GOVERNMENT FINANCING OF HEALTH CARE IN INDIA SINCE 2005 WHAT WAS ACHIEVED, WHAT WAS NOT, AND WHY

Transcription

1 GOVERNMENT FINANCING OF HEALTH CARE IN INDIA SINCE 2005 WHAT WAS ACHIEVED, WHAT WAS NOT, AND WHY

2 OUTLINE 1 Key takeaways 2 Total Government Health Expenditure (TGHE): A flow of funds view 3 TGHE in 29 states: levels, trends, and composition 4 Budget utilization in 29 states 5 PHC in 16 states: levels, trends, composition 6 PHC budget utilization in 16 states

3 OUTLINE CONTINUED 7 8 Are central government contributions additional to state spending? Deeper Dives: budget utilization in 5 states and what might explain differentials in budget utilization 9 Conclusions 10 Acknowledgements

4 KEY TAKEAWAYS Despite favorable economic conditions and an innovative program design in 2005, India has not come close to achieving its ambitious goals for increasing government spending on health. Explanations include: complex funding and federal structure, changing economic conditions, and weak public expenditure processes which new program design was not able to substantially overcome. Federal policies to reduce disparities in health spending through redistributive subsidies to poorer states were insufficient to adequately equalize spending. They were further reduced by greater shortfalls in ability to spend in those states. Government spending on health and on primary health remains very low insufficient to finance a substantial package of services. There is persistent underspending of health budgets, which is worse in the poorer states. This is caused by problems in governance, public financial management design, and operational constraints. Because poorer states are more dependent on central subsidies, greater underspending of these subsidies affects them more. More spending on health is needed, but it must be accompanied by better measures to improve the use of appropriated funds, especially where the need is greatest. The shift to block grants to states will not, in itself, remedy these problems and may make it worse.

5 RTM FRAMEWORK Focus of this presentation Resource Mobilization Resource Allocation Resource Utilization Resource Productivity Resource Targeting What are the determinants of total resource envelope for health at national and subnational levels? How are funds allocated to different programs and functions at national and subnational levels? What factors determine the allocation to primary care? Are the allocated funds being utilized? What factors drive successful budget execution? What are the existing bottlenecks? How effectively are resources being translated into services? What are the effects on volume and quality? Are inputs benefiting the intended individuals and population? Is public spending reaching the poor?

6 GOVT. STATES AMBITIOUS GOALS FOR HEALTH SPENDING The [National Rural Health] Mission is an articulation of the commitment of the Government to raise public spending on Health from 0.9% of GDP to 2-3% of GDP. -NRHM, GoI, 2005 Health sector expenditure by the Centre and States, will have to be substantially increased by the end of the 12 th Plan. It has already increased from 0.94% of GDP in the 10 th Plan to 1.04% in the 11 th Plan The percentage for this broader definition of health sector related resources needs to be increased to 2.5% by the end of the 12 th Plan. -12 th Year Plan, GoI, 2012

7 TOTAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH EXPENDITURE (TGHE) PER CAPITA Nominal, to ,400 1,200 1,000 In Rs

8 TREND IN TGHE AS % GDP Reported by India NHA 1.50% 1.15% 1.00% 0.96% 0.50% 0.00%

9 FLOW OF FUNDS Uttar Pradesh

10 DATA SOURCES Data Treasury financial Source Reserve Bank of India Study of Budgets State Budget Books UP & Bihar Mid-year population Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, GoI yearbook 2013 NHM/SHS Expenditure NHM MIS, MoHFW, GoI (March 2015) SHS audit reports and FMRs, UP & Bihar G/N SDP Economic Survey Statistical Appendix ( )

11 29 STATES 3 GROUPS OF STATES Empowered Action Group (EAG) + 1 states The 8 states designated as EAG states + Assam North Eastern (NE) states Non-EAG states EAG States NE States Non-EAG States

12 TREND IN TGHE IN 29 STATES By groups of States, to ,000, , , ,000 In Rs. (millions) 600, , , , , , EAG+1 States NE States Non-EAG States 29-state (total)

