Inter-State Disparities in Healthcare Costs, Health Insurance Coverage and Financial Protection in India: A Comparative Analysis of National Sample Surveys for 1986-87, 1995-96, 2004 and 2014

 

Anil Gumber ¹, N. Lalitha ²,  Biplab Dhak ³

 

¹ Senior Health Economist at Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK

² Retired from  a Professorial position at Gujarat Institute of Development Research, Ahmedabad, India

³ Assistant Professor, A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna, India

 

 

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Healthcare system in India is a typical mix of public and private providers with wide inter-state disparities in terms of their spread and coverage. The total health expenditure (THE) for India is estimated to be 3.16% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of which public sector contributed 40.61%, household out-of-pocket (OOP) 48.21%, the Private Health Insurance 6.57% and the remainder by Social Security and External Donors (National Health Accounts 2018-19, Government of India. (2022). Since the inception of National Health Accounts, the total health expenditure as percentage of GDP has continuously declined from 4.2% in 2004-05 to 3.8% in 2015-16 and further to 3.2% in 2018-19. It is interesting to note that the contribution of government has increased from 22.5% in 2004-05 to 40.6% in 2018-19, that of the household OOP decreased from 69.4% to 48.2% whilst that of private health insurance increased from 1.6% to 6.6% during the same period. The Central and State governments’ health expenditure together account for just 1.3% of GDP which is drastically below the 5% norm required to support the Universal Health Coverage mission.

Several evidences both quantitative and qualitative have consistently demonstrated that the high level of household OOP health expenditure on treatment including private health insurance premium is responsible for pushing people into poverty Gumber (2000); World (2001); Van et al. (2006); Selvaraj and Karan (2009); Berman et al. (2010). It may be noted that private health expenditure is higher than public expenditure across all major states. The burden of OOP expenditure falls on a quarter or a third of the households with incomes below the poverty line Deolalikar et al. (2008), which has impacted the reduction in consumption expenditure on food and other essential items, increased indebtedness, and growing untreated illness; and which could further lead to gender bias in health-seeking behaviour Sen (2003).

Although public health system has not equally spread-out geographically and has several shortcomings in terms of providing both quantity and quality of services in India, even then it has been evident from the previous National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) Survey Rounds on Healthcare Utilisation that public health services are the preferred option, particularly, for inpatient care Gumber (2002), Gumber (2021). Moreover, health outcomes, especially, infant mortality, respond more to public health and local clinical interventions than to hospital care Deolalikar et al. (2008), and these may vary across states.

This paper presents the health and morbidity scenarios prevalent in India at four time points using the NSSO surveys for 1986-87, 1995-96, 2004 and 2014 and thereby examines the trends in the use of healthcare services separately for rural and urban residents by public and private providers and their associated expenditure on treatment as inpatient and outpatient. It further explores  inter-state disparities in health insurance enrolment/coverage and the extent of financial protection received by insured households. These four survey rounds depict three important periods of growth, namely the liberalization period of the 1980s, the period of fiscal contraction in the 1990s that saw the decline in social spending Bhat and Jain (2006), Selvaraj and Karan (2009), the phase of globalization and the launch of National Rural Health Mission in 2005. The paper also discusses whether the states have made a notable progress towards achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) goals in terms of improving equity in accessing healthcare services and reducing financial hardship to meet the catastrophic hospital treatment cost.

The analysis took into account 17 of India’s largest states; however, the computation of “All-India” averages included all major and smaller states and union territories.  There have been a few splits in states after November 2000; hence we have added back Chhattisgarh to Madhya Pradesh, Uttaranchal to Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand to Bihar (which depicts a pre-bifurcation scenario) in order to compare statistics between NSSO Rounds. Furthermore, to account for inflation between survey rounds we converted the cost of treatment in real terms by deflating the OOP expenditure by the wholesale price index of pharmaceutical products at 1993-94 prices. Pharmaceutical prices are a significantly better reflection of the actual rising cost of Indian healthcare services than the deflator based on consumer price/wholesale price index for all commodities. The inflation rate of pharmaceutical products has turned out to be  higher than those for all commodities. The wholesale price for pharmaceutical product is estimated to have increased by 318 per cent against 240 per cent for prices of all commodities during the period 1994-95 to 2011-12 (This is computed from RBI report on Wholesale Price Index for various years under sub-category - Manufacture of Pharmaceuticals, Medicinal Chemical and Botanical Products). Since much of the household’s recurring health expenditure is incurred on purchasing the necessary drugs as an inpatient/ outpatient, the use of price index for pharmaceutical items than any other price index is more appropriate to demonstrate the financial burden of rising healthcare expenditure on people seeking treatment in India.

