Impact of India’s publicly funded health insurance scheme on financial risk protection: a case-control study from Haryana state in India

Objective This paper examines the impact of India’s National Publicly Funded Health Assurance Scheme, Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (PM-JAY), in Haryana on out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses and catastrophic health expenditure (CHE). Design We conducted a case-control study using a stratified random sampling approach. Settings Six districts in Haryana, based on utilisation, were selected: Mewat, Faridabad, Sonipat, Ambala, Kurukshetra and Karnal. Participants A total sample size of 772 individuals, that is, 386 PM-JAY beneficiaries (cases) and non-beneficiaries (controls) each. Intervention Data were collected using a semistructured questionnaire covering household demographics and expenditure details. The interview gathered information on hospitalisation within the past year, types of ailments, the type of empanelled facility visited, expenditure details and borrowing/selling of assets for treatment. Primary and secondary outcomes Mean OOP expenditure was calculated for beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries based on the type of healthcare provider. The impact of PM-JAY on OOP expenditure was analysed using a generalised linear model controlling for religion, caste, type of house, type of family, morbidity patterns, type of disease, type of health facility, hospital stay duration, average distance to the facility and travel time. CHE was defined as OOP payments ≥30% of household income. Logistic regression was used to assess the determinants of CHE. Results We found that direct medical expenses incurred for hospitalisations were 65% lower for beneficiaries (11 131 rupees) compared with non-beneficiaries (31 675 rupees). While OOP expenditures are similar for both groups in public empanelled hospitals, non-beneficiaries incur OOP costs three times higher than PM-JAY beneficiaries in private empanelled hospitals. Factors, including the disease type, average distance from home to the facility, average travel time and type of hospital, significantly influence these expenses. Furthermore, the prevalence of CHE is significantly lower among PM-JAY beneficiaries (13.3%) compared with non-beneficiaries (45.9%), with an OR of 7.15 (95% CI: 4.74 to 10.80; p<0.01). Conclusions Our analysis shows the scheme’s impact on decreasing OOP expenditure and CHE. To enhance the scheme’s effectiveness, the study highlights the necessity of addressing non-medical expenses and expanding coverage for indirect costs, such as food, accommodation and transportation. Additionally, strengthening the supply side through improved drug availability at healthcare facilities is crucial for enhancing financial protection and access to care.