by Prashanth NS, Upendra Bhojani & Werner Soors (India desk at ITM)

Ever since the Indian government’s Planning Commission’s (PC) high-level expert group (HLEG) came out with their 300-odd page report on universal health coverage in October last year, how to reach that much desired universal health coverage has become the central question. The HLEG report made clear statements about existing policy alternatives, distancing itself from insurance in spite of ambitious insurance schemes being piloted all and sundry in various Indian states, instead unequivocally calling for a government guarantee for cashless primary, secondary and tertiary care. This position was repeated last week by the chairman of the expert group. However, the HLEG stopped short of providing a more detailed roadmap. This, it left to the PC and ultimately to the policymakers.

The recommendations of the HLEG clearly do not find their place in policy automatically, at least not without “significant misrepresentation”, as is being claimed by several activists and public health experts, including some from the HLEG itself. In a bold move, India’s Health Ministry itself took a stand opposing the Planning Commission. Not the first conflict between the Indian health and development community and the PC deputy chairman: earlier this year, the latter had solved India’s poverty problems by suggesting that half-a-dollar a day would be a reasonable watershed for defining poverty in India, junking his idea facing stiff criticism.

Although a variety of policy options are under consideration to move closer to universal health coverage, the one facing opposition from many quarters – while apparently being backed by other interests – is a system similar to the US model of managed care. Less than a week ago, the national newspaper The Hindu carried an editorial “Don’t take the wrong pill”, cautioning Indian government against giving in to short-term economic interests. Earlier, the Indian branch of the People’s Health Movement identified the latest move by the Planning Commission as a sell-out to the private sector. The think tank Medico Friend Circle cautions against any private sector involvement or embracing any kind of insurance or managed care dubbing such options illusory and high-cost. From a distance, as David Chinitz notes in this week’s JAMA, while reviewing the book International Health and Aid Policies: The Need for Alternatives, “The focus on regulated competition, contracting out, and consumer choice, although not devoid of constructive lessons about policy, has left policy makers, academics, and citizens a bit disillusioned. It is clear that there are no panaceas, and after every major swing of the pendulum from a socialist to a capitalist orientation and back, there is a need to pick up the pieces and fine-tune the system.”

At present, the universal health coverage debate in India is happening largely at the federal level, locally called the centre. The challenge of how the states will take up recommendations of the centre is yet to be seen. According to the Indian constitution, it is up to each and any of the 28 states to implement health. Laws, frameworks and financing might correspond to the central government, but are by no means binding. States can be entirely different, including in health profiles. While inhabitants of Kerala rank at par with the healthiest in the world, Orissa natives suffer from the worst malnutrition. Indian states have different political inclinations, often very different from the centre.

So which road will India take toward universal health coverage? Possibly more than one. As good old Dylan sung back in 1965: “Something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is”…

Tagged with →  

3 Responses to Universal health coverage in India: muddling through the quagmire

  1. samantha says:

    I think many people in India get attracted towards the unwanted plans in Insurance and pay a lot of price and forget to get the insurance according to there needs !

  2. Vincent Okungu says:

    Thanks, Prashanth.
    It is interesting to read about challenges other countries are facing to define a path for universal health coverage. Reading the Indian case, the high-level expert group (HLEG), wasn’t it supposed to be made up of a mutli-sectoral group of policymakers constituted by the government and whose report was supposed to be legally binding? Looks like there are too many interest groups (political and economic) that would like to scupper any genuine efforts to UHC.

    Were there any good reasons for entirely dumping contributory insurance scheme option.

    With reference to the US model, that direction is an illusion; that’s the notion of private interests. The US model failed in South America and is currently being phased out in South Africa because only a few rich people get high quality care.

    Finally, why can’t the entire India study what Kerala state has done and improve on it to achieve UHC?

  3. Anand Shrivastava says:

    The point you make about the behaviour of the state governments is very important and largely missing from conversations around public health. To add to your point about the difference between states, the budgeted revenue expenditure per capita on health for 2011-12 in Chattisgarh was Rs 2579, which is 14 times the number for Bihar – Rs 182 !! I am sure that a lot of experimentation and innovation, both successful and otherwise, must be happening in various states and these need to be highlighted in national fora to get a wide range of policy choices discussed. To treat the issue as just an insurance vs public provision question would be gross simplification.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please fill in the below * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.