The paper is structured in five sections, including the introduction. Section 2 presents a summary health scenario for India.  The healthcare utilisation pattern and associated cost of treatment for inpatient and outpatient care for rural and urban residents are examined in Section 3. The amount of household financial and health insurance protection is shown in Section 4 for the major states. The summary and conclusions are presented in the final section.

 

2. Health Scenario in India

With the increasing attention towards achieving better population health, India has significantly improved its health in terms of higher life expectancy and lower levels of mortality over the last 50 years. According to health indicators provided by the Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, Government of India. (2018), the birth rate decreased from 25.8 in 2000 to 20.4 in 2016 and the crude death rate decreased from 8.5 to 6.4 during the same period. Other health metrics, such as the infant and maternal mortality rates, have also decreased over time as a result of the numerous programmes included in previous Five Year Plans. Between the 1970s and 2015, the infant mortality rate dropped from 120 per 1,000 live births by more than a third to 37.  Similarly, the maternal mortality ratio decreased from 400 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1997-98 to 167 in 2011-13. In spite of these improved health outcomes, substantial disparities in these health indicators continue to prevail among the states Balarajan et al. (2011).

In contrast to other Asian nations like China, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, and Sri Lanka, India's progress has lagged behind. Due to the continuous epidemiological transformation and the explosive increase of non-communicable diseases, the nation is also dealing with the new challenge of a "double burden of disease." Even though India has made tremendous progress in containing communicable diseases, their disease burden on the nation is still significant. The prevalence of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, malignancies, common mental disorders, and accidents, has gradually increased along with the drop in morbidity and mortality from communicable diseases. The National Health Policy 2015 states that communicable diseases still account for 24.4% of all disease burden while maternal and neo-natal ailments contribute to 13.8%. The NCDs (39.1%) and injuries (11.8%) now constitute the bulk of the country’s disease burden.

The government health spending in India must significantly grow in light of the prevalent disease burden. The supply and financing of various health services between the federal government and the states are clearly demarcated. The financing and provision of curative healthcare are both regarded as state matters. The Employees' State Insurance Scheme (ESIS), primary healthcare facilities, and hospital services are entirely funded by the state.  The federal government fully funds programmes for family welfare and medical education. The majority of national disease control programmes are funded on a 50:50 share basis by the federal government and the states. However, the state's contribution to the overall cost of these programmes turns out to be around three-fourths, i.e., only basic inputs are shared equally. The state has to bear all the administrative cost including salaries of the staff. The centre and states share equally the capital investment. The federal government’s share is little over 40% in the total expenditure on medical education and research, Broadly, thus the states fully manage and fund all curative care services. This implies that State’s economic and financial conditions as well as human resources have a direct impact on people’s health outcomes.

Table 1

Table 1 Key Health Financing Indicators for India across NHA Rounds
		NHA 2004-05	NHA 2013-14	NHA 2014-15
1	THE as % of GDP	4.2	4	3.9
2	THE per capita (Rs)	1201	3638	3826
3	CHE as % of THE	98.9	93	93.4
4	Total Govt. Health Exp. As % of THE	22.5	28.6	29
5	OOPE as % of THE	69.4	64.2	62.6
6	Social security expenditure on health as per cent of THE	4.2	6	5.7
7	Private Health Insurance as a % THE	1.6	3.4	3.7
8	External/Donor Funding for health as per cent of THE	2.3	0.3	0.7
	Note: THE, CHE, and OOPE refer to Total Health Expenditure, Current Health Expenditure, Out-of-Pocket Expenditure, respectively. Source: Government of India, 2017a, National Health Accounts, 2014-15, p.11.

 

Four key facts emerge from key indicators presented in the NHA 2014-15 Table 1: (1) the increase in the share of total government health spending to 29%; (2) the decline in OOP expenditure from 69.4% in 2004-05 to 62.6%; and (3) 0.3% increase in the private health insurance in 2014-15 and decrease by the same amount in the social security expenditure compared to NHA 2013-14, but with a notable increase compared to NHA 2004-05.

