Formal and Informal Reproductive Healthcare User Fees in Uttaranchal, India

Publication date: 2005

[image: image14.emf] Formal and Informal Reproductive Healthcare User Fees in Uttaranchal, India Suneeta Sharma Sarah Smith Marissa Pine William Winfrey October 2005 Formal and Informal Reproductive Healthcare User Fees in Uttaranchal, India October 2005 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Suneeta Sharma, Sarah Smith, Marissa Pine, and William Winfrey. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the view of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Contents vAcknowledgments Executive Summary vi Definitions of Formal and Informal Fees vi The Policy Environment vi Provider and Client Perspectives vii Study Conclusions viii Policy Recommendations viii Abbreviations ix 1. Introduction 1 2. Existing studies 2 Inadequate Linkage of Supply and Demand 2 3. Approach and methodologies 3 Data Collection 3 Data Analysis 4 4. Policy overview 6 State Policies 6 Policies Related to Access to Health Services 6 Financing Mechanisms 6 Policies Related to Targeting/Equity 6 Specific Policies Related to Maternal Health 7 Government Guidelines on Implementation of State Policy 7 District and Facility Policies 7 Management and Financial Autonomy for Healthcare Facilities 7 Policies Related to Targeting/Equity 8 Financing Mechanisms 8 Policies Related to Access to Health Services 9 Specific Policies Related to Maternal Health 9 5. facility User Fee Practices 10 Revenue from User Fees 10 Retention and Use of Revenue 11 Conclusions on User Fee Collection Practices 12 6. provider perspectives 13 Knowledge of User Fees, Out-of-Pocket Expenses, and Exemptions 13 Formal Fees 13 Informal Fees 14 Consistency Between Policies, Practices, and Exemptions 14 Formal and Informal Fee Collection Practices and Policies 14 Exemption Schemes 15 7. Client Perspectives 16 Household Survey 16 Payments by Women and Their Families 16 Knowledge of Facilities’ Policies on User Fees and Exemptions 25 Attitudes About Costs of ANC and Normal Delivery Care 25 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 26 Antenatal Care 26 Home Deliveries 29 Hospital Deliveries 30 Out-of-Pocket Expenditures on ANC and Delivery Services: Comparing the Data 32 8. Bringing it together: policies, practices, and women’s perspectives 33 Formal and Informal Fees of ANC and Normal Delivery Care 33 Proportion of Fees That Are Formal and Informal 33 Differences Between Client and Provider Perspectives on Fees 34 9. Conclusions 36 The Effectiveness of Exemption Policies 36 Implications of the Findings 37 Recommended Policy Changes 37 APPENDIX 1 40 APPENDIX 2 41 References 43 Acknowledgments The authors thank Kokila Agarwal, Michelle Prosser, Carol Shepherd, Arnab Acharya, and other POLICY Project staff and consultants for their contributions to this report. Special recognition goes to Jeff Sine, who initiated this study and Dr. Gadde Narayana, who provided leadership during the design and data collection phases. Executive Summary Although user fees are increasingly being used in government health programs to alleviate the pressure on constrained budgets as demand for services increases, results in developing countries thus far have been mixed and concerns that fees reduce access to services among the poor have led to the promotion of fee exemption mechanisms. These exemptions, however, may not be an effective response because (1) informal fees and other costs associated with seeking and receiving services are not alleviated by most exemption mechanisms, and (2) exemption mechanisms are often poorly implemented. The low proportion of formal fees to total costs to the consumer and the unpredictable nature of informal fees may actually work against formal fee exemption mechanisms. Thus, it is important to assess whether these mechanisms alone hold promise for protecting access among the poor, or whether they need to be supplemented with other strategies. The objectives of this study were to: (1) survey actual costs to consumers for reproductive health (RH) care services including antenatal care (ANC), delivery care, family planning (FP), postabortion care (PAC), child healthcare, and reproductive tract infection (RTI) treatment; (2) review fee and waiver mechanisms; (3) assess the degree to which these mechanisms function as intended; (4) assess the degree to which residual costs to consumers (after accounting for fee exemptions) may constitute a barrier to these services; and (5) review current policies and practices on setting charges and collecting, retaining, and using fee revenue. Definitions of Formal and Informal Fees For the purpose of this study, formal fees for accessing healthcare goods and services are defined as official charges published in the healthcare facility’s policy or another official policy document. Informal fees are defined as payments made by clients that are not officially sanctioned by the healthcare facility or as other expenses clients must incur to access services. These include under-the-table payments made to any of the facility’s healthcare professionals or support staff, such as maintenance and housekeeping staff and guards, when those payments are made a condition for care. Other informal fees and costs incurred by clients or their families are for supplies or drugs that must be purchased outside and brought to the facility and for transportation and food, informal board, and accompanying family member costs that would not be covered by the government. This report presents data synthesized from several sources, including state policies, facility records and surveys, household surveys, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews. The Policy Environment State policy supports the implementation of user fees, greater private sector participation, exemptions for the poor, and improvement in access to healthcare for women and people living in geographically underserved areas. To help facilitate policy implementation, the government has issued to district and facility authorities several operational guidelines and government orders that grant the following: A greater degree of autonomy to hospital administrators regarding financing, authorizing facilities to collect and use revenue generated from user fee charges; Increased decisionmaking flexibility regarding purchasing procedures and spending decisions, allowing management to move quickly on decisions that directly impact patient care and hospital services; The ability to solicit and receive donations and grants for hospital programs and services; The authority to hire short-term, para-medical and nonclinical persons on a contractual basis; and Clear guidelines on exemption categories and mechanisms. Facilities reported that government guidelines regarding the collection, retention, use of collected revenue, and exemptions were followed. However, most selected facilities deposited a smaller than recommended portion of generated revenue into the Treasury and a large portion of money remained under-used. Cost recovery varies greatly and was low in most of the facilities. Potential reasons for this include the single source of alternative financing (user fee), a nominal fee for a limited number of services, the availability of exemptions for multiple categories, and inadequate incentives at the facility level. The formal fee for a normal delivery in a general ward was $4.43 ; it may vary depending on the level of delivery complications and the type of ward. Generally, medicine, lab supplies, and nutritional supplements are not available at the hospital; therefore, in addition to the formal fee of $4.43, women paid for medicine, nutritional supplements, and lab tests. Women also incurred out-of-pocket expenses for transportation, food and lodging, and child care services. Most key informants suggested that lower level staff, such as sweepers and ward aayas, usually ask for additional payments. All these payments add up to between $17.72 and $22.16 for delivery services, an amount 4 to 5 times higher than the official fee. Provider and Client Perspectives Provider perspectives. Providers were aware of exemption schemes; however, specific information on exemption categories, exemption mechanisms, and what proportion of people get exemptions was not clear. Key informants stated that poor women receive free care at the hospital. These exemptions, however, may not effectively ensure access among the poor because informal fees and other costs associated with seeking and receiving services are not alleviated by most exemption mechanisms. Client perspectives. Approximately 90 percent of women, regardless of poverty status, had knowledge of registration fees in public facilities. However, despite this knowledge, only a quarter of women were aware of user fees for other kinds of services such as lab tests. Knowledge of exemption schemes and availability of free services for the poor was low across socioeconomic status (SES) groups. Only 10 percent of women under the poor and near poor groups were aware of exemptions for the poor in public facilities. A large percent of women (72% poor, 60% near poor, and 63% not poor women) did not approve of having any user fees in public facilities. Approximately 22 percent of not poor, 20 percent of near poor, and 14 percent of poor women did approve of some user fees. Approximately 15–20 percent of women across SES groups approved of all user fees in public facilities. In the various focus group discussions (FGDs), participants indicated that medicines and supplies constituted a large proportion of expenditures on ANC and delivery services and, generally, are not available in public facilities (respondents are asked to buy them from private stores). Public health facilities are limited to providing iron and sometimes calcium tablets and necessary immunizations for the mother and child. Participants identified “backshish” (informal payments to nonmedical staff) as one of the expenditures necessary to obtain services at the health facility. The demeaning attitude and monetary demand of the midwives and sisters in the labor room necessitates such payments. To obtain maternal health services, patients were also asked to pay sweepers, cleaners, aayas, and jamadars in the hospital wards. FGD participants, compared with household survey respondents, reported a higher level of out-of-pocket expenditures on ANC and delivery services. This may be due to detailed reporting of informal expenses in the FGDs. Women FGD participants indicated that they spent from $17.72–26.59 on ANC services; payments were made for registration, medicines, supplies, transportation, tips, lab tests, and ultrasounds. The household survey showed that the average expenditure on ANC was $3.66 for consultation, tests, medicines, transportation, and food and lodging. Similarly, FGDs revealed a higher level of expenditure on home delivery ($31.02–35.45) when compared with the household survey ($6.65). The FGD data include costs incurred on medicines, supplies, consultation fees for auxillary nurse midwives, and tips/gifts to dai for home delivery. Study Conclusions High costs of services lead to a low level of use of RH care among poor women. Despite the government’s efforts and favorable policies to improve service provision, utilization rates for most of the RH care services, especially private services, analyzed in this study were found to be low among the poor. Poor and not poor women benefit equally from highly subsidized government service. Many women, irrespective of poverty status, rely on public sector services. However, payments for RH care services are a much greater proportion of household income for the poor than for the not poor. This raises the question of whether government services are properly targeted to those women most in need. Informal payments constitute a significant portion of out-of-pocket expenses. Per the definitions of formal and informal fees presented in this report, all direct and indirect expenses poor women incur are informal as they are eligible to receive all services free of charge. Poor women incur these informal expenses because of inadequate exemption mechanisms and their lack of knowledge and awareness of them; the practice of unofficial payments; and the fact that medicines and lab services are not available at public facilities. Policy Recommendations Generate awareness among low-income clients about the availability of free services and develop a community-based surveillance system. Enforce user fees for those who can afford to pay in order to generate sufficient revenue for quality improvement and to cross-subsidize the poor. Rationalize spending on health services. Design and implement pro-poor monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Allow the health facility administration to retain and use collected revenues at the facility level. Minimize informal payments to make services affordable to a larger number of clients. Abbreviations AIDS autoimmune deficiency syndrome ANC antenatal care ANM auxiliary nurse midwife CHC Community Health Center FGD focus group discussion FP family planning IEC information, education, and communication IUD intrauterine device MMC Medicine Management Committee MMR maternal mortality ratio MWRA married women of reproductive age PAC postabortion care PNC postnatal care RH reproductive health RTI reproductive tract infection SES socioeconomic status SLI Standard of Living Index TBA traditional birth attendant TT tetanus toxoid 1. Introduction Although user fees are increasingly being used in government health programs to alleviate the pressure on constrained budgets as demand for services increases, results in developing countries thus far have been mixed and concerns that fees reduce access to services among the poor have led to the promotion of fee exemption mechanisms. These exemptions, however, may not be an effective response because (1) informal fees and other costs associated with seeking and receiving services are not alleviated by most exemption mechanisms, and (2) exemption mechanisms are often poorly implemented. The low proportion of formal fees to total costs to the consumer and the unpredictable nature of informal fees may actually work against formal fee exemption mechanisms. Thus, it is important to assess whether these mechanisms alone hold promise for protecting access among the poor, or whether they need to be supplemented with other strategies. The objectives of this study were to: (1) survey actual costs to consumers for reproductive health (RH) care services including antenatal care (ANC), delivery care, family planning (FP), postabortion care (PAC), child healthcare, and reproductive tract infection (RTI) treatment; (2) review fee and waiver mechanisms; (3) assess the degree to which these mechanisms function as intended; (4) assess the degree to which residual costs to consumers (after accounting for fee exemptions) may constitute a barrier to these services; and (5) review current policies and practices on setting charges and collecting, retaining, and using fee revenue. For the purpose of this study, formal fees for accessing healthcare goods and services are defined as official charges published in the healthcare facility’s policy or another official policy document. Informal fees are defined as payments made by clients that are not officially sanctioned by the healthcare facility or as other expenses clients must incur to access services. These include under-the-table payments made to any of the facility’s healthcare professionals or support staff, such as maintenance and housekeeping staff and guards, when those payments are made a condition for care. Other informal fees and costs incurred by clients or their families are for supplies or drugs that must be purchased outside and brought to the facility and for transportation and food, informal board, and accompanying family member costs that would not be covered by the government. This report presents data synthesized from several sources, including state policies, facility records and surveys, household surveys, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews. This report addresses why studying the topic of user fees for RH care services in India is important. Section 2 includes a brief overview of existing literature on user fees and household expenditures and the link between supply and demand. Section 3 discusses the approaches and methodologies used to investigate the issue of formal and informal user fees for RH care services. Section 4 assesses state, district, and facility policies regarding financing mechanisms, targeting/equity, and access to RH care services. Section 5 discusses user fee collection, retention, and utilization practices and exemption mechanisms at the facility level. Section 6 looks at the perspectives and knowledge among providers about policies on user fees and exemptions. Section 7 presents the findings from the household survey regarding various RH care services and analyzes expenditures on medical supplies, tips, transport to and from hospital, food and lodging, and hospital fees. It also presents the findings of focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted to understand the nature and size of out-of-pocket expenditures. Section 8 links policies, practices, and women’s perspectives in order to understand the overall demand and supply situation. The final section offers some conclusive remarks. 