13 AVG. NHM AS A SHARE OF TGHE IN 29 STATES By groups of States, to % 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% EAG+1 States NE States Non-EAG States 29-state (mean)

14 NHM AS A SHARE OF TGHE IN 29 STATES % 45% 44% EAG States NE States Non-EAG States 29-states (mean) 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 41% 40% 37% 36% 35% 32% 30% 26% 25% 24% 23% 22% 22% 22% 22% 21% 21% 20% 19% 18% 17% 17% 17% 16% 16% 15% 13% 10% 5% 0% 6% 4%

15 YEAR-ON-YEAR (REAL) GROWTH RATE IN PER CAPITA TGHE By groups of States, to % 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% % EAG+1 states NE States Non-EAG States 29-state (mean)

16 TREND OF TGHE PER CAPITA By groups of States, to , nominal and real Nominal Real EAG+1 States NE States EAG+1 States NE States Non-EAG States 29-state (mean) Non-EAG States 29-state (mean)

17 BUDGET UTILIZATION BY SOURCE Between Groups of states Mean budget utilization (Treasury) Mean budget Utilization (NHM) EAG + 1 States 85% 84% NE States 90% 78% Non-EAG States 94% 88% 29-States (mean) 90% 85%

18 BUDGET EFFECTIVENESS Treasury budget credibility scoring chart and results, between Trends in Reliability of Health Budgets (Treasury) Grade A B C D Expenditure outturn Between 95% & 105% Between 90% & 110% Between 85% & 115% Performance is less than required for a C Score Reliability Score EAG States Non-EAG States NE States 8 years avg. score ( ) 3 years avg. score ( )

19 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE FINANCING 16 STATES

20 METHODS TO ESTIMATE PRIMARY CARE ALLOCATION TGHE Estimated GPHCE Estimated 1. State Health Society (NHM) 1. State Health Society (NHM) 2. State Treasury (Health) 2.1 Medical and public health (identified primary care lines based on the NHSRC Budget Tracking Toolkit) 2.2 Family welfare (all sub budget codes included) Streams of funding 1. State Health Society (NHM) 2. State Treasury (Health) Specific components included to estimate health care expenditure 1.1 Central releases 1.2 State releases 1.3 Accounts balance carried over 2.1 Medical and public health Revenue and capital (2210 and 4210) 2.2 Family welfare Revenue and capital (2211 and 4211) 2.3 Central transfers under infrastructure and maintenance (sub-set of 2.1) Other relevant variables General State Government Expenditure (GSGE) all departments Gross state domestic product Annual mid-year population Source: NHSRC Manual

21 16 STATES EAG AND NON-EAG 7 Empowered Action Group (EAG) states The 7 states designated as EAG states, including: Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar, Odisha, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand 9 Non-EAG states Including: Punjab, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Assam EAG States Non-EAG States

22 Trend of GPHCE per capita Trend of GPHCE per capita In Nominal Rs The difference between Bihar, UP and non EAG per capita GPHCE is widening over time (7 times more) Bihar Uttar Pradesh EAG Non-EAG All States

23 COMPARISON OF 6 YEAR AVG. GPHCE PER CAPITA Between EAG and non-eag states State AVG EAG AVG State AVG Non-EAG AVG No significant difference between EAG (Rs 241) and non-eag (Rs 265) average per capita GPHCE

24 Growth in TGHE and GPHCE between and TGHE grew slightly more rapidly than GPHCE in non-eag states but GPHCE grew more rapidly in EAG states. However, since non-eag states start at higher level, we could expect to see increasing disparities in TGHE but decreasing (small) 251% disparities in GPHCE. 222% 213% 201% 264% 294% 231% 220% Bihar UP EAG+1 Non EAG Growth in TGHE Growth in GPHCE

