↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of multi drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) financial protection policy: MDR-TB health insurance schemes, in Chhattisgarh state, India

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 454)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
Title
Analysis of multi drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) financial protection policy: MDR-TB health insurance schemes, in Chhattisgarh state, India
Published in
Health Economics Review, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13561-018-0187-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Debashish Kundu, Nandini Sharma, Sarabjit Chadha, Samia Laokri, George Awungafac, Lai Jiang, Miqdad Asaria

Abstract

There are significant financial barriers to access treatment for multi drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in India. To address these challenges, Chhattisgarh state in India has established a MDR-TB financial protection policy by creating MDR-TB benefit packages as part of the universal health insurance scheme that the state has rolled out in their effort towards attaining Universal Health Coverage for all its residents. In these schemes the state purchases health insurance against set packages of services from third party health insurance agencies on behalf of all its residents. Provider payment reform by strategic purchasing through output based payments (lump sum fee is reimbursed as per the MDR-TB benefit package rates) to the providers - both public and private health facilities empanelled under the insurance scheme was the key intervention. To understand the implementation gap between policy and practice of the benefit packages with respect to equity in utilization of package claims by the poor patients in public and private sector. Data from primary health insurance claims from January 2013 to December 2015, were analysed using an extension of 'Kingdon's multiple streams for policy implementation framework' to explain the implementation gap between policy and practice of the MDR-TB benefit packages. The total number of claims for MDR-TB benefit packages increased over the study period mainly from poor patients treated in public facilities, particularly for the pre-treatment evaluation and hospital stay packages. Variations and inequities in utilizing the packages were observed between poor and non-poor beneficiaries in public and private sector. Private providers participation in the new MDR-TB financial protection mechanism through the universal health insurance scheme was observed to be much lower than might be expected given their share of healthcare provision overall in India. Our findings suggest that there may be an implementation gap due to weak coupling between the problem and the policy streams, reflecting weak coordination between state nodal agency and the state TB department. There is a pressing need to build strong institutional capacity of the public and private sector for improving service delivery to MDR-TB patients through this new health insurance mechanism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Researcher 24 15%
Other 11 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 35 22%
Unknown 43 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 22%
Social Sciences 18 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 49 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,427,976
of 23,782,909 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#16
of 454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,453
of 444,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,782,909 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them