2. Existing studies Most prior studies that investigated healthcare utilization and expenditure patterns among households focused generally on curative care, not specifically on RH care. Studies that looked at the supply side of healthcare have also focused on curative, rather than maternal or RH care services (World Bank, 1997; Bhat and Sharma, 1997; Sharma and Hotchkiss, 2000; Sujata et al., 1997). Recent studies conducted by Bhatia and Cleland (2001) in Karnataka and Hotchkiss et al. (2000) in Udaipur District, Rajasthan State analyzed household use and expenditure patterns on maternal and RH care. These studies suggest it is incorrect to think that public services are supplied to the client at no cost. Public services may be less expensive and hence more available to low-income households, but after accounting for the distance to the provider site, the waiting time, and other factors related to accessing these services, total public and private provider costs may be more similar than they first appear. The results underline the need for more detailed analysis of what factors on both the demand and supply sides must be considered in policy decisions aimed at assuring more equity in service availability. Inadequate Linkage of Supply and Demand Despite the useful aspects of the studies mentioned above, none have linked the market’s supply and demand sides in analyzing policies, provider perspectives, and consumer expenditure patterns to create a complete picture of formal and informal fees. The studies do not explain which household characteristics determine selection of a particular provider or level of service. The current study adds to the existing literature by analyzing both consumer and provider perspectives on user charges; evaluating user fees and exemption policies and practices at different levels; assessing household expenditures on reproductive and maternal healthcare services; and estimating actual costs to consumers, including both formal and informal payments. This information will help assess the effectiveness of exemption mechanisms in ensuring access for poor women. 3. Approach and methodologies Data Collection The data presented here are syntheses of multiple sources, including government policies, facility and household surveys, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. An extensive policy document review was conducted to collect information on Uttaranchal state policies and operational guidelines regarding user fees (formal and informal), exemptions (which services, which clients), access to services, and targeting. Key informant interviews with state policymakers and facility managers were conducted to fill policy documentation gaps or to provide clarification. Facility policies and guidelines on user fees (formal and informal) and exemptions were collected during facility surveys. A facility survey was conducted to collect information on user fees from six public health facilities at different levels in the Nainital, Rishikesh, Almora, Dehradun, and Bageshwar districts in Uttaranchal. The process involved analyzing communication received by these facilities on user fees, the function of structures created for decisions on user fees, the actual fees collected in one year on different types of services, patterns of use of the amount collected, hospital budgets, exemptions provided, and number of clients. Key informant interviews with 35 providers, including gynecologists, nurses, pharmacists, medical doctors, child specialists and medical superintendents, were conducted. The interviews assessed providers’ knowledge of Formal user fee levels and collection practices; Formal fee exemption criteria and the eligibility determination process; Actual patterns and practices of formal and informal fee collection—including who collects them, from which kinds of clients, at what points in the delivery of services, for what kinds of products and services, and for how much; and Direct and indirect expenditures incurred by clients in addition to formal fees. A household health expenditure survey was conducted in Uttaranchal state. A sample of 2,830 households was selected from urban and rural areas in four districts (Nainital, Haradwar, Almora and Tehri Gharwal). The objective was to learn about household health expenditure on public and private commodities and RH care services including ANC, birth delivery assistance, postnatal care (PNC), child health care, FP services, PAC, and treatment of RTIs. Formal and informal fees were included as part of this study. Both a household questionnaire and a women’s questionnaire were used for data collection. Both instruments were pre-coded with fixed-response categories and written in English and Hindi. The household instrument contained questions on demographic characteristics including age, sex, educational attainment, marital status, occupation of each household member, income, and household assets. With respect to health status and healthcare use, information was collected on whether each member of the household had experienced any health problems within three months prior to the survey. For those reporting health problems, information was collected on whether treatment was sought, the choice of healthcare practitioner, the expenses incurred for treatment, the number of days that were lost due to illness, and the money borrowed for treatment. The women’s questionnaire gathered data from currently married women ages 15–49 who were residents of the household. Information was collected on the number of prior births and number of surviving children. For those women who reported having a living child younger than two years old, information was collected on the use of ANC, childbirth assistance, PNC, and child healthcare services. If a woman reported using health services, questions were also asked on whether care was received in the home or at a healthcare facility; the type of practitioner used; and the expenditures incurred for consultations, medicine, lab tests, travel, and lodging. For all women ages 15–49, information was collected on the use of FP services, PAC services, and services to treat RTIs. Again, information was collected on the type of care used and expenditures incurred for consultations, FP supplies, medicine, and lab tests. POLICY conducted 16 focus group discussions (FGDs) with women and men in urban and rural locations in the Nainital and Dehradun districts of Uttaranchal. In these two districts, one rural and one urban location each was further identified. In each location, four specific FGDs were conducted to learn about women’s experiences obtaining maternal health services and to understand the key problems, concerns, and expectations expressed by respondents, especially regarding monetary barriers related to formal and informal fees and other access costs that impact the use of maternal health services. To learn about different experiences with RH care services, three specific categories of women were identified: pregnant women (using ANC services); women who had facility deliveries (either in a public hospital or a health center); and women who had home deliveries with the help of a service provider (usually ANMs) from a public health facility. Separate FGDs were organized with each of these categories of women at both rural and urban locations in Dehradun and Nainital. Since the exercise’s objective was to estimate the expenditure incurred by a household in receiving maternal care services, a fourth FGD category was incorporated with husbands whose wives had either received ANC or delivered at a public hospital or other health facility. This exercise was crucial because women generally do not control household expenditures; responsibility for most monetary arrangements associated with ANC and delivery are handled by husbands or other family members. A research team from New Concept in New Delhi, conducted the FGDs with continuous support from the Futures Group team at Dehradun. Each FGD was conducted using a questionnaire prepared by the Futures Group, had 6–8 participants, and was recorded and later transcribed for reference. Data Analysis For analyzing the household survey data, a Standard of Living Index (SLI) was constructed using a factor analysis of 16 asset and household amenity variables. Each household asset or amenity was assigned a factor score generated through principal component analysis. In this way, the standard of living was defined in terms of assets rather than income or consumption. The study population was divided into five quintiles based on the SLI, with the poorest group consisting of women from the households with fewest assets, while the wealthiest group comprised women from households with the most assets. Taking into account the socioeconomic status (SES) of households, three groups were created: poor (bottom two quintiles), near poor (middle quintile), and not poor (top two quintiles). The study’s findings are presented by these SES groups. Figure 1 summarizes the data and information sources for the study. The information collected through the household survey, facility survey, key informant interviews, and document review was used to analyze both consumer and provider perspectives on user charges; to evaluate user fee and exemption policies and practices at different levels, assess household expenditures on reproductive and maternal healthcare services; and estimate actual cost to consumers, including both formal and informal payments. [image: image1.png] 4. Policy overview This section summarizes results from the policy document review and key informant interviews with policymakers and providers. It provides an assessment of state, district, and facility policies regarding financing mechanisms, targeting/equity, and access to maternal healthcare services. State Policies Policies Related to Access to Health Services In Uttaranchal, more than 75 percent of the population lives in rural areas. Villages in hilly areas are scattered and more than 50 percent do not have road access. Within this context, the Health and Population Policy of Uttaranchal states that “all efforts will be made to reach people in the remotest inaccessible areas.” The Health and Population Policy of Uttaranchal of 2002 notes disparities in household expenditure on healthcare. Often, a higher proportion of money is allocated to men than to women. Similarly, disparities in dietary intake exist where women are again at a disadvantage compared with their male counterparts. A recent study indicates that families are often unwilling to spend much on preventive care and treatment for women (Schuler et al., 2002). Financing Mechanisms As per the state policy, the government needs to focus its resources on public health programs, particularly primary healthcare. It notes that costs associated with secondary and tertiary health care are high and the government alone is not able to shoulder the burden. Cost recovery measures have been introduced in hospitals with more than 30 beds. Poor and disadvantaged groups are entitled to free services. The Health and Population Policy calls for the government to Review cost recovery measures, rationalize user fees for various services, and simplify procedures to generate and expand financial resources; Eventually allow health institutions to retain the total amount of revenue they generate instead of requiring that half of the revenue be retained at the institutional level and the remaining amount be deposited in the Treasury. This would provide more flexible financial resources to health institutions and act as a motivating factor for service providers; and Open up health insurance in the private sector to increase the number of people opting for health insurance and explore the feasibility of providing government health insurance coverage for poor and disadvantaged groups who cannot pay insurance premiums. Policies Related to Targeting/Equity The policy notes that, as of 2002, there was considerable disparity in the health status of the population within in different regions and between different groups within society. The policy also notes an urgent need to address equity issues by establishing a health system that focuses on regional, gender, and class/caste inequalities. The specific interventions delineated by the Uttaranchal government include: Providing minimum basic health services for all people irrespective of caste, religion, economic class, or region; Initiating special packages and programs for improving the healthcare of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups/regions; and Prioritizing women’s health rights and empowering women to make their own health decisions. Specific Policies Related to Maternal Health The policy seeks to reduce the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) from the present level (400 per 100,000 live births) to 250 per 100,000 live births by 2006 and to below 100 per 100,000 by 2010. To achieve this objective, the government of Uttaranchal intends to appropriately select women from villages to be trained in midwifery and primary healthcare and provide them with necessary logistical support to provide quality services. Government Guidelines on Implementation of State Policy State health and population policy supports user fees, greater private sector participation, exemptions for the poor, and improvements in access to healthcare for women and people living in geographically underserved areas. To facilitate implementation, the government has issued to district and facility authorities several operational guidelines and government orders that grant the following: A greater degree of autonomy to hospital administrators regarding financing, authorizing facilities to collect and use revenue generated from user fee charges; Increased decisionmaking flexibility regarding purchasing procedures and spending decisions, allowing management to move quickly on decisions that directly impact patient care and hospital services; The ability to solicit and receive donations and grants for hospital programs and services; Authority to hire short-term, para-medical and nonclinical persons on a contractual basis; and Clear