Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37640493›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2023

Public health insurance coverage in India before and after PM-JAY: repeated cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative survey data.

Sanjay K Mohanty, Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Suraj Maiti, Radhe Shyam Mishra, Fabrice Kämpfen, Jürgen Maurer, Owen O'Donnell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sanjay K MohantyDepartment of Population and Development, International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India sanjayiips@yahoo.co.in.ORCID 0000-0001-9041-5952
Ashish Kumar UpadhyayInternational Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2518-4603
Suraj MaitiInternational Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.ORCID 0000-0001-5441-1399
Radhe Shyam MishraInternational Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Fabrice KämpfenUniversity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Jürgen MaurerDepartment of Economics and Lausanne Center for Health Economics, Behavior and Policy, Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Owen O'DonnellErasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6289-1924

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe provision of non-contributory public health insurance (NPHI) to marginalised populations is a critical step along the path to universal health coverage. We aimed to assess the extent to which Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY)-potentially, the world's largest NPHI programme-has succeeded in raising health insurance coverage of the poorest two-fifths of the population of India.

methodsWe used nationally representative data from the National Family Health Survey on 633 699 and 601 509 households in 2015-2016 (pre-PM-JAY) and 2019-2021 (mostly, post PM-JAY), respectively. We stratified by urban/rural and estimated NPHI coverage nationally, and by state, district and socioeconomic categories. We decomposed coverage variance between states, districts, and households and measured socioeconomic inequality in coverage. For Uttar Pradesh, we tested whether coverage increased most in districts where PM-JAY had been implemented before the second survey and whether coverage increased most for targeted poorer households in these districts.

resultsWe estimated that NPHI coverage increased by 11.7 percentage points (pp) (95% CI 11.0% to 12.4%) and 8.0 pp (95% CI 7.3% to 8.7%) in rural and urban India, respectively. In rural areas, coverage increased most for targeted households and pro-rich inequality decreased. Geographical inequalities in coverage narrowed. Coverage did not increase more in states that implemented PM-JAY. In Uttar Pradesh, the coverage increase was larger by 3.4 pp (95% CI 0.9% to 6.0%) and 4.2 pp (95% CI 1.2% to 7.1%) in rural and urban areas, respectively, in districts exposed to PM-JAY and the increase was 3.5 pp (95% CI 0.9% to 6.1%) larger for targeted households in these districts.

conclusionThe introduction of PM-JAY coincided with increased public health insurance coverage and decreased inequality in coverage. But the gains cannot all be plausibly attributed to PM-JAY, and they are insufficient to reach the goal of universal coverage of the poor.

Indexed as

Insurance CoveragePublic HealthCross-Sectional StudiesHumansIndiaUniversal Health Insurancehealth insurance

Identifiers

PMID37640493
PMCPMC10462969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.