Against this general backdrop, we examine in the following section the pattern of health care utilisation across 17 major states over four survey rounds.

 

3. Pattern of Healthcare Utilisation and Cost of Treatment

3.1. Health Seeking Behaviour

The share of illness episodes treated following on a medical advice is more an indicator of the health-seeking behaviour of consumers rather than of morbidity alone. The gender differences in the number of illnesses treated, as shown in Figure 1, highlight the disparities between rural and urban residents’ patterns of health-seeking behaviour. It demonstrates that over the all-India, the proportion of illnesses treated in urban regions for both genders continuously remained greater than those in rural areas in all four rounds. This might be primarily because urban areas have better access to medical facilities. In 2014, the rural-urban divide is found to be smaller than that was in 1986–1987. Additionally, the gender difference favouring men that was evident in the prior three rounds disappeared by 2014. However, there are significant differences in health seeking behaviour between men and women and between rural and urban areas and within select states indicating positive and negative trends over the four rounds.

Figure 1

Figure 1 Share of treated illnesses by sex and rural-urban residence (%)

 

When compared to 1986–1987, there has been a little improvement in health seeking behaviours across all-India for both sexes in 2014. Compared to 1986–1987, rural areas of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu saw a noticeable improvement in health seeking behaviour in 2014 but Assam, Bihar, and West Bengal saw a decline. To our surprise, urban regions in Assam, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Odisha, and Punjab saw a decline in health seeking behaviour whereas Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra saw a notable improvement. In numerous states, particularly in rural areas, significant gender disparities in ailment treatment have been noted (for more information, see Gumber et al. (2017).

Despite the diagnosis of illness, not everyone seeks medical help/assistance due to underlying various socio-economic and cultural reasons. One of such reasons could be because “respondents are known to underestimate both latent illness and chronic illness and the perception of being ill is known to be dependent on cultural factors, health awareness and access to care” Sundarraman and Muraleedharan  (2015). The NSS surveys had collected responses on the underlying reasons for ‘not seeking treatment’ for their ailments, which could be due to: (a) non-availability of medical facility nearby; (b) lack of faith; (c) lengthy waiting period; (d) financial reasons; (e) ailment not regarded as serious; and (f) all other remaining reasons. In rural and urban India, 15.4% and 1.3% of ailments respectively were not treated due to lack of medical facility in 2014. The access to a nearby medical facility in rural areas is a cause of concern. This suggests that a particular segment of the population is denied access to basic primary healthcare.

The cost and affordability of seeking care also plays a significant role in whether or not the poor and vulnerable individuals seek medical attention. The number of respondents from rural and urban areas who stated that they were unable to receive medical treatment during the NSS rounds increased, which suggests that the gap in access to healthcare is expanding. It has been noted that when there is an illness, the poor are more prone to mention financial costs as justifications for skipping care. Both rural and urban areas have seen an increase in this tendency over time Balarajan et al. (2011). According to a previous survey, approximately half of those in the lowest quintile of spending avoid medical care due to cost Gumber (1997). In some of the poorest states, the main barrier to receiving treatment was financial. The proportion of untreated illnesses in rural versus urban areas was significantly correlated, according to state-level data, and the size of the correlation coefficient grew over time, going from 0.643 in 2004 to 0.815 in 2014. This demonstrates unequivocally that both rural and urban populations are impacted by state-level socioeconomic conditions and the size of health infrastructure.

 

3.2. Public and Private Healthcare Providers

The health of the impoverished is significantly influenced by access to public health services. People might be forced to pay exorbitant fees or decide not to use any health services at all if they don't have a choice Sen et al. (2002). It is critical to comprehend the role played by public health providers in both inpatient and outpatient care in a nation where private health spending hovers around 60% on average. The private sector's involvement in the delivery of health care is expanding quickly. The government actively promotes the entry of new private players by offering tax breaks and subsidising land and capital for the construction of hospitals. The inter-state examination of private health providers' growth through time could not be done in this paper since there are no official records for keeping track of hospitals, nursing homes, and clinics in rural and urban locations. However, Hooda (2015) compiled the estimates from various sources including NSSO Enterprise Surveys and estimated that there were 1.04 million private health enterprises in India in 2010-11 (See Table 2). Their number expanded considerably in the post-liberalisation phase of 1990s which further got accelerated exponentially in the 2000s specifically in urban locations (the share of private health enterprises in rural locations in 2010-11 was just 18%). 

