Assessing inequalities in publicly funded health insurance scheme coverage and out-of-pocket expenditure for hospitalization: findings from a household survey in Kerala

BACKGROUND: Increasing financial risk protection is a key feature of Universal Health Coverage and the path towards health for all. Publicly Funded Health Insurance Schemes (PFHIS) have been considered as one of the pathways to safeguard against financial shocks and potentially reduce Out-of-Pocket Expenditure (OOPE). The south Indian state of Kerala has roughly a decade-long experience in implementing PFHIS. To date, there have been very few assessments of the coverage of these schemes and their impact on expenditure. Aiming to fill this gap, we explored the extent of and inequalities in insurance coverage, as well as choice of providers, and median cost of hospitalization in Kerala among insured and uninsured individuals. METHODS: A cross-sectional household survey was conducted in four districts of Kerala as part of a larger health systems research study from July–October 2019. We employed multistage random sampling to collect data from 13,064 individuals covering 3234 households in the catchment area of eight primary health care facilities. We used descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariate analysis. We evaluated socioeconomic disparities using an absolute measure of inequality—the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and a relative measure—the Relative Concentration Index (RCI). RESULTS: A substantial proportion of our study respondents reported that they were covered by PFHIS (45.8%). Respondents belonging to lowest and middle wealth quintiles of household had significantly greater odds of being covered by insurance than respondents belonging to the richest wealth quintile. The negative magnitude of RCI [-16.8% (95%CI: -25.3, -8.4)] and SII [-21.5% (95%CI: -36.1, -7.0)] suggest a higher concentration of PFHIS coverage among the poor. Median OOPE for hospitalisation at private health facilities was INR 9000 (approx. USD 108.70) among those covered by PFHIS, whereas it was INR 10500 (approx. USD 126.82) at private health facilities among those not covered by insurance. CONCLUSION: While PFHIS seems to be appropriately targeting poorer populations, among the insured, OOPE for hospitalization persists. Among the uninsured, population subgroups with advantage are spending the greatest amount, raising questions about whether those facing relative disadvantage are forgoing care altogether or seeking care using cheaper, public avenues. Further policy action to more effectively reduce financial burden among left behind eligible populations under PFHIS will be essential to UHC progress in the state.