25 GPHCE PER CAPITA Nominal, EAG Non-EAG In Rs

26 NHM EXPENDITURE PER CAPITA EAG Non-EAG In Rs

27 AVERAGE UTILIZATION OF NHM BUDGET Between EAG+ 1 state Non-EAG 110% 105% 94% 93% 91% 91% 90% 87% 84% 83% 81% 81% 77% 77% 73% 51%

28 Central govt. funding stimulant or substitution effect? We used a model that captured the level of central allocation to primary health care in Indian Rupees in state i at time t, and measured its impact on state s own contribution to spending on primary health in state at time t, according to: stateown it =α+β1central it +β2gsdp it +β3priority it +β4rev it +f i +d t +ε it Where central it was the central level allocations to the each state for primary health care, stateownit was state s own contribution to primary health care, GSDP it represented the per capita GDP in each state at time t, priority it represented the ratio between state health spending and total state health expenditures, and rev it represented each state s own tax revenue, were state fixed effects, were nationwide time dummies, and ε it was an error term.

29 Central govt. funding stimulant or substitution effect? contd.! Log$of$State s$own$primary$health$spending$per$capita,$ (2005$Rs)! Log$Central$Allocations$Primary$ C0.292$(0.133)**$ Health$Spending$per$capita$ GSDP$per$capita$ $(0.0001)$ Ratio$State$Health$Spending$on$ 2.497$(0.638)***$ PHC/Total$State$Health$Spending$ State$Revenue$per$Capita$ $(0.0001)$ Constant$ 3.306$(0.336)***$ N$ 142$ States$ $$16$ R2$ 0.70$ * p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01, cluster robust standard errors in parentheses

30 Central govt. funding stimulant or substitution effect? contd.! Log$State s$own$primary$ Health$Spending$per$capita,$ (2005$Rs)$ EAG=1$(poor)! Log$Central$Allocations$Primary$ F0.175$(0.240)$ Health$Spending$per$capita$ Log$State s$own$primary$ Health$Spending$per$capita,$ (2005$Rs)$ EAG=0$(rich)$ F0.435$(0.086)***$ GSDP$per$capita$ $(0.0001)$ $(0.0001)$ Ratio$State$Health$Spending$on$ 2.224$(0.892)**$ 3.446$(1.016)**$ PHC/Total$State$Health$Spending$ State$Revenue$per$Capita$ $(0.0001)$ $(0.0001)*$ Constant$ 2.538$(0.540)***$ 3.417$(0.327)***$ N$ 72$ 70$ States$ $$8$ 8$ R2$ 0.62$ 0.85$ * p<0.1; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01, cluster robust standard errors in parentheses

31 BUDGET UTILIZATION DEEPER DIVE IN BIHAR AND UP & WHAT S WORKING IN 3 BETTER OFF STATES?

32 UTILIZATION RATE FOR NHM BUDGETS AND AVAILABLE FUNDS UP Utilization against approved budget Utilization against available funds % 76% 95% 77% 77% 84% 98% 61% 67% 78% 60% 78% 47% 61% Bihar Utilization against approved budget Utilization against available funds % 62% 111% 82% 67% 76% 64% 45% 69% 49% 41% 50% Interaction of PFM systems, operational processes and governance structures Upstream Effect of timing and Downstream local community level constrained by low capacity

33 IMPACT OF LOW UTILIZATION OF NHM FUNDS ON THE TGHE UP and Bihar 1,60,000 1,50,370 1,40,000 1,20,000 1,19,650 In Rs. (millions) 1,00,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 34,036 50,595 0 UP Bihar Current TGHE TGHE if SHS spent 100%

34 APPROACH FOR THE DEEP DIVE Rajastha n Understanding reasons for better utilization of funds Treasury & NHM Scope Methods to Ernakulum & Kozhikode: Kerala Pune & Nagpur: Maharashtra Sri Ganganagr & Tonk: Rajasthan Time Sample - PEFA 2016 Framework Budget, expenditure analysis Qualitative interviews Consistently high utilization rates (under the treasury & NHM routes)