guidelines on exemption categories and mechanisms. The guidelines also provide some controlling measures regarding the use of collected revenue: Fifty percent of revenues collected by each facility must be deposited in the state treasury; The Medicine Management Committee (MMC) of each facility is required to set a limit on the level of expenditure that the hospital administrator is authorized to make without their approval; and Specific fee structures are to be provided by the state. District and Facility Policies To further facilitate implementation, the state government provided guidelines to healthcare facilities on user fees and exemptions. Management and Financial Autonomy for Healthcare Facilities The GOU issued an order in March 2003 to establish a MMC under the chairmanship of the District Officer to manage public hospitals. The committee’s main objective is to procure funds from various sources “autonomously and independently,” including through user fees or donations, and to use these funds for extending services and improving quality. The committee is responsible for upgrading, modernizing, and maintaining government hospitals to ensure the delivery of sustainable, high-quality services. Policies Related to Targeting/Equity Per a government order, no registration fee or service/facility fee is charged to patients who are destitute, under trial (detainees), or treated in an emergency. People living below the poverty line are identified as White Ration Card Holders under the Public Distribution System of the state. Therefore, members of families identified/certified under this scheme are eligible to receive free treatments. If any poor person does not have this certificate, the person in charge of the hospital has the power to provide free medical services just as the government intended. Honorable legislators, ex-legislators, freedom fighters, and their dependents continue to receive free medical services at facilities. After retirement, government servants continue receiving the same medical services that were allowed on the date of their retirement. Financing Mechanisms For those who do not qualify for free services, fees are levied in the following manner (see Table 1). Table 1: General Fee Structure Suggested in the Government Orders Item PHCs CHCs District Hospital Rates Patient registration fee $0.04 for 15 days $0.04 for 15 days $0.11 for 15 days Admission fee None None No fee for first 3 days; $0.11 per day after the third day (A) General ward None None None (B) Paying ward None None $0.55 per day (C) Private ward (1) Two beds None None $1.11 per day (2) One bed None None $1.66 per day (3) Air cooling room None None $2.77 per day (4) Air-conditioned room None None $5.53 per day Ambulance None None $0.11 per km.; subject to a minimum of $1.11 Basic pathological and radiological tests None None General ward $0.07; paying $0.11; private $0.22 Normal delivery None None General ward $4.43; paying $6.64; private $11.07 Caesarean section None None General ward $6.64; paying $11.07; private $17.71 Built into the policy is a mechanism for responding to increasing costs of medications, equipment, and maintenance. At the start of every calendar year, fees charged for registration, medical examination, and surgery are increased by 10 percent or a minimum of $0.02. The government order stipulates that 50 percent of revenue received from user charges is to be deposited in the treasury. The MMC can use the remaining 50 percent for hospital services. Policies Related to Access to Health Services The government has issued various orders to promote decentralization—by encouraging Indian system providers of medicine to serve in rural areas and mandating government doctors and nurses to work in rural areas for a specified number of years. These measures have been taken to improve the underserved population’s access to healthcare. It is expected that enhanced access to funds and increased hospital efficiency will improve both access to and quality of care. These hospitals will be able to offer better facilities and equipment, appropriate levels of drugs and supplies, and higher quantities of free care for targeted services through cross subsidization. Specific Policies Related to Maternal Health District and facility guidelines emphasize effective implementation of national programs and compliance of policies and directives of the state government. Within this context, a government order states that the MMC is responsible for supervising and inspecting state government-run programs in the areas such as reproductive and child health, AIDS control, and family welfare. 5. Facility User Fee Practices Data on user fee practices were collected from six facilities. This section analyzes data on society structure, user fee collection, retention and use of revenue, and exemptions. Revenue from User Fees The total revenue of $663,522 was generated through user fees in Uttaranchal state in FY 2001/2002. The collection increased by 6 percent to $700,996 in FY 2002/2003 (see Table 2). Table 2: Revenue Collected in Uttaranchal Public Facilities (US$) Years Total Received Deposited in Government Treasury (%) Deposited in Hospital Committee (%) 2001/2002 663,522 339,565 (51) 323,957 (49) 2002/2003 700,996 356,046 (51) 344,950 (49) 2003/2004 (up to Oct.) 617,228 162,603 (26) 454,625 (74) Table 3 indicates that $103,083 was generated through user fees in the surveyed facilities in FY 2002/2003. Approximately 50 percent of the revenue was generated in two hospitals—SPS Hospital and District Women Hospital. Table 3: Total User Fees Collected In Hospitals from April 2002–March 2003 (US$) Collected From B.D. Pandey Women’s Hospital SPS Hospital District Women’s Hospital CHC Doiwala Govt Women’s Hospital CHC Bageshwar Total Registration Fee Outpatients 1,586.43 12,389.70 5,139.66 2,135.41 1,748.12 1,780.54 24,779.90 In-patients 2,385.90 2,970.89 2,457.39 183.05 695.55 223.99 8,916.78 Bed Charges Private ward NA 3,062.20 3,062.20 Paying ward 376.49 1,946.10 3,498.45 1,132.36 6,953.41 General ward 842.85 436.26 1,297.11 Lab tests Pathology NA 2,920.12 2,240.72 222.89 141.35 5,527.00 X-ray NA 4,137.78 622.47 4,764.37 Ultrasound NA 3,785.97 720.06 4,509.80 Operation 1,510.62 3,214.03 6,139.36 47.63 5,055.94 732.25 16,704.60 Vehicle 615.32 52.07 134.49 802.48 Delivery 4,956.84 16,367.20 392.16 21,721.10 Other charges 459.39 1,919.65 1,107.34 131.16 397.69 4,017.61 Total 6,318.84 39,738.90 40,515.20 3,604.92 9,487.76 3,412.32 103,083 Hospitals charge user fees for in-patient and out-patient registration, in-patient beds, lab tests, surgery, vehicle/ambulance, delivery services, and other services. Based on the number of patients, maternal services account for 40–50 percent of revenue generated in the selected facilities, as 50 percent of the surveyed hospitals are women’s hospitals (see Table 3). Most facility records do not provide information on revenue collection for maternal services; the amount is included under registration, bed charges, lab tests, and operation charges. SPS Hospital, District Women’s Hospital, and CHC Doiwala officially collected approximately $21,721 for normal delivery care-related goods and services during FY 2002/03. On average, an estimated 7 percent of the hospital budgets was recovered, varying between 4–10 percent at the hospitals and 2–4 percent at the community health centers (see Table 4). The introduction of user fees is a recent phenomenon in Uttaranchal and hospitals are generating revenue only through user fees and have not yet explored other sources of supplementary financing. Table 4: Cost Recovery in Government Hospitals (%) B .D. Pandey Women Hospital SPS Hospital District women Hospital CHC, Doiwala Government Women Hospital CHC Bageshwar Total Cost Recovery 4.1 10.2 10.4 4.2 5.7 1.6 7.3 Retention and Use of Revenue The surveyed facilities reported depositing 38 percent of total generated revenue into the Treasury instead of the required 50 percent (see Table 5). Nearly 24 percent of the revenue was used for incurring different capital and recurrent expenditures and 37 percent was saved in the facility’s bank account. Many facilities were unable to fully spend the funds during the year in spite of the need for improvements in service quality; this clearly reflects the inadequate management and planning capacity of the administrators and facilities. Table 5: Retention and Use of Collected Revenue in Public Facilities from April 2002– March 2003 (US$) Item of Expenditure B .D. Pandey Women’s Hospital SPS Hospital District Women’s Hospital CHC, Doiwala Govt Women’s Hospital CHC Bageshwar Total Contribution to the treasury 9,185.44 3,738.30 19,726.10 1,666.93 4,802.19 1,655.48 40,775 Expenditures NA 14,452.80 4,814.91 401.11 4,684.57 1,163.55 25,517 Savings NA 21,547.80 15,974.10 1,536.88 NA 593.29 39,652 Total 9,185.44 39,738.90 40,515.20 3,604.92 9,486.76 3,412.32 105,943 In surveyed facilities, retained revenue was used to purchase consumables and supplies (28%); purchase equipment and furniture (24%); linen/laundry (13%); maintenance of equipment (13%); utilities (13%); building maintenance (7%); and information, education, and communication (IEC) materials and advertisements (2%) (see Figure 2). [image: image2] Conclusions on User Fee Collection Practices Facilities reported that government guidelines on the collection, retention, use of collected revenue, and exemptions were followed. However, most selected facilities deposited a smaller than recommended proportion of generated revenue into the treasury. Also, a large amount of money remained underused. Cost recovery varies greatly and was low in most facilities. Potential reasons for this include the single source of financing (user fee), the nominal fee for a limited number of services, the availability of exemptions for multiple categories, and the inadequate incentives at the facility level. 6. provider perspectives Knowledge of User Fees, Out-of-Pocket Expenses, and Exemptions This section presents the findings of key informant interviews with 35 providers. Formal Fees ANC services. The formal fee for the first ANC check-up ranged from $0.04–0.11; however, more than 70 percent of facilities charge $0.11. The fee included facility entrance, registration, and provider service/consultation fees; and charges for drugs, nutrition supplements, iron, other supplies, and tetanus toxoid (TT) immunizations and counseling. The formal fee was nominal; however, according to providers, women spend an average amount of $2.22 out-of-pocket on nutritional supplements and charges can be as high as $4.95 to treat anemia. According to less than 10 percent of respondents, when iron tablets are unavailable in the hospital, women spend from $0.49–0.60 for a three-month supply. Women who preferred to buy their own supplies (syringes) spent $0.11. The formal fee was the same for follow-up ANC visits ($0.04 or $0.11); however, this fee was charged only if the woman came after 15 days—within 15 days there was no fee for follow-up visits. As mentioned earlier, women may incur out-of-pocket expenses on lab tests and medicine, food, transportation, and may experience wage loss. When lab tests and medicines were unavailable in the hospital, women spent approximately $0.33–0.89 on lab tests and $0.44–2.77 on medicine. Nearly 20 percent of respondents pointed out that women spent, on average, $0.66 on food (from $0.27–1.22). Approximately 30 percent of interviewees reported that women may pay for transportation, generally from $1.11–1.66 but sometimes as low as $0.33–4.43. One respondent mentioned a wage loss of $4.99. Table 6: Fee Structure at Public Facilities Item Range ANC Services First antenatal check-up fee $0.04–0.11 Delivery Services Admission Fee per patient $0.55 Normal delivery charges in the general, paying, and private wards $4.43, $6.65, $11.08 Inpatient bed per day charges after three days of stay in the general, paying, and private wards $0.11–0.22, $0.55, $1.66 Delivery services. Providers were aware of the fee structure and amount charged for different services. According to 50 percent of respondents, delivery fees ranged from $4.43–5.54. The other 50 percent said fees varied based on the type of ward, complications, etc. The formal fee for delivery services included facility entrance, registration, and provider fee/consultation fees; and charges for drugs, nutrition supplements, iron, vitamin tablets, supplies and eye ointment for the newborn, other supplies, immunizations for the mother and baby, and in-patient rooms in the general ward. All hospitals charged an in-patient admission fee from $0.55–1.11. In-patient bed charges were levied after three days of stay for delivery services in the general ward. Sixty percent of selected hospitals charged as low as $0.11–0.22 for an extra day of stay; other hospitals charged $0.55 for the mother and $0.55 for the newborn. Unlike beds in general wards, charges were levied for the first three days in private wards. A normal delivery in a private ward cost a total of $11.08 for the first three days. Each extra day cost approximately $1.66 for the mother and $1.11 for the newborn (more than 60 percent of the hospitals charged $1.66). Approximately 40 percent of hospitals had paying wards. The charges for a paying ward included normal delivery ($6.65), admission ($0.55) and in-patient bed per day ($0.55–1.11) (see Table 6). Ten respondents said women spent between $0.33–0.88 on lab tests. All others stated that no lab tests were needed. According to one respondent, women spent $8.86 for an ultrasound and pregnancy test. Fifteen respondents said women also paid for drugs ($0.22–5.54) depending on the requirements and whether drugs were unavailable in the hospital. Approximately 30 percent of respondents said women spent $1.11–3.32 on nutrition supplements. Furthermore, baby supplies such as clothes, napkins, and bottles were not provided by the hospitals; these supplies cost from $1.11–2.77, depending on the family’s financial status. According to respondents, nurses and doctors from the health facilities did not assist with home-based deliveries; only field workers (usually midwives) could respond to an emergency call. Informal Fees ANC services. All respondents stated that admission clerks did not ask for unofficial payments, and according to 33 out of 35 respondents, nurses or midwives also did not ask for additional fees. Only two respondents said that 65 percent of nurses asked for unofficial payments of approximately $1.66 and gifts such as sweets ($1.11) and saris ($2.22–3.88). All respondents agreed that doctors do not ask clients to make unofficial payments (or give gifts). While few providers ask for money, patients sometimes pay for speedy work. Delivery services. No formal fee is charged for normal deliveries attended by providers in the woman's home. Only one respondent from the government women’s hospital commented that while there was no formal fee for home delivery, other charges may include delivery kits ($13.29), first aid supplies, remuneration ($3.88), and medicine. Approximately 20 percent of respondents mentioned that nurses or midwives may ask clients to make unofficial payments for delivery services, especially for delivering at night and for providing better care. On average, nurses asked for (or patients pay) $1.11–3.88 for providing extra services such as washing clothes and applying enema. Generally, patients decided how much to pay. The estimates on the percentage of clients asked by nurses to make additional payments varied greatly (from 5–65 percent). Approximately 25 percent of the interviewees suggested that nurses and midwives may also receive sweets, especially when the newborn is a boy. Other gifts may include saris and fruits. Almost all interviewees specified that doctors did not ask for