021 to February 2022. The sampled respondents were investigated for acute and chronic illnesses. The software SPSS version 25 was used to analyze the data. The details of the expenditures for the past four weeks were compared with those of medicines and healthcare expenses. Households were categorized into wealthy, middle, and poor classes. The prevalence of acute and chronic illnesses was analyzed in light of the share of medicine expenditures to total household expenditures.

RESULTS

Out of 902 surveyed households, 173 (19.2%) spent out-of-pocket (OOP) money on medicines due to acute and chronic illnesses. Among the studied population, 23.7% were affected by acute illness, whereas 10.9% suffered from chronic illness. Wealthy households constituted most of the OOP expenditure (81 wealthy households), whereas 33 poor households also contributed to the OOP expenditure. According to the unadjusted odds ratio (UOR) analysis, wealthy households were 0.25 times less likely to spend more than 50% of their total monthly household budget on medicine than poor households (UOR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.09-0.65). Similarly, ST households were 0.18 times less likely to spend more than 50% of their money on medicine from their budgets than SC households (UOR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.04-0.72).

CONCLUSION

The present study again reveals that capital regions (metropolitan regions) are well protected against OOP expenditures on medicines, but tribal areas are still underserved. The odds ratio reveals a critical positive association between high OOP and poor economic status in households in Odisha. That association must be minimized or nullified for equitable economic and social development.

Examining the factors contributing to a reduction in hardship financing among inpatient households in India

In India, the rising double burden of diseases and the low fiscal capacity of the government forces people to resort to hardship financing. This study aimed to examine the factors contributing to the reduction in hardship financing among inpatient households in India. The study relies on two rounds of National Sample Surveys with a sample of 34,478 households from the 71st round (2014) and 56,681 households from the 75th round (2018). We employed multivariable logistic regression and multivariate decomposition analyses to explore the factors associated with hardship financing in Indian households with hospitalized member(s) and assess the contributing factors to the reduction in hardship financing between 2014 and 2018. Notably, though hardship financing for inpatient households has decreased between 2014 and 2018, households with catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) had higher odds of hardship financing than those without CHE. While factors such as CHE, prolonged hospitalization, and private hospitals had impoverishing effects on hardship financing in 2014 and 2018, the decomposition model showed the potential of CHE (32%), length of hospitalization (32%), and private hospitals (24%) to slow down this negative impact over time. The findings showed the potential for further improvements in financial health protection for inpatient care over time, and underscore the need for continuing efforts to strengthen the implementation of public programs and schemes in India such as Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY).

Are institutional deliveries equitable in the southern states of India? A benefit incidence analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite a commendable rise in the number of women seeking delivery care at public health institutions in South India, it is unclear if the benefit accrues to wealthier or poorer socio-economic groups. The study's aim was to investigate at how the public subsidy is distributed among Indian women who give birth in public hospitals in the southern regions.

METHODS

Data from the Indian Demographic Health Survey's fifth wave (NFHS-5, 2019-21) was used in this study. A total of 22, 403 were institutional deliveries across all the southern states of India were included. Out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) on childbirth in health institutions was the outcome variable. We used summary statistics, Benefits Incidence Analysis (BIA), concentration index (CI), and concentration curve (CC) were used.

RESULTS

Most women in the lowest, poorest, and medium quintiles of wealth opted to give birth in public facilities. In contrast, about 69% of mothers belonging to highest quintile gave birth in private health institutions. The magnitude of CI and CC of institutional delivery indicates that public sector usage was concentrated among poorer quintiles [CIX: - 0.178; SE: 0.005; p < 0.001] and private sector usage was concentrated among wealthier quintiles [CIX: 0.239; SE: 0.006; p < 0.001]. Benefit incidence analyses suggest that middle quintile of women received the maximum public subsidy in primary health centres (33.23%), followed by richer quintile (25.62%), and poorer wealth quintiles (24.84%). These pattern in the secondary health centres was similar.

CONCLUSION

Poorer groups utilize the public sector for institutional delivery in greater proportions than the private sector. Middle quintiles seem to benefit the most from public subsidy in terms of the median cost of service and non-payment. Greater efforts must be made to understand how and why these groups are being left behind and what policy measures can enhance their inclusion and financial risk protection.

Financial toxicity of cancer treatment in India: towards closing the cancer care gap

Background

The rising economic burden of cancer on patients is an important determinant of access to treatment initiation and adherence in India. Several publicly financed health insurance (PFHI) schemes have been launched in India, with treatment for cancer as an explicit inclusion in the health benefit packages (HBPs). Although, financial toxicity is widely acknowledged to be a potential consequence of costly cancer treatment, little is known about its prevalence and determinants among the Indian population. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer care centers to address the issue of high costs of care in order to minimize the financial toxicity, promote access to high value care and reduce health disparities.

Methods

A total of 12,148 cancer patients were recruited at seven purposively selected cancer centres in India, to assess the out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) and financial toxicity among cancer patients. Mean OOPE incurred for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, was estimated by cancer site, stage, type of treatment and socio-demographic characteristics. Economic impact of cancer care on household financial risk protection was assessed using standard indicators of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment, along with the determinants using logistic regression.

Results

Mean direct OOPE per outpatient consultation and per episode of hospitalization was estimated as ₹8,053 (US$ 101) and ₹39,085 (US$ 492) respectively. Per patient annual direct OOPE incurred on cancer treatment was estimated as ₹331,177 (US$ 4,171). Diagnostics (36.4%) and medicines (45%) are major contributors of OOPE for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, respectively. The overall prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was higher among patients seeking outpatient treatment (80.4% and 67%, respectively) than hospitalization (29.8% and 17.2%, respectively). The odds of incurring CHE was 7.4 times higher among poorer patients [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 7.414] than richest. Enrolment in PM-JAY (CHE AOR = 0.426, and impoverishment AOR = 0.395) or a state sponsored scheme (CHE AOR = 0.304 and impoverishment AOR = 0.371) resulted in a significant reduction in CHE and impoverishment for an episode of hospitalization. The prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was significantly higher with hospitalization in private hospitals and longer duration of hospital stay (p < 0.001). The extent of CHE and impoverishment due to direct costs incurred on outpatient treatment increased from 83% to 99.7% and, 63.9% to 97.1% after considering both direct and indirect costs borne by the patient and caregivers, respectively. In case of hospitalization, the extent of CHE increased from 23.6% (direct cost) to 59.4% (direct+ indirect costs) and impoverishment increased from 14.1% (direct cost) to 27% due to both direct and indirect cost of cancer treatment.

Conclusion

There is high economic burden on patients and their families due to cancer treatment. The increase in population and cancer services coverage of PFHI schemes, creating prepayment mechanisms like E-RUPI for outpatient diagnostic and staging services, and strengthening public hospitals can potentially reduce the financial burden among cancer patients in India. The disaggregated OOPE estimates could be useful input for future health technology analyses to determine cost-effective treatment strategies.