The public health sector has grown throughout time as well, although in the last 10 years the expansion of number of hospitals and beds increased substantially. This was primarily motivated by the need to promote institutional births and lower maternal and newborn mortality rates in order to achieve the global sustainable development objectives agenda. The improvement indicator of people served per hospital bed between 2004 and 2014 reflects some of these developments. It's interesting to note that the expansion of the public health sector in rural areas has received a much fairer allocation than the expansion of the private health sector, which dominated in urban areas in the 2000s. According to the MoHFW's National Health Profile, which is shown in Table 2 for the period 2004–14, the quantity of public hospital beds in rural areas actually grew at a much faster pace from 111,872 to 183,602 (64% rise) than in urban areas from 357800 to 492177 (38% rise).

However, the rate of growth of government hospital beds in rural areas varied greatly by state; Jammu and Kashmir showed the largest decadal growth (222%), followed by Rajasthan (182%), Tamil Nadu (176%), and Uttar Pradesh (172%). On the other hand, during the same time period, Punjab and Gujarat saw a decline in the number of hospital beds in rural areas. The National Rural Health Mission financing has resulted in the misclassification or reclassification of several urban hospitals as rural hospitals over time, and some states have classified CHCs or upgraded PHCs as rural hospitals. As a result, these results should be evaluated with caution. Because of this, we have seen negative or insignificant growth rates in the number of government hospital beds in urban areas during 2004-14 in various states, including Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan.

In Jammu and Kashmir (196%), Uttar Pradesh (89%), Assam (81%) and Madhya Pradesh (72%), there was a noticeable increase in the number of government rural and urban hospital beds between 2004 and 2014. The population served per government hospital bed increased in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, and Bihar between 2004 and 2014 due to a decline in the number of government hospital beds in these states. Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh's public health infrastructure, as measured by the population served per hospital bed, remained deficient in 2014. On the other end of the spectrum, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, and West Bengal provided better health infrastructure.

 

3.3. Reliance on Public Health Services for Inpatient Care

The information in Table 3 demonstrates that at all-India level, the share of public providers in inpatient care for rural residents though declined from 59.7% in 1986-87 to 41.7% in 2004 but exhibited improvement to 50.3% in 2014. During 1986 to 2014, the decline in the share of public providers for rural people is relatively less, compared to the decline witnessed for urban people at all-India level. The share of public providers in urban India fell from 60.3% in 1986-87 to 35.5% in 2014. If we consider only 2004-2014 period, in contrast to increase in utilisation for rural residents, the share of public providers decreased slightly from 38.2% to 35.5% for urban residents.

At the state level, the situation is more or less comparable to that of all-India, where a general reduction between 1986–1987 and 2014 is visible, although an increase in the share of public providers is noted between the years of 2004 and 2014.  Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh all adhere to this pattern.

Even while a few states recorded a decrease in the proportion of public providers in 1995–96 compared to 1986–1987, they subsequently consistently improved. This group includes Madhya Pradesh and Assam. Public providers for inpatient treatment for rural people have consistently decreased in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, and Maharashtra from 1986 to 1987. This is concerning, as the percentage is lower than the 2014 average for all-India.

Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and West Bengal are the states that exhibit a constant fall in the share of public providers for inpatient treatment in urban areas, similar to the situation for all-India. The share of public providers in other states—aside from Rajasthan and West Bengal—is lower than the national average. Assam, Bihar, and Punjab are states that have experienced a revival over the past ten years (2004–2014). While Uttar Pradesh's ranking stayed stable, Madhya Pradesh's standing somewhat worsened in 2014 compared to 2004.

In rural areas the increase in availability of government hospital beds over time directly altered the healthcare utilisation pattern for rural residents. First of all, the inter-state correlation coefficient between population served per government hospital bed with percentage share of treated illnesses in 2014 was highly significant (-0.720 for rural and -0.611 for urban areas). Further, the population served per government hospital bed was also significantly correlated (-0.619) with percentage change in share of treated illnesses between 2004 and 2014 in rural areas; thus signifying improvement in the access to government health facilities in a state leads to better health seeking behaviour for their rural residents.