additional charges or gifts. According to 50 percent of the interviewees, lower-level staff, including ward aayas and sweepers, generally asked for unofficial payments for numerous services such as changing bed sheets, washing dirty cloths, and cleaning rooms. Consistency Between Policies, Practices, and Exemptions Formal and Informal Fee Collection Practices and Policies In summary, the formal fee for a normal delivery in a general ward was $4.43, depending on the level of complications in delivery and the type of ward. In addition to the fee of $4.43, women paid for medicine, nutritional supplements, and lab tests that were generally unavailable at the hospital. Women also incurred out-of-pocket expenses for transportation, food and lodging, and child care. Furthermore, most key informants suggested that lower level staff, such as sweepers and ward aayas, usually ask for additional payments. All of these formal and informal payments add up to between $17.72 and $22.16 for delivery services—an amount 4 to 5 times higher than the official fee (see Table 7). Table 7: Formal and Informal Fees as Reported by Key Informants Formal Fee $4.63 Informal Fees Direct Expenses Indirect Expenses Lab Tests $1.23 Transport $2.05 Medications $3.76 Food $1.67 Nutrition supplements $2.14 Child care $0.73 Tips to sweeper $1.09 Tips to ward aaya $0.52 Existing policies and guidelines emphasize instituting a nominal fee, exempting poor people from paying this fee, and using generated revenue for quality improvements. Due to low levels of cost recovery, retention, and revenue use, facilities are still unable to cover the complete package of services including drugs, lab tests, and transportation, etc. Adequate attention is not given to which aspects of care are important to clients (from their perspectives) and what strategies can help them reduce some of the expenses associated with maternal healthcare. Exemption Schemes All interviewees were aware of exemption schemes for people living below the poverty line (BPL). According to them, no user fee was charged to the poor and antodaya/freedom fighters. In addition, poor women were not required to pay for delivery services at the hospital and were eligible to get $11.08 in assistance for their first two children under a government poverty alleviation scheme. The details regarding exemption categories, exemption mechanisms, and what proportion of people get exemptions were not as clear. 7. Client Perspectives Household Survey Payments by Women and Their Families This section presents the findings from the household survey regarding various RH care services. Each sub-section on ANC, delivery, PNC, child healthcare, PAC, and RTI services provides information on client use, sources of care, out-of-pocket expenditures, and composition of expenditures. ANC Services Use. Among the 575 women who reported having a young child, only 61 percent used ANC services from any source during their pregnancy. Poorer women were considerably less likely to use ANC services than wealthier women. Source of care. Of the 575 women, 122 (21%) reported receiving at least one ANC visit at home, 308 (54%) reported at least one visit to a government facility, and 137 (24%) women to a private facility. Public providers conducted approximately 70 percent of home-based ANC services. The dependence on home-based services is relatively higher among poor and near poor women. Low-income women were far more likely to use home-based public services than their high-income counterparts (85% versus 53%). This reconfirms the important role of the public sector in providing ANC services. Note that many women reported using more than one type of ANC provider. [image: image4.emf]Out-of-pocket expenditures. Over 14 percent of women who used ANC services at home from public providers reported paying for services, and overall, over half the women who used public services (58%) incurred some out-of-pocket costs. On average, women incurred $3.66 for ANC services in the public sector. The average cost for poor, near poor, and not poor women was $1.88, $2.64, and $5.10 respectively. For the first ANC visit, women who reported using exclusively public services spent an average of $0.93, while the corresponding figure for women who only used private services was $6.85 (see Figure 3). Table 8 on the following page provides estimates for both the total out-of-pocket expenditures for ANC services and the amount spent per visit across the SES groups. Composition of expenditures. The composition of expenditures is based on data for women who reported paying something for ANC services. Of the average expenditure of $3.66 in the public sector, lab tests accounted for at least 50 percent of the total, followed by transportation, food and lodging, medicine, and consultations. Table 8 also presents data on average expenditures and the compositions for the first, second, and third visits to a public facility. Note that, in general, one-third of expenses for the first ANC visit incurred by a user of public services went to travel and lodging costs; this highlights the inadequacy of outreach services. Table 8: Mean Expenditures in the Public Sector on ANC Services and Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Type of Service and by SES (US$)   Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Antenatal care Total 1.90 100 2.64 100 5.10 100 3.66 100 First Visit 0.67 100 0.69 100 1.94 100 1.16  100 Second Visit 0.31 100 0.57 100 0.95 100 0.71  100 Third Visit 0.92 100 1.38 100 2.21 100 1.79  100 First Visit Consultation 0.11 44.66 0.08 53.03 0.25 70.5 0.18 58.12 Medicine 1.33 1 2.07 7.6 2.65 12.9 0.25 6.8 Tests 2.79 5.8 2.58 9.1 3.64 20.1 3.35 12.9 Transportation 1.43 31 0.60 27.3 0.58 45.3 0.83 36.6 Food and lodging 0 0 0.33 27.3 0.94 45.3 0.82 36.6 Number of women 103 66 139 308   Second Visit Consultation 0.14 27.16 0.08 32.14 0.14 40.32 0.13 34.48 Medicine 1.11 1.2 3.54 5.4 1.48 10.5 1.83 6.5 Tests 2.55 2.4 1.22 7.1 3.30 8.8 2.75 6.5 Transportation 0.74 27 0.62 28.5 0.56 41.1 0.62 34 Food and Lodging 0 0 0.33 28.5 0.53 41.1 0.48 34 Number of women 81 56 124 261   Third Visit Consultation 0.27 31.58 0.13 56.52 0.16 46.3 0.17 45.83 Medicine 0 0 4.28 13 1.64 9.2 2.63 8.3 Tests 4.43 10.5 1.77 17.4 5.69 20.3 4.86 17.7 Transportation 0.99 36.8 0.80 39 0.76 44.4 0.81 41.6 Food and Lodging 0 0 0.33 39 1.11 44.4 0.72 41.6 Number of women 19   23   54   96   The average consultation fee ($0.11–0.18) among women using only public sector services constituted just 2–3 percent of the total out-of-pocket expenditures. The high out-of-pocket expenditures on medicine and lab tests provide strong evidence that the government system is inadvertently supporting private sources for pharmaceuticals and labs. Because of a shortage of essential drugs and non-functional equipment at public facilities, consumers are compelled to purchase medicine from private pharmacies and conduct lab tests at private facilities. Delivery Services Use. Among the 575 women who had given birth in the past two years, approximately three-fourths (440 women) had delivered either in their own homes or in their parents’ home. Source of care. The portion of women who had facility deliveries increases as wealth increases (see Figure 4). Only 7 percent of poor women had facility deliveries as compared to 16 and 44 percent of near poor and not poor women, respectively. Almost 85 percent of rural women delivered at home compared with 60 percent of their urban counterparts. Furthermore, either traditional birth attendants (TBAs) or relatives assisted with 80 percent of all home deliveries. Given the fact that only a small percentage of TBAs are properly trained to carry out safe delivery practices, women who were assisted by TBAs were at substantial risk. [image: image5.emf] Overall, nearly 29 percent of facility deliveries took place in public clinics or hospitals. The public sector is a particularly important source of care among poor women. Most not poor women (73%) delivered in private facilities. Out-of-pocket expenditures. A very high percentage of women (93%) reported incurring some costs (on average $92.56) for a delivery at a facility. The average cost was $66.97, $48.32, and $108.63 for poor, near poor, and not poor women, respectively (see Table 9). The average cost for not poor women is higher as they tend to opt for deliveries at facilities, mostly in case of complications and emergency situations. Table 9: Mean expenditures on Birth Delivery Services and Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Type of Service and by SES (US$) Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of Costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Home Delivery 4.55 100 5.86 100 9.39 100 6.58 100 Facility Delivery 66.97 100 48.32 100 108.63 100 92.56 100 Home Delivery Consultation 4.46 100 5.82 100 8.59 100 6.26 100 Medicine 3.69 2.2 4.43 0.83 8.72 9.16 7.43 4.38 Other costs due to complications 2.78 5.1 2.04 2.7 0.44 4.2 1.75 4.97 Number of women 137 85 120 342 Facility Delivery Consultation/ medicine 50.06 100 37.37 100 92.03 100 79.46 100 Transportation 5.34 92.8 5.81 94.4 5.70 91.3 5.68 91.2 Food and Lodging 9.09 78.5 6.65 61 13.94 73.1 8.68 69.8 Other Costs 22.53 21.4 5.10 27.7 8.39 18.2 9.43 19.8 Number of women 14 18 93 126 [image: image6.emf]The average cost of using public services was $33.10, less than one-fourth the average cost of a private facility ($133.09) (see Figure 5). Approximately 82 percent of home deliveries were assisted by public providers and outreach workers, including doctors, ANMs, nurses, and TBAs, and approximately 80 percent of women reported incurring costs, averaging $6.58. When broken down by SES, the average cost was $4.55 for poor, $5.86 for near poor, and $9.39 for not poor women. Women assisted by public providers at home spent more than three times as much as women assisted by private providers, friends, or relatives. Composition of expenditures. For deliveries at facilities, consultations and medicine constituted the largest share (77%) of delivery expenditures, followed by food and lodging (8%), transportation (5.5%), and other costs (9%). For home deliveries, nearly 50 percent of expenditures covered drugs, 40 percent for consultations, and 11 percent for other costs related to complications. PNC Services [image: image7.emf] Use. Only 26 percent of women reported receiving PNC from any type of provider (see Figure 6). This is substantially lower than the 61 percent of women who received ANC. Less than 20 percent of the poor and near poor women received PNC as compared to 36 percent of not poor women. The low use may be attributed to little awareness among both health workers and clients about the importance of postnatal care. Source of care. Approximately 39 percent of women received their first PNC service at home, followed by 28 percent at a public facility and 28 percent at a private facility. Approximately 75 percent of women receiving a second PNC service did so in either public or private facilities. A greater proportion of poor women received PNC services at home. The use of facility-based PNC services increased with the increase in economic status. More than 50 percent of women across SES groups received PNC from a doctor, followed by 30 percent by ANMs. Out-of-pocket expenses. Almost 66 percent of PNC recipients incurred some costs for these services. The average cost of PNC services was substantially higher than that of ANC services ($6.98 versus $3.66). The average cost was $5.03, $7.10, and $9.12 for poor, near poor, and not poor women, respectively (see Table 10 on the following page). A larger proportion of not poor used private facilities for PNC services as compared with poor women. The average cost of using public facilities for the first PNC visit was $1.02—less than one-fifth the average cost of using a private facility ($5.54). The average cost was $1.11 for those women who received PNC at home. Table 10: Mean expenditures on postnatal care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status (US$)   Type of costs Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Total 5.03 100 7.10 100 9.12 100 6.98 100 First Visit 3.03 100 2.01  100 4.78  100 3.69  100 Second Visit 2.00 100 5.09  100 4.29  100 3.28  100 First Visit Consultation 1.55 100 1.60 100 1.65 98.1 1.60 100 Medicine 3.75 22.2 1.89 16.7 4.75 39.6 4.14 30.6 Tests 5.98 7.4 0 0 7.75 7.5 6.17 6.1 Transportation 0.90 22.2 0.58 16.7 0.93 75.5 0.90 50 Number of women 27   18   53   98                     Second Visit Consultation 1.00 100 2.58 100 1.97 100 1.71 100 Medicine 2.16 40 3.21 66.7 3.31 50 2.99 48.4 Transportation 0.69 20 1.11 33.3 0.76 94.4 0.77 16.1 Number of women 10   3   18   31   Composition of expenditures. Lab tests constituted the largest share (48%) of PNC expenditures followed by medicine (32%), consultation (12%), and transportation (7%). Almost all women reported paying for consultation and half the women reported paying for transportation. Few women paid for the expenditures on lab tests, but the unit costs were substantial. [image: image8.emf] FP Services Use of FP methods. Figure 7 presents results on the use of FP services among the 2,347 currently married women of reproductive age (MWRA) who were interviewed. Over 48 percent of all MWRA reported currently using a modern or traditional method. Variation of contraceptive use across income groups was also noteworthy: 43 percent of poor women reported using a contraceptive method in comparison with 56 percent of not poor women. Method mix. A majority of current contraceptive users reported that either they had been sterilized (58%) or their husbands had been (4%). High reliance on permanent methods was reported in each of the three SES groups. Approximately 80 percent of poor women reported relying on sterilization, followed by 68 percent of near poor and 48 percent of not poor women. Reliance on permanent methods decreases with an increase in wealth. Regarding other FP methods, 2.8 percent of women reported using intrauterine devices (IUDs), 7.5 percent reported using pills, and 17.7 percent reported using condoms. Not poor women were three times as likely to rely on condoms as poor women—probably because of an increase in male participation in FP decisions among higher income families. Use of oral contraceptive pills is also substantially higher among not poor households. Traditional methods appeared to be used by only a small portion of respondents (9.8%). Source of services. This section presents results on the source of FP supplies and services for women who reported acceptance of sterilization or IUDs in the two years prior to the survey and for women currently using pills and condoms. Over 700 women had been sterilized in the past two years; of these, more than three-fourths received services from the public sector. Approximately 50 percent of IUD insertions were conducted in the public sector. Between 80–90 percent of not poor and near poor women compared with 58 percent of poor women rely on pharmacies and shops for pills and condoms. Out-of-pocket expenditures. The average out-of-pocket expenditure for sterilization was $14.67 (see Table 11). Women who used private services for sterilization paid more ($89.18) than women using public services ($0.47). Only 8 percent of women used private services. Table 11: Mean Expenditures on Family Planning Services and Methods and Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Type of Service and by Economic Status (US$)   Type of costs Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Sterilization 17.00 100 9.09 100 15.35 100 14.67 100 IUDs 1.82 100 2.16 100 4.38 100 3.78 100 Oral Pills/condoms 0.16 100 0.31 100 0.33 100 0.30 100                 Sterilization                 Services 25.15 33.3 12.79 30.8 14.84 21.4 20.13 29.6 Medicine 