Despite the vast literature on health care expenditures (HCE) and health care financing strategies (HCFS) in low- and middle-income countries, there is limited evidence of gender disparity in HCFS for inpatient care. We examined gender disparities in HCE and HCFS for inpatient care among adults aged 15 and older in India which is widely known for gender-based discrimination in sex-selective abortion, nutrition, and access to health care. Using data from a nationally representative large-scale population-based survey, we investigated the relationship between the gender of adult patients and HCE as well as sources of health care financing. Simple percentage distribution, cross-tabulation, a two-level random intercept model, and multinomial logit regression were used to examine the role of gender in HCE and sources of health care financing for inpatient care. Average HCE is lower for women in adult age groups, regardless of the type of disease and duration of stay in the hospital. This result remained unchanged after controlling for other background variables of the patients. Women are also discriminated against more when health care has to be paid for by borrowing, sale of assets, or contributions from friends and relatives (distressed financing). Multinomial logit results show that the probability of distressed financing is less for females than for males (borrowing: β = -0.27; confidence interval [CI], -0.37 to -0.17; P = .001; selling assets/contribution from friends and relatives: β = -0.27; CI, -0.39 to -0.14; P = .001). The predicted probability of using health care financing implies that the health of adult men is considered to be more important, in terms of resorting to distressed financing, than that of adult women HCE on adult women inpatients is systematically lower than that of adult men inpatients. Further, women in India have less access to inpatient care through distressed HCFS.

The studies measured Out-of-Pocket Expenditure (OOPE) for hospital births previously suffer from serious data limitations. To overcome such limitations, we designed a hospital-based study for measuring the levels and factors of OOPE on maternity care for hospital births by its detailed components. Data were collected from women for non-complicated deliveries 24-h before the survey and complicated deliveries 48-h prior to the survey at the hospital settings in Uttar Pradesh, India during 2014. The simple random sampling design was used in the selection of respondents. Bivariate analyses were used to estimate mean expenditure on Antenatal care services (ANCs), Delivery care and Total Maternity Expenditure (TME). Multivariate linear regression was employed to examine the factor associated with the absolute and relative share of expenditure in couple’s annual income on ANCs, delivery care, and TME. The findings show that average expenditure on maternal health care is high ($155) in the study population. Findings suggest that factors such as income, place, and number of ANCs, type, and place of institutional delivery are significantly associated with both absolute and relative expenditure on maternity care. The likelihood of incidence of catastrophic expenditure on maternity care is significantly higher for women delivered in private hospitals (β = 2.427, p < 0.001) compared to the government hospital (β = 0). Also, it is higher among caesarean or forceps deliveries (β = 0.617, p < 0.01), deliveries conducted on doctor advise (β = 0.598, p < 0.01), than in normal deliveries (β = 0) and self or family planned deliveries (β = 0). The findings of this study suggest that the OOPE on maternity care for hospital births reported in this study is much higher as it was collected with a better methodology, although with smaller sample size. Therefore, ongoing maternity benefit scheme in India in general and Uttar Pradesh in particular need to consider the levels of OOPE on maternity care and demand-side and supply-side factors determining it for a more effective policy to reduce the catastrophic burden on households and help women to achieve better maternity health outcomes in poor regional settings like Uttar Pradesh in India.

Volume 55 - Article 16 | Pages 465–490