The improvement (reduction) in reliance on public health facilities for inpatient care particularly by rural populations in various states during 2004-14 is directly associated with the expansion (contraction) of government health infrastructure. Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh exhibited an upward directional relationship, while Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat showed a downward directional association. Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and Kerala showed a stable position, while the remaining states showed a mixed association. The percentage share of public providers for inpatient care and variations in the number of government hospital beds were generally shown to be positively correlated at the state level (0.532 for 2004; 0.500 for 2014). We also discovered a negative correlation between the number of private enterprises per 100,000 people (as shown in Table 2) and the percentage share of public providers in inpatient care (-0.536 for 2004 and -0.593 for 2014) for 17 major states. Hooda (2015) observed that the expansion of private health enterprises at the state level was negatively correlated with the reliance on public hospitals.

 

3.4. Share of Public Providers for Outpatient Care

For both rural (28.3%) and urban (21.2%) people across all of India, the reliance on public providers for outpatient care in 2014 was found to be significantly lower than that for inpatient care. It is interesting to note that compared to 1986–1987, the proportion of public providers providing outpatient care to rural households has improved in 2014. Assam, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal are the states that are following this trend, whereas the other nine states have experienced a fall. Since 1986–1987, only Haryana has had a continuous fall. We have seen that two of those nine states—Bihar and Maharashtra—restored reliance on public providers between 2004 and 2014.

Even in urban India, the percentage of public providers for outpatient treatment has decreased from 1986–1987, though stagnation was seen between 1995–1996 and 2004. Since 1986–1987, the share of public providers in urban Karnataka and West Bengal areas has consistently decreased. Since 2004, a few states, including Assam, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh, seem to have resumed relying on public services. In urban areas of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, and Rajasthan, the proportion of public providers providing outpatient care has decreased since 2004.

To some extent in 2014, the public providers in outpatient care has played a dominant role for either rural or urban or in both populations of hilly states of India (Assam, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir) and in Odisha. Additionally, between 2004 and 2014, states that expanded their public health infrastructure also saw an improvement in how many people used outpatient treatments. We discovered a strong negative association (-0.521) between the percentage share of public providers in outpatient care for urban areas in 2014 (as shown in Table 2) for 17 major states and the population served by a government hospital bed.

Table 2

Table 2 Distribution of Government Hospital Beds in Rural and Urban areas (2004 and 2014) and Private Health Enterprises (2010-11) by Major States
Major States	Government Hospital Beds**							Population served per Govt.  Hospital Bed**			Private Health Enterprises* (2010-11)
	Rural Areas			Urban Areas			All Areas
	2004	2014	% Annual Change	2004	2014	% Annual Change	% Annual Change	2004	2014	% Annual Change	Number	Per 100,000 population
Andhra Pradesh	3005	7380	14.56	32106	12468	-6.12	-4.33	2297	4381	9.07	74603	88
Assam	3000	7504	15.01	4382	5877	3.41	8.13	3800	2369	-3.77	7109	23
Bihar*	4440	10129	12.81	23468	6837	-7.09	-3.92	4419	8130	8.40	79322	58
Gujarat	11893	8945	-2.48	23163	18983	-1.80	-2.02	1564	2196	4.04	46111	76
Haryana	1068	2454	12.98	6050	5210	-1.39	0.77	3185	3481	0.93	36312	143
Himachal Pradesh	2388	3328	3.94	5398	5448	0.09	1.27	817	795	-0.27	4302	63
Jammu & Kashmir	1820	5867	22.24	1475	3893	16.39	19.62	3212	1245	-6.12	4953	39
Karnataka	7320	9884	3.50	33984	43138	2.69	2.84	1343	1154	-1.41	48178	79
Kerala	7771	18082	13.27	18068	20318	1.25	4.86	1299	918	-2.93	34846	104
Madhya Pradesh*	10398	11542	1.10	12869	28657	12.27	7.28	3553	2532	-2.87	65779	67
Maharashtra	11460	12398	0.82	30593	39048	2.76	2.23	2409	2277	-0.55	95684	85
Odisha	4721	7099	5.04	8425	9584	1.38	2.69	2971	2505	-1.57	19782	47
Punjab	4590	2900	-3.68	4383	8904	10.31	3.16	2824	2420	-1.43	40489	146
Rajasthan	7465	21088	18.25	24615	10760	-5.63	-0.07	1910	2229	1.67	40490	59
Tamil Nadu	3318	9150	17.58	40249	55093	3.69	4.75	1498	1069	-2.86	43605	60
Uttar Pradesh*	9900	27146	17.42	25963	40764	5.70	8.94	5796	3472	-4.01	245662	117
West Bengal	10946	19684	7.98	47570	58882	2.38	3.43	1447	1170	-1.91	112470	123
All	111872	183602	6.41	357800	492177	3.76	4.39	2336	1833	-2.15	1035497	86
Source: * NSS 2010-2011 (67th Round), Unincorporated Non-Agricultural Enterprises; Hooda (2015: p14). ** National Health Profile for various years, Centre Bureau of Health Intelligence, DGHS, MoHFW, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Notes: For a couple of states data for government rural/urban hospital beds were not available for 2004 or 2014; these were replaced by later years.