13.48 22.2 4.99 30.8 17.72 28.6 12.26 25.9 Transportation 2.90 100.0 2.81 100.0 5.36 100.0 3.51 100.0 Food/room 4.91 55.6 2.63 30.8 12.19 14.3 5.18 38.9 Number of women 27   13   14   54                     IUDs               IUCD 0.27 25.0 0 0.0 5.52 25.0 4.77 21.9 Services 0 0.0 0.74 75.0 2.77 66.7 2.43 59.4 Medicine 1.11 25.0 1.77 25.0 1.57 41.7 1.55 37.5 Transportation 1.96 75.0 1.55 75.0 0.76 66.7 1.03 68.8 Number of women 4   4   24   32                     Pills/condoms               Supplies 0.16 100 0.31 100 0.33 99.4 0.31 99.6 Number of women 27   39   176   242   Women who received FP supplies from public providers received them free of charge. Users of pills and condoms from the private sector reported spending an average of $0.31 for a one-month supply. Composition of expenditures. Table 11 also presents the composition of expenditures for women who reported acceptance of sterilization and IUDs in the two years prior to the survey. Sterilization services/procedures constituted the majority of expenses (49%), followed by medicine (30%), transportation (9%), and food and lodging (13%). The IUD device constituted the largest share (49%) of IUD expenditures, followed by services (insertion and consultation) (25%), medicines (16%), and transportation (11%). Child Healthcare Services Use. Among the 575 women who currently had a child two years of age or younger, 85 percent reported using some child healthcare services, either preventive or curative. The rate of use was slightly higher among women in the near poor and not poor groups than in the poor group. Source of care. Almost one-third of women who used child health services reported receiving them at a public facility. The main locations for child health care include public facilities (34%), homes (32%), private facilities (17%), and other facilities (16.5%). Poor women were more likely to receive public services at home and less likely to use facility-based public services than not poor women. In addition, poor and near poor women used “other” facilities, which largely composed of indigent and traditional healthcare practitioners. More than 70 percent of child healthcare services were provided by ANMs and nurses to children across all SES groups. Out-of-pocket expenditures. Approximately 30 percent of women who used child healthcare services reported paying out-of-pocket costs. As expected, women who sought services from public providers at home or at facilities were likely to pay less out-of-pocket than women who consulted providers at private facilities. On average, a client was likely to spend $0.42 on the first child healthcare visit when care was received from practitioners in public facilities, compared with $3.88 when care was received only from a private facility. Among the 33 percent of women who received public services at home, a small portion reported paying for services. On average, women reported spending $6.87 on child health care (see Table 13). The average cost for the first child healthcare visit was approximately $2.73, followed by the second visit $2.10, and the third visit $2.02. The average cost for child healthcare was approximately $5.06, $3.62, and $9.24 for poor, near poor, and not poor women, respectively. Women in higher income groups were more likely to use private facilities for child healthcare and, in turn, spend more money. Composition of expenditures. Table 13 also presents the composition of expenditures for women who reported paying out-of-pocket for child healthcare services. Medicine comprised the bulk of expenses (42%), followed by food and lodging (29%), consultation (19%), and transportation (10%) for the first child healthcare visit. Table 13: Mean Expenditures on Child Healthcare Services and Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Type and by Economic Status   Type of costs Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Child Health Care                 Total 5.06 100 3.62 100 9.24 100 6.87 100 First Visit 1.68 100 1.13 100 3.85 100 2.74 100 Second visit 1.92 100 1.17 100 2.63 100 2.11 100 Third visit 1.46 100 1.33 100 2.75 100 2.02 100                   First Visit                 Consultation 0.82 100 0.58 100 2.16 100 1.49 100 Medicine 2.70 12.5 1.99 16.7 3.71 30 3.31 22.7 Transportation 1.02 40 0.55 36.7 0.72 53.75 0.76 46.7 Food and Lodging 1.62 7.5 0.22 6.7 3.87 5 2.30 6 Number of women 40   30   80   150                     Second Visit                 Consultation 0.82 100 0.75 100 1.30 100 1.05 100 Medicine 2.86 24.2 0.91 11.1 2.53 37.7 2.47 28.1 Transportation 0.75 54.5 0.78 40.7 0.60 62.3 0.67 55.4 Number of women 33   27   61   121                     Third Visit                 Consultation 0.90 96.6 0.88 100 1.50 100 1.17 99.1 Medicine 2.34 17.2 2.19 14.3 3.90 23.5 3.21 19.4 Transportation 0.66 27.6 0.39 35.7 0.66 51.0 0.58 41.7 Number of women 29   28   51   108   RTI Services Prevalence of RTIs. About 19 percent of women (446 respondents) reported an RTI-related symptom in the past six months. Women fell into this category if they reported pain or burning while urinating, pain in the abdomen during intercourse, or blood after intercourse when not menstruating. The proportion of women who reported having an RTI was higher among poor and near poor women (21%) compared with [image: image9.emf]not poor women (16%). Considering the high likelihood that women do not easily divulge information on RTIs, the estimated incidence reported here may not represent actual numbers. Use of RTI treatment. Only 25 percent of women who reported an RTI-related symptom reported seeking medical help. A larger proportion (32%) of not poor and near poor women reported seeking treatment, while only 15 percent of poor women sought treatment (see Figure 9). This statistic highlights the low priority given to such problems by women themselves and by other members of the household who participate in healthcare decisionmaking and may contribute negatively to pregnancy and delivery outcomes. In general, low use of healthcare services among the poor is very common. Source of services. The private sector is the preferred source of RTI treatment across all SES groups. The data highlight the relevance and importance of private providers in offering RTI services. More than 60 percent of users reported visits to private facilities to treat RTIs, followed by public facilities (22%), and other facilities (11%), including indigenous practitioners. Private sector practitioners are known to provide confidentiality and respectful attention the users of such services. Out-of-pocket expenditures. Nearly 90 percent of users incurred a cost for RTI treatment; an average user expected to spend $14.38 (see Table 14). On average, poor, near poor, and not poor women spent $15.29, $15.77, and $15.99, respectively, on RTI treatment. The cost of treatment was much higher at private facilities than public facilities. For example, for the first RTI visit, the average cost of treatment from private providers was $29.29, more than ten times the cost of treatment from public providers ($2.39). The costs of public and private services were comparable for the second, third, and fourth visits, and the use of public facilities increased for subsequent visits. Table 14: Mean Expenditures on RTI Services and Percent Distribution of Expenditures by Type of Service and by Economic Status (US$) Type of costs Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent RTI                 Total 15.28 100 15.77 100 15.99 100 14.38 100 First Visit 3.98 100 5.38 100 5.29 100 3.69 100 Second visit 5.25 100 5.92 100 5.91 100 5.80 100 Third visit 6.15 100 4.48 100 4.79 100 4.89 100                   First Visit                 Consultation 1.47 100.0 1.93 97.0 1.19 98.1 1.47 9.7 Tests 1.36 11.5 6.28 9.1 5.02 27.8 4.67 18.6 Medicine 2.95 38.5 3.23 45.5 3.21 63.0 3.17 52.2 Transportation 1.35 73.1 2.33 45.5 0.94 70.4 1.34 63.7 Food and Lodging 0.68 19.2 3.35 12.1 0.58 7.4 1.47 11.5 Number of women 26   33   54   113                     Second Visit                 Consultation 1.06 100.0 2.25 100 1.36 100 1.64 100 Tests 2.04 45.5 4.86 26.1 5.25 35.7 4.38 33.9 Medicine 4.25 54.5 3.36 34.8 2.61 75.0 3.06 56.5 Transportation 0.95 90.9 2.00 52.2 0.75 89.3 1.11 75.8 Food and Lodging 0.89 9.1 4.43 4.3 0.48 10.7 1.35 8.1 Number of women 11   23   28   62                     Third Visit                 Consultation 0.91 100.0 1.73 100 1.75 100 1.61 100.0 Tests 0.13 40.0 1.92 23.1 3.32 33.3 2.25 30.3 Medicine 7.20 60.0 3.41 30.8 2.33 53.3 3.59 45.5 Transportation 0.78 100.0 1.35 61.5 1.03 66.7 1.07 72.7 Food and Lodging 0.44 20.0 5.54 7.7 0 0.0 2.99 6.1 Number of women 5   13   15   33   [image: image10.emf][image: image11.emf]Composition of expenditures. On average, out-of-pocket expenditures for the first RTI visit include tests (39%), medicine (26%), consultation (12%), food and lodging (12%), and transportation (11%) (see Figures 10 and 11 for a break down in the public and private sectors). Knowledge of Facilities’ Policies on User Fees and Exemptions Approximately 90 percent of women, regardless of poverty status, had knowledge of registration fees in public facilities. Despite this, only a quarter of women were aware of user fees for other kinds of services such as lab tests and paying wards. Knowledge about exemption schemes and availability of free services for the poor was low across SES groups; only 10 percent of women in the poor and near poor groups were aware of exemptions for the poor in public facilities. Attitudes About Costs of ANC and Normal Delivery Care A large percent of women (72% poor, 60% near poor, and 63% not poor women) did not approve of paying any user fees in public facilities. Approximately 22 percent of not poor women, followed by 20 percent of near poor and 14 percent of poor women did approve of some user fees. Approximately 15–20 percent of women across SES groups approved of all user fees for public services. Of 1,943 women, approximately 80 percent of women in all SES groups rated public sector services as being average on a five-point scale. Approximately 15 percent of all women rated public services as being of bad quality. Approximately 83 percent of poor women, followed by near poor (76%) and not poor (75%) women, reported that the quality of public services remained more or less the same after the introduction of user fees—compared with approximately 22 percent of near poor and not poor women that did believe they had improved. However, only 14 percent of poor women reported improvement in public services. The willingness to pay was contingent on the perceived improvement in the quality of services. More than 50 percent of all women were willing to pay for improved quality. Approximately 10 percent of women reported that doctors requested payments in addition to the formal user fee. Approximately 16 percent of not poor women and 11 percent of poor and near poor women reported that other healthcare providers asked for informal payments. Often, women needed to travel long distances, undergo long waits in crowded public facilities, and buy their own medicines. As shown in Table 15, the main reasons reported for non-use of public services included high transportation costs (41%), costly medicines (14%), long waiting time (13%), and the service providers usually absent (5%). Sixty percent of poor women and 41 percent of near poor women who did not use public facilities attributed the decision to high transportation costs. Approximately 11 percent of poor women and 17 percent of near poor women who did not use public facilities attributed the decision to high medicine costs. The high cost for transportation and medicines combined was reported as the main impediment for 70 percent of poor and 60 percent of near poor women. Table 15: Reasons for Not Using Government Healthcare Facilities (percent) Poor Near Poor Not poor Total High transportation costs 60.45 41.43 28 41.09 Staff not courteous 0.75 4.29 2.5 2.23 Prescribe costly medicines 10.45 17.14 16 14.36 Long waiting time 6.72 10 19 13.37 Staff are discriminatory 0 1.43 1 0.74 Unclean 0 0 2 0.99 Timing not suitable 1.49 0 1 0.99 Service providers are usually absent 5.97 8.57 3 4.95 Any other 12.69 14.29 26 19.55 Number of women 134 70 200 404 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Participants indicated that medicines and supplies constituted a large portion of expenditures on ANC and delivery services. Generally, medicine and supplies are not available in public facilities and respondents are asked to buy them from private stores. Public health facilities are limited to the free provision of iron tablets, at times calcium, and necessary immunizations for the mother and child. Participants identified “backshish” (informal payments to non-medical staff) as compulsory expenditures in obtaining services at health facilities. The demeaning attitude and monetary demand of the midwives and sisters in the labor room necessitates such payments by patients. Patients were also asked to pay sweepers, cleaners, aayas and jamadars in the hospital wards in order to obtain maternal health services. This section summarizes the findings of 16 FGDs conducted in rural and urban areas of selected districts in Uttaranchal. Antenatal Care Information gathered from the FGDs on ANC is shown in Table 16. Table 16: Key Findings of Four Focus Groups on ANC Formal Entry fee X Registration Fee Cost of Antenatal Health Card Hospital visit: if consultation beyond 15 days, then another charge of Rs.5 $0.11 for entire period of pregnancy $0.11 for 15 days Supplies X Doctor’s fee X Blood and other lab tests including ultrasound Lab tests in hospital: $0.13–1.11 Lab tests in private labs: $2.22 Ultrasounds: $3.32 (public hospital) Ultrasounds: $7.75–8.86 (private) Medicines Only iron tablets received free of charge from government facilities. All other prescriptions have to be purchased privately US$1.11-11.08/ month Getting to the hospital Bus: $0.22 (both ways) Three-wheeler: $0.22 (both ways) Ropeway: $1.33 (both ways) Taxis: $4.43 (both ways) Entry fee—to guard X Ward boys, sweepers, ayahs, others To nurses, dais, aayas, etc X Total formal and informal expenditures on ANC $17.72–26.59 Entry/registration fee. Across all four FGDs at the different locations, participants stated that no entry fees were paid to enter any health facility; however, they were charged a one-time registration fee of $0.11. Supplies. Women participants reported that they did not need to bring any supplies to the health facility. Providers’ fees. The participants from rural Dehradun shared that even if ANMs made home visits, they did not charge a fee. In FGDs with husbands, they stated that if their wives wished to avoid consultation with the doctor at the public hospital, she could have a private consultation at the doctor’s residence for $1.11. This was considered payment for better service by “inside” public doctors for “outside” the public hospital. Payments to lab technicians. As not all FGD participants had undergone lab tests, there was no consistent outcome across all FGDs on this topic. In rural Dehradun, no participants reported having any lab tests. In urban Dehradun, respondents did have blood and urine tests when advised by doctors at the hospital. The costs of lab tests at the public hospital varied; while the urine test cost $0.89, blood tests ranged from $0.13–$0.44. The high cost of the urine test was due to the test kit that had to be purchased at a private store for $0.89; the testing and the report were given at no charge by the hospital. According to participants, payments for all tests were made to the lab technicians and patients received receipts, although the amount paid was not always specified. Only a few participants shared that since March 2003, the cost of blood tests had become $0.13 and the amount