Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 9;19(1):217.
doi: 10.1186/s12939-020-01331-z.

Understanding equity of institutional delivery in public health centre by level of care in India: an assessment using benefit incidence analysis

Sanjay K Mohanty  1 , Radhe Shyam Mishra  2 , Suyash Mishra  2 , Soumendu Sen  2
Affiliations

Understanding equity of institutional delivery in public health centre by level of care in India: an assessment using benefit incidence analysis

Sanjay K Mohanty et al. Int J Equity Health. .

Abstract

Background: The National Health Mission (NHM), the largest ever publicly funded health programme worldwide, used over half of the national health budget in India and primarily aimed to improve maternal and child health in the country. Though large scale public health investment has improved the health care utilization and health outcomes across states and socio-economic groups in India, little is known on the equity concern of NHM. In this context, this paper examines the utilization pattern and net benefit of public subsidy for institutional delivery by the level of care in India.

Methods: Data from the most recent round of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS 4), conducted during 2015-16, was used in the study. A total of 148,645 last birth delivered in a health centre during the 5 years preceding the survey were used for the analyses. Out-of-pocket (OOP) payment on delivery care was taken as the dependent variable and was analysed by primary care and secondary level of care. Benefits Incidence Analysis (BIA), descriptive statistics, concentration index (CI), and concentration curve (CC) were used to do the analysis.

Results: Institutional delivery from the public health centres in India is pro-poor and has a strong economic gradient. However, about 28% mothers from richest wealth quintile did not pay for delivery in public health centres compared to 16% among the poorest wealth quintile. Benefit incidence analyses suggests a pro-poor distribution of institutional delivery both at primary and secondary level of care. In 2015-16, at the primary level, about 32.29% of subsidies were used by the poorest, 27.22% by poorer, 20.39% by middle, 13.36% by richer and 6.73% by the richest wealth quintile. The pattern at the secondary level was similar, though the magnitude was lower. The concentration index of institutional delivery in public health centres was - 0.161 [95% CI, - 0.158, - 0.165] compared to 0.296 [95% CI, 0.289, 0.303] from private health centres.

Conclusion: Provision and use of public subsidy for institutional delivery in public health centres is pro-poor in India. Improving the quality of service in primary health centres is recommended to increase utilisation and reduce OOP payment for health care in India.

Keywords: Benefit incidence; Delivery care; Equity; India; National Health Mission.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they do not have any competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Percentage distribution of institutional delivery by wealth quintile and type of health centre in India, 2015–16
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Concentration curve for mothers using delivery services at public and private health facility in India, 2015–16
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Concentration Index of institutional delivery by public and private facility in selected states of India, 2015–16
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. WHO. Global Spending on Health: A World in Transition 2019. Glob Rep. 2019;49 Available from: https://www.who.int/health_financing/documents/health-expenditure-report....
    1. Mohanty SK, Kim R, Khan PK, Subramanian SV. Geographic variation in household and catastrophic health Spending in India: assessing the relative importance of villages, districts, and states, 2011-2012. Milbank Q. 2018;96(1):167–206. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12315. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bor J, Cohen GH, Galea S. Population health in an era of rising income inequality: USA, 1980–2015. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1475–1490. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30571-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Balarajan Y, Selvaraj S, Subramanian S. Health care and equity in India. Lancet. 2011;377(9764):505–515. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61894-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. WHO . Public spending on health: a closer look at global trends. 2018.