 

Table 3

Table 3 Share of Public Providers in Treated Illnesses, 1986-87 to 2014
State	Inpatient Care								Outpatient Care
	Rural				Urban				Rural				Urban
	1986- 87	1995- 96	2004	2014	1986- 87	1995- 96	2004	2014	1986- 87	1995- 96	2004	2014	1986 -87	1995- 96	2004	2014
Andhra Pradesh	30.8	22.2	27.4	26.7	41.7	35.4	35.8	23.7	21.6	22.0	22.3	15.6	22.6	19.0	20.4	12.2
Assam	89.8	69.2	75.0	91.7	82.4	63.0	55.2	62.6	53.0	29.0	35.6	84.3	29.6	22.0	29.1	44.6
Bihar	50.1	24.1	21.7	56.1	46.8	31.9	26.5	49.1	16.9	13.0	7.8	13.9	18.0	33.0	16.9	12.3
Gujarat	56.0	31.4	31.3	27.5	61.8	36.3	26.1	24.5	35.1	25.0	22.0	23.7	19.6	22.0	18.0	15.0
Haryana	54.1	30.3	20.6	39.9	56.7	37.0	29.0	23.2	16.9	13.0	12.0	10.6	21.7	11.0	19.9	8.5
Himachal Pradesh	88.0	86.5	78.1	77.3	78.9	91.3	89.7	75.5	60.7	39.0	68.6	43.3	47.7	48.0	86.1	79.4
Jammu & Kashmir	96.5	97.7	91.2	94.0	96.1	95.9	86.4	82.2	59.8	44.0	53.8	48.4	47.4	28.0	50.9	41.0
Karnataka	59.8	45.0	40.0	37.3	50.0	29.3	28.9	23.2	36.4	26.0	34.6	26.1	31.3	17.0	16.7	14.5
Kerala	43.6	39.5	35.6	34.4	56.3	37.3	34.6	33.0	34.0	28.0	38.0	36.3	34.8	28.0	24.0	31.1
Madhya Pradesh	80.4	40.4	57.2	67.4	79.0	54.7	48.7	48.2	27.1	23.0	22.7	29.5	25.9	19.0	24.8	24.0
Maharashtra	45.8	30.9	28.7	26.9	49.4	30.7	28.0	24.4	36.5	16.0	17.4	20.2	35.3	17.0	11.7	14.6
Odisha	90.7	84.2	79.1	84.2	82.2	77.9	73.1	61.4	52.7	38.0	56.8	75.5	47.9	34.0	58.3	54.4
Punjab	49.2	37.7	29.4	36.1	52.0	26.5	26.4	31.7	13.4	7.0	17.6	16.8	15.6	6.0	18.9	22.5
Rajasthan	81.0	63.3	52.1	65.6	86.5	72.1	63.7	58.0	56.1	36.0	45.5	44.1	57.5	41.0	53.9	29.1
Tamil Nadu	56.9	40.4	40.8	45.4	58.2	34.2	37.2	32.6	38.7	25.0	30.7	42.3	35.5	28.0	22.1	28.6
Uttar Pradesh	58.3	46.1	27.8	43.9	61.1	39.0	31.5	31.6	10.4	8.0	11.7	14.6	17.2	9.0	15.3	16.1
West Bengal	91.9	79.9	78.7	77.5	75.9	71.3	65.4	55.1	19.6	15.0	21.1	22.5	25.3	19.0	21.4	14.8
All-India	59.7	43.8	41.7	50.3	60.3	41.9	38.2	35.5	25.6	19.0	24.1	28.3	27.2	20.0	20.0	21.2