was included on the receipt. Some other participants made no payment for blood tests. The delivery of lab reports generally took one day, even in times of emergency. Participants incurred no informal costs for better or faster service. Participants who were advised to have an ultrasound had them done at private clinics, as this service was unavailable at public facilities. Costs were high, ranging from $3.32–9.97. Rural and urban Nainital participants had similar perspectives on their care, as they all received services at only one public hospital in Nainitaal. They stated that both blood and urine lab tests were available at the hospital, but sometimes doctors would ask them to take the tests at a private facility and even suggested which lab tests to have done. The cost of these tests in private labs was $2.22. If the tests were done inside the hospital, the cost varied. Urban participants stated that charges generally ranged from $0.55–1.11; however, there was one exception when a participant paid only $0.20–0.22. In contrast, rural respondents stated that they paid approximately $2.22 in private facilities compared with $0.88 for the same tests in public facilities. FGD participants reported that money for lab tests, if done at the hospital, was paid to the clerk, but receipts were not given to the women. Test reports at the public hospital were not available until the next day; in private facilities, reports were available the same day. According to rural Nainital women, doctors still often advise them to have ultrasounds. Generally, the ultrasound is given once in the early period of pregnancy and again in the ninth month. The ultrasound facility at the hospital is not well equipped, but the cost is lower; women paid approximately $3.32 in public facilities and from $7.74–9.97 in private facilities. The findings of FGDs with husbands supported the responses from women. However, husbands added that because many doctors recommend patients have tests done at private facilities, patients do not trust the reliability of lab tests done at public hospitals. Despite knowing that the same tests can be undertaken at public hospitals, participants preferred private labs to save themselves the bother of repeating tests in case the reports are faulty or incomplete. Having had such experiences, they expressed a loss of faith in public hospital labs. Payments to other health staff. All FGD participants stated that no payments are made to any other staff at health facilities. This is because for ANC, women only interact with doctors, ANMs, or health post workers. Interaction with the lab technician is limited to during lab tests and only formal fees are charged for tests. Injections at the hospital are given by nurses, who do not require a separate service charge. Payments for medications. All FGD participants complained about the lack of medicines available at various facility levels. Only iron and calcium tablets were available free of charge to participants at the public health facility; however, only respondents from rural Dehradun received iron tablets in the third month of their pregnancy. At no other location did women receive even the required dosage of iron for the entire recommended period. The perception among participants is that only low-cost medicines are available at the hospital (like iron and calcium); all other medicine, if and when prescribed by doctors, must be purchased at private stores. The costs of such medications were high and varied; according to participants, during pregnancy, women spent between $1.11–11.08. One-time prescriptions by public facility-based doctors that had to be purchased at private stores usually cost from $2.22–3.32. Participants sometimes had to cut down on or not take medicines for the entire prescribed period because of low funds; since they feel ashamed, they do not discuss this with their doctors or ask them to prescribe cheaper medicines. When participants had to purchase injections at private stores, they reported purchasing them in Nainital and had them administered for free by an Ayurvedic doctor in their village. Several husbands from rural Nainital shared that although iron and calcium tablets were available for free, clients who could afford to purchase them did so because the hospital tablets were given as open tablets and, in most cases, were outdated. This raises serious questions about the quality of medicine and care available at low-cost. Other costs/gifts. None of the respondents made any other payments in cash or kind, either inside or outside the health facility. Participants from urban Dehradun and rural Nainital stressed that the only financial benefit of seeking services at the public hospital was the low doctor fees; other costs of receiving care were equally costly. Total cost for ANC. Rural Nainital participants reported that the approximate total cost incurred was between $33.23 and $44.31, inclusive of travel, food, and medicine taken during pregnancy. For complicated pregnancies, participants estimated that the costs doubled. Exemptions. None of the respondents were aware of exemptions for ANC. Respondents in rural Dehradun considered ANC services in their sub-centre as being “free services.” They could only identify women who might need free ANC as those living in poor, low-income households; those who are single or deserted; or those with no other support structure in the family to meet their needs. Assessment of expenditures. Most participants considered their expenditure on ANC to be reasonable and affordable (except for the costs of ultrasounds and some medicines). Participants at urban Nainitaal considered it impossible for the government to provide everything and were satisfied to spend money on health. One rural participant from Dehradun considered the cost of $0.11 for a registration card to be expensive if all public services are supposed to be free, voicing the perception of participants that public services are free. Managing costs. According to urban Dehradun participants, women tried to save money by reducing or eliminating travel costs (traveling to the hospital on foot). Other women compromised on medication, taking a smaller dose or taking doses less frequently than prescribed. Some participants reported having to borrow money from relatives. Getting to the health facility. The experiences were different for Dehradun and Nainital participants. In Dehradun, participants stated that having a health post near their residential area made it easy to travel to the health facility without incurring any cost (most chose to walk 15 minutes to the health post). If it was necessary to get to the public hospital, they traveled in hired vehicles; the cost of round-trip travel came to between $0.13 and $0.22. Rural participants were also considerably fortunate to walk for a maximum of 15 minutes—to reach the health sub-centre. They did not incur any travel costs, and spent less than one hour per visit to the centre. In addition, they could call an ANM for free home visits if they were unable to reach the center. In contrast, in urban Nainital, participants had no health facility nearby and only used the services of the public hospital. In most cases, they walked to the hospital because it was downhill and not too cumbersome (about 30 minutes); however, to avoid the discomfort of a long return journey up a steep hill (60 minutes), they opted to either take a trolley or hire taxis (30 minutes). Both are costly—$0.66 for the trolley (round-trip) or $2.22 for the taxi (round-trip). Participants also incurred indirect costs as a result of time away from work and household chores. A single visit to the hospital usually entailed a loss of about half a day. The experiences of rural Nainital participants were similar; because of the village being 20 kms from Nainital, respondents had to travel by public transport (jeeps or buses). The cost was $0.22 (round-trip). On average, participants visited the hospital once a month for ANC, but most participants only started care after their third month of pregnancy. For those who attended ANC clinics more frequently because of problems, the direct cost incurred was not as significant as the indirect cost of time lost in going to the hospital; most women left home around 8 a.m. and did not return until 3 or 4 p.m. Home Deliveries Supplies. Participants reported paying for delivery supplies, including injections, syringes, gloves, antiseptic, castor, cotton, gauze, and clean bed sheets and towels. The approximate costs of these supplies ranged from $4.43–6.65. ANMs provided the delivery kit. Providers’ fees. No fixed fees are charged by ANMs for home delivery. The payments made were considered honorariums, as ANMs did not ask for any money. The amount given ranged from $8.86–11.08 per delivery. Participants shared that the convenience of using an ANM for home delivery is that the honorarium can be made at any time. Also, the ANM might take less money for a home delivery, depending on the financial status of the individual. Urban Dehradun participants stated that one ANM even gave money to the newborn as a way of expressing her happiness for the birth of a child, rather than taking money. Payments for medications. Participants felt assured that the ANM, through the facility, took care of all the necessary medicines required for both mother and child. Other costs/gifts. No other payments or gifts were given to the ANM after delivery, except her honorarium for conducting the delivery. After delivery, the ANM visited regularly over the next 5 days to conduct PNC for the mother and child; there was no additional charge for these visits. PNC included a check-up, injections for the mother, and eye drops for the child. Rural Dehradun participants stated that the only cost incurred post-delivery was for the registration of the newborn at the sub-centre ($0.11). No separate costs were incurred for the birth certificate as it was based on the registration card. Table 17: Expenses Incurred on Home Deliveries (US$) Fees paid to ANM 8.86–11.08 Card (mother & child) 0.22 Medicines and supplies 8.86–11.08 Paid to TBAs (massage and ceremony) 11.08–13.29 Total expenses incurred on home delivery 31.02–35.45 Total cost for home delivery. The total average cost reported by rural respondents at Dehradun was about $33.23 ($11.08 to ANM for delivery, $11.08 to TBAs on the 11th day ceremony, and $11.08 on medicines and supplies) (see Table 17). Exemptions. Participants were not aware of the availability of free services to poor families. Rural and urban Dehradun participants felt that such decisions were likely to be made by the ANM, who might conduct certain home deliveries for free or accept payment at a later time. Assessment of expenditures. Rural and urban Dehradun participants believed that home delivery costs are reasonable and affordable, primarily because a hospital delivery costs more. Furthermore, rural participants were cautious of unexpected costs incurred in hospital deliveries. Participants also felt that delivery costs were better managed at home by elders, as they had more experience. Managing costs. Most delivery expenses were met by the family itself, with elders contributing. Advance savings and preparation for delivery was common among participants. If low on funds, they would borrow money from neighbors and relatives. Hospital Deliveries Entry and registration fees. Rural Dehradun participants indicated that their health card remained valid throughout pregnancy, delivery, and post-delivery care. The one-time cost was $0.11. The cost of a doctor's consultation at periodic intervals entailed a parchi (registration slip/receipt) of $0.11 that is charged at the hospital and remains valid for 15 days. Urban participants indicated that $0.55 was paid at the time of admission for delivery. The cost of admission/registration was the same for all participants. Husbands in rural Dehradun noted that despite registering for delivery at the public hospital, they kept an extra registration card for the private hospital in case of an emergency that cannot be handled at the public hospital. Providers’ fees. Most participants stated that no fees for consultation or formal costs were paid directly to doctors. Rural Dehradun participants reported that nurses or midwives who assisted the doctors in delivery asked for money; when they did not ask, they still accepted any money offered. The amount ranged from $11.08–28.80. Participants who had complicated deliveries requiring operations were asked to make a deposit at the hospital for which proper receipts were given. While one respondent deposited $24.37, another was asked to deposit only $8.86. According to urban Nainital participants, the bed charges were $2.22 and $0.55 per day in a private and general ward, respectively. Payments to lab technicians. Generally, participants did not need tests during or after delivery. Most tests were recommended in the antenatal period. Ultrasounds were prescribed when the child’s position was not clear, or generally, participants were told to have one ultrasound before delivery, but this service was unavailable at public hospitals. Consequently, ultrasounds were done at private clinics or radiology centers and the cost varied, ranging from $8.86–17.72. However, one respondent from urban Deharadun noted having an ultrasound at Doon Hospital for just $3.32. Payments to other health staff. All participants noted making informal payments to other health facility staff, including sweepers, ward boys, aayas, dais, and jamadars. Demands for money began in the labor room just after delivery. Three to four midwives/sisters each asked for an average of $2.22. Patients needed to haggle if they could not meet their demands and wanted to pay less. Participants complained about the poor quality of services and especially the rude behavior of health staff. The collective number of those receiving informal payments was as high as 10. The costs incurred were from $1.11–2.22 per staff member. On average, the total payment made to all staff members amounted to $11.08. If the payments made were not acceptable to the health staff, more money would be demanded (see Table 18). Table 18: Costs Incurred for Hospital Deliveries Formal and informal costs Entry fee X Registration fee (antenatal; if delivery beyond the 15 days, then another $0.11) $0.11 for 15 days Admission fee $0.55 Bed fee (general ward) $0.33–0.55/day Bed Fee (private ward) $2.22/day Supplies (towels, pads, cotton, dettol) $22.15–44.31 Medicines $4.43–66.47 Doctor’s fee X Blood and other lab tests including ultrasounds $8.86–17.72 Operation costs $33.23–144.01 Other costs Getting to the hospital $4.43–6.65 Entry fee—to guard X Ward boys, sweepers, aayas, nurses, dais, others $11.08–28.80 Formal and informal costs incurred for hospital deliveries $88.62–177.25 According to participants, payments were generally demanded based on the perceived economic status of the patient. In addition, the sex of the newborn played an important role; husbands noted that the birth of a boy commanded a bigger “gift” for each staff member. Generally, payments were made at the time of discharge, when staff members, either collectively or separately, demanded money, presenting a potentially embarrassing situation for women with financial problems. Sometimes respondents paid in advance to receive better services. The attitude of health staff was demanding, rude, and bothersome for the patients and family. To avoid unpleasantness, most women felt compelled to pay and make peace. Payments for medications. The main expense in hospital delivery was the cost of medicine that had to be regularly purchased from private stores. Rarely were medicines provided at the hospital. If they were, payments were made post-delivery. One participant commented