Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30665419›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2019

Benefit incidence analysis in public health facilities in India: utilization and benefits at the national and state levels.

Diana Bowser, Bryan Patenaude, Manjiri Bhawalkar, Denizhan Duran, Peter Berman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. COVAX and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Diana BowserHeller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA, 02453, USA. dbowser@brandeis.edu.
Bryan PatenaudeJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
Manjiri BhawalkarHarvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Denizhan DuranHarvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.
Peter BermanHarvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBenefit Incidence Analysis (BIA) is used to understand the distribution of health care utilization and spending in comparison to income distribution. The results can illustrate how effectively governments allocate limited resources towards meeting the needs of the poor. In analyzing the distribution of public spending on inpatient, outpatient, and deliveries, this paper represents the most recent BIA completed in India.

methodsIn order to conduct the BIA statistical analysis for this project, 2014 utilization data from the most recently completed Indian National Sample Survey (NSS) was used. Unit costs were estimated for primary care, hospital inpatient, hospital outpatient, and deliveries. Concentration curves and concentration indices were estimated both at the national and state levels. Analyses were reported for overall utilization, as well as for the gross and net benefits for inpatient, outpatient, and deliveries.

resultsAccording to the results, utilization of government inpatient and delivery services is pro-poor. When gross and net benefits are included in the analysis, services become more equal and less pro-poor. Gross benefits, which are measured with state-level unit costs, are virtually equal for all services. Although there are some pro-poor gross benefits trends for national outpatient services, the results also show that the equality of national gross benefits trends hides a significant disparity across Indian States. While a number of Indian States have outpatient gross benefits that are pro-poor, few show pro-poor benefits for inpatient and delivery services. Net benefits, which considers both unit costs for each respective service, and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, trend similarly to gross benefits. In addition, those who use public facilities spend considerable OOP to supplement government services.

conclusionsThis BIA reveals that government spending on public health care has not resulted in significantly pro-poor services. While some progress has been made relative to deliveries and outpatient services, inpatient stays are not pro-poor. In addition, national results mask significant disparities across Indian states.

Indexed as

Health FacilitiesPatient Acceptance of Health CarePublic HealthAmbulatory CareFemaleHealth Care SurveysHealth ExpendituresHumansIncidenceIncomeIndiaMalePrimary Health CareHealth care utilizationHealth financingIndiaInequalityInternational healthResource allocation

Identifiers

PMID30665419
PMCPMC6341563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.