35 FRAMEWORK FOR THE DEEP DIVE Adapted the PEFA 2016 Framework (Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Framework, 2016) - Aggregate expenditure outturn Indicator not used - Predictability of in-year resource allocation - Procurement - Payroll control - Internal control on non-salary expenditure - Audit coverage - Timeliness - Action taken on audit reports - Budget classification - Allocating transfers - Timeliness of transfers - Performance evaluation - Medium term exp. estimate - Medium term exp. ceiling - Alignment of plan & budget - Budget preparation process - Financial data integrity - Financial reports

36 KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE DEEP DIVE Budget execution Performance of Kerala, Maharashtra and Rajasthan Policy factors What policy factors enable better budget execution? Operational / process factors What operational / process factors facilitate better execution? Leadership & governance factors What leadership traits or governance factors enable better execution? Human capacity factors Specifically what type of capacities are better and at what levels that facilitate better execution?

37 BUDGET EXECUTION NHM utilization - Kerala, Maharashtra and Rajasthan utilize NHM budget in its entirety. Against approved NHM budget 110% 113% 106% 94% 98% 91% 82% 84% 76% 77% 75% 77% 67% 98% Bihar Kerala Maharashtra Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Bihar and UP suffer from a range of issues that affect budget utilization primarily at the State Health Societies

38 BUDGET EXECUTION NHM utilization Against total available NHM funds (including opening balance & interest earned) 143% 50% 41% 106% 97% 99% 99% 95% 98% 95% 87% 78% 61% 47% Bihar Kerala Maharashtra Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh

39 OVERALL OBSERVATIONS Factors that facilitate high budget utilization in 3 states these factors do not explain causality, but association. No one single factor or practice explains increased utilization of funds in the health sector. Rather, range of smaller complementary actions in pro-performance environment. 1. Strong leadership at all levels 2. Strategic vision translated into policy framework Kerala Health Policy, Maharashtra, etc. 3. Little political interference. 4. Longer tenures of key officers 5. Close coordination between DOF, DOH, NHM, LSG planning, budgeting, execution and monitoring Realistic and timely planning

40 OVERALL OBSERVATIONS 6. Strong mentoring support at each level 7. Extensive use of technology that facilitates high levels of transparency and accountability Rajasthan: ASHA Soft, mobile app for recording on-site inspection data Maharashtra: BEAMS (budget allocation & monitoring), HR management, etc. 8. Close monitoring / quality of supervision allows for mid-course correction Maharashtra: Capital projects management & monitoring; Deputy Director at the Circle level; Guardian Minister Kerala: Standing Committees for Health in Panchayats 9. High analytical capacity data and innovation culture is supported 10. Truly devolved governance structures financial and decision making authority Kerala: District Program Managers are from Government health system have all powers & authority Rajasthan: Block CMO since 2008 with administrative and financial authority

41 CONCLUSIONS Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø India has not achieved its ambitions to increase government spending on health. Despite significant increases, government funding remains insufficient to finance a basic package of health care in many states Substantial disparities in government spending persist across states despite a significant central government effort at redistribution A significant share of budgeted funds remain underutilized, with worse utilization for the more innovative funding channels which disproportionately affect the poorest states Governance, public financial management design, and operation problems all combine to undermine better program performance More money for health is needed, but this must be accompanied by new approaches to improve expenditure effectiveness It is unlikely that devolution of spending authority to the states alone will remedy these problems especially in the poorer states.

42 Ø Ø SOME THOUGHTS ON WHAT TO DO States need to decide to give priority to health and balance demands for population health improvement and financial risk protection. Central grants can help, but this is basically a political problem that needs advocacy and policy support. Improving public expenditure performance in worse performing states needs strategies that address three elements: PFM Design Governance Operational capacities Ø Ø Ø Separating funding from provision and introduction of a purchasing model is one strategy to remedy weaknesses in government delivery. E.g. district-level purchasing fund. State governments have used varied approaches to this in insurance. Unclear if this can address constraints in weaker states needs careful design and testing