that if medicines or supplies were required for an emergency, they were provided by the hospital, but had to be replaced by the patient. Health facilities requested most medications and supplies before delivery. Such items as cotton, gauze, gloves, glucose, and syringes had to be purchased. In the case of a caesarian, all medicines had to be purchased before the operation, the costs of which ranged from $32.23–110.78. For normal delivery, rural Dehradun participants said the combined cost for medicine and supplies ranged from $3.32–11.08. Nainital participants spent from $44.31–66.47. An urban Nainital participant incurred approximately $132.94 for caesarian delivery, including the cost of medicine ($88.62) and other hospital charges ($48.74). Only iron tablets and immunizations were provided for free at the hospital (calcium must be purchased). The cost of calcium was $1.44 per bottle for an urban Nainital participant. Sometimes a tonic for strength was prescribed to women, which had to be purchased from a private store ($1.11–3.32). Participants reported an inconsistency in the way medicines were prescribed. Different doctors on duty checked on hospitalized patients after delivery and prescribed different medicines. Thus, it was difficult for patients to know which medicine to take when. This caused an unnecessary waste of both medicine and money as medical stores refused to change medicine or refund payments. The only benefit available at Doon Hospital was for those who did not bring food from home; they were provided meals (milk, porridge, etc.) for free. Other costs/gifts. Most demands were for cash, not in-kind gifts. Participants did not tend to differentiate between payments made to health staff or any other sort of monetary costs incurred outside or inside the facility. This was primarily because all payments were asked for or demanded by health staff. The issue of making voluntary payments is ambiguous because it has become a customary practice to give some token amount to health staff at the birth of a child. Exemptions. Participants were not aware of free delivery care and they did not know of anyone who had received it. Most participants felt that the lack of awareness of exemption policies and the insensitivity of people toward others’ condition created more problems, rather than facilitating support for the needy. An urban Dehradun participant suggested that people who could afford to contribute should share responsibility with the government to provide for needy women. Assessment of expenditures. Most participants believed that some expenses have to be borne for delivery care; the health and safety of mother and child is of primary concern and, therefore, the expenditure incurred is both affordable and reasonable. However, participants with financial difficulties did find the cost of medications high. Expectations are that medicine should also be available at the hospital; only then will public hospitals truly seem less expensive. Urban Dehradun participants reported that public hospitals can be considered expensive when extra costs (implying informal payments demanded by health staff) have to be paid. At the same time, participants agreed that women need to be bold and raise awareness to stop this practice. Collectively, all agree that in comparison with private hospitals, the costs in public hospitals are less. The husbands from Dehradun felt they were overcharged at the hospital. This was largely due to the informal costs incurred for non-medical staff (see Appendix 2 for details). They agreed that if one knew in advance what the delivery fees were, and was then charged accordingly, the costs would be reasonable. Managing costs. Across all focus groups, women did not independently manage money or delivery costs. In most cases, family members pooled resources to meet expenses and saved money in preparation for meeting delivery costs. In times of emergency, or when funds were low, some participants borrowed money to meet expenses. Such help was generally sought from relatives or neighbors. Out-of-Pocket Expenditures on ANC and Delivery Services: Comparing the Data Table 19: Out-of-Pocket Expenditures: FGDs and Household Survey Type of service FGDs Household survey ANC $17.72–26.59 $3.66 Home delivery $31.02–35.45 $6.65 Hospital delivery $88.62–177.25 $93.05 FGD participants reported a higher level of out-of-pocket expenditure on ANC and delivery services compared with household survey respondents. This may be due to detailed reporting of informal expenses during the FGDs. Women focus group participants indicated that they spent from $17.72–26.59 on ANC services, including payments for registration fees, medicine, supplies, transportation, tips, lab tests, and ultrasounds. In contrast, the household survey showed that the average expenditure on ANC was $3.66 for consultations, tests, medicines, transportation, and food and lodging. Similarly, compared to the household survey ($6.65), FGDs revealed a higher level of expenditure on home delivery ($31.02–35.45) for medicines, supplies, consultation fees for ANMs, and tips/gifts to dai. Table 19 presents the total out-of-pocket expenditures revealed by the household survey and FGDs. 8. Bringing it together: policies, practices, and women’s perspectives There is growing evidence that when informal fees for additional supplies or drugs are necessary, they comprise a large proportion of spending (Schuler, 2002; Barber, 2004). A formal user fee should protect clients from the unpredictability of informal fees, in addition to reducing out-of-pocket expenditures. Ultimately, it can improve accessibility and availability of free services for the poor through cross subsidization. Formal and Informal Fees of ANC and Normal Delivery Care Total out-of-pocket costs include the actual expenditures incurred by users of public ANC or delivery services (for consultations, medicine, tests, transportation, supplies, and food and lodging). Informal fees and other costs to access services are calculated by subtracting formal fees from the actual out-of-pocket expenditures. Informal fees = total out-of-pocket expenditures - formal fees Table 20: Formal Vs. Informal Fees Paid by Public Sector Users (US$) ANC Delivery Home Facility Home Facility Poor Formal fee 0 0 0 0 Out-of-pocket expenses 0.25 1.90 3.81 36.05 Informal fee 0.25 1.90 3.81 36.05 Near poor Formal fee 0 0.33 0 4.43 Out-of-pocket expenses 0.90 2.64 5.41 28.33 Informal fee 0.90 2.31 5.41 23.90 Not poor Formal fee 0 0.33 0 11.08 Out-of-pocket expenses 1.67 5.10 9.11 34.00 Informal fee 1.67 4.76 9.11 22.92 All Women Formal fee 0 0.33 0 6.65 Out-of-pocket expenses 0.74 3.66 5.98 33.11 Informal fee 0.74 3.32 5.98 26.46 Per public sector records and provider interviews, the formal fee for an ANC visit is $0.33. It includes facility entrance and registration fees, provider services/consultations, drugs, nutrition supplements, iron, other supplies, TT immunizations, and counseling (see Table 20). The formal fees for a normal delivery in general and private/paying wards are $4.43 and $11.08, respectively. Comparisons of stated formal fees with actual expenses incurred by users of public services indicate that informal payments constitute a large proportion of total expenditures; this is because of the inadequacy of medicine, supplies, transportation to facilities, and lab equipment. For example, drugs are often not available at public facilities, so clients must purchase their medicine at private medical stores. Apart from these expenses, women reported paying for child care and experiencing a loss of wages. A number of recent surveys also reveal that informal payments constitute a large proportion of out-of-pocket expenses (Barber, et al. 2004; Nahar and Costello 1998; Sepehri, et al. 2005). Proportion of Fees That Are Formal and Informal As services at public facilities are supposed to be free for the poor, payments made by this group on registration, medicine, tests, transportation, and food are considered informal. Thus, 100 percent of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by poor women on ANC and delivery services are informal. Similarly, there is no formal fee for home-based ANC and delivery care given by public sector providers. Therefore, any out-of-pocket expenses incurred by poor, near poor, and not poor women for these services are considered informal. Informal fees account for 87 percent of facility-based ANC expenditures and 84 percent of institutional delivery expenditures for the near poor. For the not poor, the proportion of actual expenditures that are informal is 93 percent for ANC and 67 percent for delivery care services at public facilities. Overall, informal fees constitute more than 80 percent of actual expenditures incurred by public sector users (see Table 21). Table 21: Proportion of Fee That Is Informal (US$) ANC Birth Delivery Home Facility Home Facility Poor Out-of-pocket expenses 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 100% 100% 100% Near poor Out-of-pocket expenses 40.67 119.3 244.4 1278.8 Informal 40.67 104.3 244.4 1078.8 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 87% 100% 84% Not poor Out-of-pocket expenses 75.55 230 411.2 1534.5 Informal 75.55 215 411.2 1034.5 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 93% 100% 67% All women Out-of-pocket expenses 33.56 165 270 1494.49 Informal 33.56 150 270 1194.49 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 91% 100% 80% Differences Between Client and Provider Perspectives on Fees There are significant differences in the formal fees reported, providers’ perspective on fees paid by clients, and what clients actually pay for services. For example, the stated formal fee for delivery in a general ward is approximately $4.43. However, according to providers, clients incur direct and indirect costs in addition to the formal fee because, often, medicine, lab supplies, and nutritional supplements are not available at the hospital. Payments are also made for transportation, food and lodging, and child care. Most providers suggested that lower level staff, such as the sweeper and ward aaya, ask for additional payments. All these payments add up to $17.72–22.16 for delivery services, an amount that is 4–5 times higher than the stated fee (see Figure 12 on the following page). According to focus group participants, women pay informal fees from $33.23–44.31. The household survey reveals that women pay approximately $33.23 on delivery services in public facilities. This amount is seven times higher than the official fee and twice the amount suggested by providers. FGDs revealed that women spent from $88.62–177.25 on normal delivery in public facilities. This figure corresponds with the average amount of $88.62 indicated in the household survey, which includes expenses for public and private services. [image: image3.emf] 9. Conclusions This section presents the study’s main findings, specifically, the financial barriers to reproductive health care and policy changes to improve access to such services among poor women. The Effectiveness of Exemption Policies Costs of services lead to low use of reproductive health care among poor women. Despite the government’s efforts and favorable policies to improve service provision, utilization rates for most RH care services analyzed in this study were found to be very low among the poor. Only 7 percent of poor women had facility deliveries, and only 18.5 percent used PNC services. Moreover, the use of other types of RH care services was also found to be low. Forty-one percent of poor women reported currently using a contraceptive method, and only 15 percent of poor women with a RTI reported seeking treatment. Several reasons contribute to this low rate of use, including a lack of awareness of policies, high out-of-pocket expenditures, and poor access to facility-based services. As per the household survey, the high cost of transportation and medicine is reported as the main impediment for 70 percent of poor and 60 percent of near poor women. A recent study also indicates that families are often unwilling to spend much on preventive care and treatment for women (Schuler, 2002). Poor and not poor women benefit equally from highly subsidized government services. A large proportion of women, irrespective of poverty status, rely on public sector services. An unexpected proportion of not poor women benefit from highly subsidized public sector services. However, payments for RH services is a much greater proportion of household income for the poor than for the not poor. This raises the question of whether government services are properly targeted to those women most in need. The establishment of autonomous societies/hospital boards and the introduction of user fees in public hospitals are recent developments in Uttaranchal. Consequently, a significant proportion of facilities still provide free services or charge nominal fees for only a selected number of services. As a result, a large proportion of public sector clients receive free services. Table 22 shows the percentage of poor, near poor and not poor clients who reported receiving free public services. Twenty-nine percent of ANC clients, 18 percent of delivery clients, 57 percent of PNC clients, 77 percent of child healthcare clients, and 25 percent of RTI clients in the not poor category received free services in public facilities. However, public healthcare facilities are not able to generate sufficient revenue to improve the quality of services and cross-subsidize services for poor clients. Table 22: Percentage of Poor, Near Poor and Not Poor Who Received Free Public Services Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total ANC home 84 81 80 82 ANC facility 55 46 29 41 Home delivery 17 8 4 10 Institutional delivery 25 11 18 17 Postnatal care 44 66 59 57 Child healthcare 86 75 72 77 Family planning/sterilization 76 75 85 78 RTI 30 14 33 25 Poor women incurred substantial expenses on RH carematernal health in both public and private sectors. Poor women who paid for RH care in the public and/or private sector spent on average $1.91 on ANC, $4.54 on home delivery, and as high as $66.98 on facility deliveries. On average, they spent $5.03 on PNC, $5.05 on child healthcare, $1.82 on IUD insertion, and $15.27 on RTI services. Comparisons of amounts paid by women seeking services exclusively in public or private facilities demonstrate the gross difference between costs of services. For the first ANC visit, women who reported exclusively using public services spent an average of $0.93, while the corresponding figure for women who only used private services was $6.85. The average cost of using public services for delivery care was $33.10—less than one-fourth the average cost of using private services ($133.09). The average cost of using public services for first PNC was $1.02—less than one-fifth the average cost of using private services ($5.54). Women who used private services for sterilization paid much more ($89.18) than women using public services ($0.47). On average, a client was likely to spend $0.42 on the first child care visit when care was received in public facilities, compared with $3.88 when care was received only in private facilities. For example, for the first RTI visit, the average cost of treatment from private providers was $29.29—more than ten times the cost of treatment from public providers ($2.39). Costs, in part, explain the low use of services among poor women, especially of private healthcare facilities. The Rajasthan 2000 study supports these findings and confirms the large out of-pocket expenditures on reproductive health. Informal payments constitute a significant proportion of out-of-pocket expenses. Per the definition of formal and informal fees presented in this study, all direct and