 

3.5. Provision of Free Health Services by the Public Sector

In the delivery of free healthcare services for both inpatient and outpatient care, private sector organisations have a very little role. As a result, free medical care is available to people who use government facilities. Table 4 gives data on the proportion of patients who got free hospital beds (as a proxy for free inpatient care) and free medicine (as a proxy for free outpatient care) in order to capture this element.

Similar to the share of public providers in rural areas, free provision of beds in inpatient care has decreased from 60.7% in 1986-87 to 37% in 2004 and then improved to 47.3% in 2014 at the all-India level. In urban areas across all-India, a same trend is also evident, but the percentage rise from 2004 to 2014 is just 2.6. However, as pointed out by Sundarraman and Muraleedharan (2015), this pattern shows how public health care consumption is geared towards the poor. Most states, particularly for rural residents, follow this tendency, including Bihar, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. No state has a steadily rising trend in its free hospital bed offerings. While free bed provisions in Assam and Himachal Pradesh continue to fall, they have stagnated in Odisha since 2004. In terms of providing free beds for rural inhabitants, Assam outperformed all other states in 1986–1987 with a 95.5% share; however, by 2014, this percentage had dropped to just 50.6.

As was already mentioned, in 2014, all of India saw a slight improvement in the free availability of beds in urban areas. This pattern is seen in the urban areas of Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Punjab. The number of free beds available to the urban population in some states has consistently decreased between 1986–1987 and 2014; these states include Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. Even lower than the national average of 34.6% is the proportion of free bed providing in urban Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Punjab. Again, no state exhibits a rising trend in the provisioning of free beds.

Table 4

Table 4 Percentage of Patients Receiving Free Hospital Bed and Free Medicine 1986-87 to 2014
State	Free Hospital Bed (Inpatient care)								Free Medicines (Outpatient care)
	Rural Inpatient				Urban Inpatient				Rural Outpatient				Urban Outpatient
	1986- 87	1995- 96	2004	2014	1986- 87	1995- 96	2004	2014	1986- 87	1995- 96	2004	2014	1986- 87	1995- 96	2004	2014
Andhra Pradesh	33.3	21.9	31.1	32.8	41.3	36.8	33.9	30.1	20.8	20.1	10.3	9.3	24.2	8.5	6.9	7.5
Assam	95.5	76.5	60.2	50.6	76.1	58.0	41.3	42.9	31.0	12.6	2.7	2.6	10.5	6.0	5.6	3.9
Bihar	47.7	20.0	22.4	48.2	56.5	38.9	30.4	41.8	5.2	1.5	0.2	1.1	26.6	10.4	3.7	0.4
Gujarat	40.0	26.1	27.7	26.3	39.4	25.4	18.7	22.8	21.5	9.5	8.6	15.0	13.9	10.2	11.7	8.8
Haryana	54.0	29.6	11.6	32.8	53.3	16.7	20.1	22.2	8.2	3.7	1.3	0.4	12.2	1.7	3.2	2.0
Himachal Pradesh	86.5	79.0	74.1	70.0	77.3	71.0	80.5	48.3	24.1	4.5	3.6	0.9	8.8	6.8	9.0	0.5
Jammu & Kashmir	93.4	96.8	83.2	91.1	91.6	88.1	78.5	75.2	20.3	5.1	3.6	1.1	12.7	5.2	2.8	0.4
Karnataka	58.8	37.8	38.2	32.9	36.6	25.3	28.2	20.8	26.5	16.3	14.6	4.9	25.4	8.2	4.8	3.4
Kerala	45.1	37.5	33.6	35.4	45.2	31.7	29.5	31.3	29.8	9.3	11.1	14.4	25.4	8.7	6.6	9.3
Madhya Pradesh	77.2	39.2	49.1	64.6	73.3	49.1	41.6	47.0	24.5	3.3	2.9	12.2	17.9	7.8	7.7	8.2
Maharashtra	42.8	28.7	22.5	25.3	39.7	28.6	20.6	23.1	17.0	8.6	6.3	11.4	21.9	8.8	4.5	7.0
Odisha	88.7	83.1	78.8	78.8	88.0	75.2	65.1	55.2	25.0	8.0	7.8	4.9	24.6	5.0	5.1	4.2
Punjab	46.3	26.8	11.5	30.5	46.1	18.7	10.7	16.8	6.5	0.6	1.2	1.8	7.6	2.3	1.6	4.0
Rajasthan	81.8	65.8	50.8	66.9	84.9	70.5	61.3	56.0	15.6	0.1	3.2	24.5	17.5	9.8	7.5	17.8
Tamil Nadu	59.5	42.9	42.5	52.0	57.8	38.9	37.8	36.8	37.3	27.8	25.7	35.3	34.3	25.1	20.6	24.4
Uttar Pradesh	59.1	39.8	16.8	39.8	56.1	32.6	21.8	34.7	6.0	1.8	2.2	3.0	10.5	4.0	4.5	6.7
West Bengal	90.4	79.6	71.8	72.6	69.4	64.5	51.9	48.7	15.4	3.7	4.0	2.6	18.5	8.2	4.9	1.5
All-India	60.7	41.6	37.0	47.3	55.2	38.2	32.0	34.6	17.5*	7.7	6.4	9.4	19.7*	9.3	6.8	9.3
Note: * denotes the All-India average based on the weighted average of 17 major states (states are weighted according to their share in the total estimated hospitalised / ill persons).

 

3.6. Provision of Free Medicines

People become prone to debt when they purchase medications, especially when they do so frequently for a chronic illness. Provision of free medications would significantly lessen this vulnerability. The NHA 2014–15 estimates that the overall pharmaceutical spending in 2014–15 was Rs. 171025 crores, or 37.9% of the current health expenditures (CHE). According to the NHA 2014–15, pharmaceutical spending includes money spent on prescription drugs used in medical interactions, money spent on self-medication (often referred to as over-the-counter products), and money spent on pharmaceuticals used in inpatient and outpatient care from prescribing physicians (Government of India, 2017a, p. 10). Prescription drugs made up Rs. 128887 crores, or 28.6%, of the total Rs. 451286 crores of the CHE (Government of India, 2017a, p. 22). 

Overall, provision of free medicines during 1986-87 to 2014 decreased to 9.4% and 9.3% in rural and urban areas at all-India level. Tamil Nadu is the only state where more than 25% of rural patients have received free medicines; whilst this percentage is lower for urban patients. Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan are the two states where the percentage of patients reporting free medicines in 2014 is high for both rural and urban populations, thanks to the drug procurement model adopted in both the states.

According to reports, more than 20% of rural patients in 10 states received free medications in 1986-87. In 1995–96, there were only two states left (Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu), and by 2004 there was only one state left (Tamil Nadu). However, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu both appear on this list in 2014. In Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir, less than 1% of rural patients have reported getting free medicines and in another seven states this was less than 5%.

In the urban areas also, free provisioning of medicines which was at 19.7% in 1986-87 has decreased to 9.3% in 2014 (though better than the 6.3% in 2004). All the states, including Tamil Nadu that is hailed as the model for other states to follow in provisioning of medicines Lalitha (2009) have recorded steep decline in the free provisioning of medicines in 2014 compared to 1986-87.

The fact that the share of medications in inpatient and outpatient treatment is higher than that of other components shows how much of a burden this is on the population. According to Berman et al. (2010)'s analysis, the OOP expenditure to cover healthcare expenditures, particularly those brought on by the lack of free drugs, will further bankrupt the poor. Additionally, we observe a discrepancy between the states that have improved urban services and those that have improved rural services. Concerningly, "among various components, highest expenditure was incurred on medicine both in public and private health care institutions and this varied within a range of 38-66 percent" (p.31), according to the National Health Accounts for 2004–2005. In public health care facilities, around 66% of expenditures were made on medicine for the rural population, compared to a slightly lower 62% for the urban population (Table 5). The cost of medicines in the public sector has increased as a result of the lack of medic