indirect expenses incurred by poor women are informal payments as they are eligible to receive all services free of charge. Unfortunately, because of inadequate exemption mechanisms; the non-availability of medicines, lab services, and transportation to facilities; and the practice of unofficial payments, poor women do incur these expenses. A lack of knowledge and awareness about the availability of free services at the community level adds to the problem. Household data reveals that knowledge of exemption schemes and availability of free services is alarmingly low across SES groups. Only 10 percent of women in the poor and near poor groups are aware of exemptions in public facilities. Implications of the Findings The relatively large size of household out-of-pocket expenditures has a number of important implications on policy formulation. First, households may be an important source of funds that can be used to further improve the availability and quality of public RH services. Second, better targeting mechanisms are required to improve the poor’s access to public services, commodities, and information. Recommended Policy Changes Despite some progress, an unacceptable level of disparity persists between the poor and the not poor regarding access to high-quality RH care services. Growing evidence suggests that, with political support, effectively developing and implementing pro-poor health policies and plans can substantially reduce this disparity. To achieve this result, countries must take a fresh look at mechanisms to finance basic health and RH care and should conduct operational analyses of the barriers to accessing RH care services. These analyses might include reviewing exemptions, user fees, informal and indirect payments (economic costs), and other access costs imposed on poor groups (transportation to clinics, lost wages, and child care); and considering a simplification of means-testing mechanisms, a higher level of financial autonomy, and mechanisms to reduce informal fees. Once the barriers are analyzed, they should be ranked according to which ones can be addressed by the most effective interventions. Below are several specific recommendations on improving access to services for the poor and efficiently managing user fees and resources at the government and facility levels. Generate awareness among low-income clients about the availability of free services and develop a community-based surveillance system. Both clients’ and providers’ poor knowledge and awareness of the availability of free services further limits opportunities for poor women to receive exemptions to which they are entitled; thus poor women continue to incur out-of-pocket expenses. The government should diversify its information dissemination methods and not rely solely on providers. In some cases, providers themselves are not aware of the specifics of exemption categories and mechanisms. In other cases, given that facilities need to supplement their revenues owing to insufficient or delayed government reimbursements, providers simply ignore the mechanisms. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that providers may disregard exemption mechanisms for personal gain (Nahar and Costello, 1998; Sepehri et al., 2005). Facilities need to ensure that information on official fees and exemptions for RH care is accessible to clients and that the process of qualifying for exemptions is simple and transparent. Information should be displayed on bulletin boards in reception and patient sitting areas. Better counseling and effective IEC campaigns can help generate awareness of the availability of free services for the poor. However, awareness alone is not sufficient to ensure that poor clients will receive free services. Surveillance mechanisms, particularly at the community and facility levels, must be created to ensure that facilities are following fee and exemption policies, all standard medications and supplies are being provided, and information is being disseminated to both clients and providers by, for example, training community members to monitor local facilities and advocate for clients’ rights. Kerala state has this kind of mechanism for all primary healthcare. Enforce user fees for those who can afford to pay in order to generate sufficient revenue for quality improvement and to cross-subsidize the poor. The magnitude of formal household out-of-pocket expenditures indicated that households may be an important source of funds for further improving the availability and quality of public sector reproductive health care. The study revealed that better-off clients currently pay for RH care and are willing to pay for high-quality services. The poor women pay out of necessity because of unavailable free services. However, given the nature of the formal user fee system, individual facilities do not have access to a considerable share of the generated revenues that might otherwise be allocated to improving the facilities or their services. Instead, facilities must send fee revenues to the central government or not officially record fees as health facility revenue. A system that allows facilities to retain control over their finances would permit them to improve services and subsidize services offered to the poor. Focused strategies and implementation plans that target free RH care to vulnerable populations and effectively charge user fees for those who can afford to pay can improve access among these groups by minimizing financial barriers. It will be incumbent on the Uttaranchal government to supervise, monitor, and evaluate the user fee system to ensure that it is being properly implemented. Rationalize spending on health services. The regional government needs to collect available and missing data to formulate reasonable estimates of the costs incurred by individual facilities in delivering essential RH care, thereby reducing the need for providers to shift the financial burden to clients, particularly the poor. A provider in Uttaranchal reported that inadequate government funding prompted the charging of user fees to cover the cost of services. Given its limited resources, the public sector should concentrate on serving the poor through cross-subsidizing services or should encourage those who are able to pay to use private sector services. The state government should consider adopting various mechanisms to create protected budget line items for vouchers for services, medicines, and essential supplies for the poor and to establish a fee structure whereby fees at higher-level facilities are greater than those at lower-level facilities. A self-selection mechanism should be established for the poor, as it is cost-effective and simple. Such an approach requires effective government supervision of the facility to ensure proper policy implementation. Rational spending can also be achieved by reducing the inefficient use of resources through, for example, introducing policies that increase the scope of activities that may be performed by less expensive non-physician providers, such as nurses and midwives. Policies should then be amended to reimburse facilities for the full range of services provided by nurses and midwives. Design and implement pro-poor monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Often ministries of health set forth equity as a policy objective in their mission statements but rarely translate it into plans and programs. Ministries are not held accountable for their failure to meet equity objectives largely because of the absence of actionable information to support advocacy efforts and improve the policy environment. Without monitoring indicators, ministries are unable to demonstrate that the poor benefit from exemption mechanisms. Developing RH care indicators by wealth quintiles and rural-urban differences would help determine progress in achieving equity goals. Indicators could include facility-based data such as the use of services by the poor; the application of exemption and waiver mechanisms; or population-based data, such as contraceptive prevalence rates or unmet need among the poor. Allow the health facility administration to retain and use collected revenue. Governments can demonstrate high-level commitment to revenue generation, privatization, and managerial flexibility by granting essential autonomy to hospital administrators. In several countries, the willingness of the state to support, both philosophically and financially, greater autonomy for public sector facilities has been a central factor in the successful implementation of cost recovery programs. Local retention of revenue is essential to improving the quality of services at facilities. At the same time, administrators should be trained in management and procurement to make efficient use of the collected revenues and improve the accessibility of high-quality services. Perhaps government medical boards can set better procurement guidelines for spending the generated revenue from user fees. Minimize informal payments to make services affordable to a larger number of clients. This study shows that informal fees and other access costs create a further barrier to services. For example, in many cases, formal fees and other costs—for supplies and medicines unavailable at the public facility, travel, under-the-table payments, and food and board—leave women with little choice but to forego facility-based delivery care. Yet, as the study demonstrates, simply creating an exemption mechanism is not sufficient to prevent the incurring of informal fees. Both the government and the community need to take an active role in structuring fees and widely disseminating associated policies. Community members can discourage the payment of informal fees by becoming involved in management committees and boards or participating in advocacy groups that articulate the rights of the client and promote the proper implementation of policies. APPENDIX 1 (Government of Uttar Pradesh, 2000) Each board of governor’s committee is to include: 1. District Officer Chairman 2. Chief Medical Superintendent Secretary 3. Chief Medical Officer Member 4. Chairman of Local Municipal Corporation/ Municipal Committee Member 5. Director General or his nominated representative Member 6. Local MLA or his nominated representative Member 7. MLA or his nominated representative Member 8. MP or his nominated representative Member 9. Officer of Finance and Accounts Services Member 10. Social Worker Member The Board of Governors is authorized to Delegate financial power to the Management Executive Committee (MEC) and give financial approval to the schemes beyond the jurisdiction of MEC; Examine financial, income, and expenditure accounts and approve budgets; Assess and approve the MEC’s recommendations regarding the revision of user fees, provision of financial and other incentives for hospital employees, hiring of short-term para-medical and non-clinical persons on a contractual basis, etc; Accept external assistance and grants under suitable terms; Mobilize financial resources under government rules to strengthen the financial position of the committee; and Under an agreement, obtain services from the private sector for special examinations and treatment for which equipment is not available in the hospital. Office bearers and members of the Executive Committee: 1. Chief Medical Superintendent Chairman 2. Superintendent/ Senior Medical Officer Member 3. Representative of Chief Medical Officer Member 4. Senior Medical Specialist Member 5. Finance/Accounting officer Member The MEC is authorized to Make recommendations and seek approval from the Board of Governors regarding setting/revising user fees, providing financial and other incentives to hospital employees, hiring short-term para-medical and non-clinical persons on a contractual basis, utilizing financial resources for implementing various schemes, etc.; and Purchase required equipment and supplies within the approved budget and monitor and manage financial accounts of the committee. APPENDIX 2 Sample Government Facilities   B.D. Pandey Women Hospital SPS Hospital District Women Hospital CHC, Doiwala Govt. Women Hospital CHC, Bageshwar Number of beds             Paying 9 16 23 0 7 0 Free 30 104 88 30 35 30 Number of doctors             Male 0 14 2 6 0 6 Female 3 3 14 1 4 1 Society registration 2003 2003 2003 Not yet 2003 Not yet Society meetings 0 1 1 0 1 0 Expenditures Incurred on Delivery and ANC—Husbands FGD Formal and informal fee Delivery Services ANC Registration Fee $0.04 (rural Dehardun) $0.55 (urban Nainitaal) ANC registration card: $0.11 valid for 9 months ANC hospital visits: $0.11/ 15 days Supplies got with women to the hospital Disposable syringes (optional) Bed Fee (general ward) General: $0.11/day (non-paying) General: $0.55/ day (paying) X Bed Fee (private ward) $2.22/day X Combined costs of Medicines & Supplies (towels, pads, cotton, gauze, syringes, antiseptic etc) Normal delivery: $6.65–44.31 Caesarians: $22.16–110.78 Post delivery medicines for caesarians: $55.39–66.47 Normal pregnancies: $4.43-11.08/month Complicated pregnancies: $110.78–332.34 (total) Doctor’s fee X X Blood and other lab tests including ultrasound (Most tests conducted privately outside government hospital) $0.07–3.32 (government hospital) $8.86–17.72 (at private labs) Combined costs of tests during pregnancy & delivery can go up to $44.31 Operation costs $33.23–144.01 X Getting to the hospital Three-wheeler: $0.66–0.89 Taxis: $4.43–6.65 Bus: $0.22 (round-trip) Three- wheeler: $0.22 (round-trip) Ropeway: $1.33 (round-trip) Taxis: $4.43 (round-trip) Entry fee—to guard X X Medical staff: lady doctors & nurses Non-medical staff: ward boys, sweepers, aayas, jamadars etc. Nurses: $5.54 -24.37 each Non-medical staff: $1.11–2.22 each Total about $44.31 X Formal and informal expenses incurred Normal delivery: $110.78–132.94(for 3 day hospital stay) Caesarian delivery: $199.40–265.87 ANC (Normal): $22.16–66.47 ANC (Complicated) $132.94–221.56 References Barber, S., F. Bonnet, and H. Bekedam. 2004. “Formalizing under-the-table payments to control out-of-pocket hospital expenditures in Cambodia.” Health Policy and Planning 19 (14): 199-208. Bhat, R. and S. Sharma. 1997. “Current Issues in Implementation of User Fees in Public Health Facilities in West Bengal.” New Delhi: DFID. Bhatia, J.C. and J. Cleland. 2001. “Health-care seeking and expenditure by young Indian mothers in the public and private sectors.” Health Policy and Planning 16 (1): 55-61. Hotchkiss D.R., B. Kanjilal, S. Sharma, P.R. Sodani, and G. Chakraborty. 2000. “Household expenditures on Reproductive and child health care services in Udaipur, Rajasthan.” Washington, DC: POLICY Project, Futures Group. Nahar, S. and A. Costello. 1998. “The Hidden Cost of “Free” Maternity Care in Dhaka, Bangladesh.” Health Policy and Planning 12 (4): 417-422. Schuler, S.R., L.M. Bates, and I.M. Khairul. 2002. “Paying for reproductive health services in Bangladesh: intersections between cost, quality and culture.” Health Policy and Planning 17 (3): 273-280. Sepehri, A., R. Chernomas, and H. Akram-Lodhi. 2005. “Penalizing Patients and Rewarding Providers: User Charges and Health Care Utilization in Vietnam.” Health Policy and Planning 20 (2): 90-99. Sharma, S. and D. Hotchkiss. 2001. “Developing financial autonomy in public hospitals in India: Rajasthan’s Model.” Health Policy 55 (1). Sujata, R.K., G.N.V. Ramana, and H.V.V. Murthy. 1997. Financing of primary health care in Andhra Pradesh : a policy perspective. Center for Social Services. Hyderabad: Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI). Government of Uttar Pradesh, Medical Section. 2000. Revision of Medical Services Fee for Providing Better and Quality Medical Services to the Patients. Government Order No. 984/5-1-2000-4 (80)/95. Government of Uttar Pradesh: Uttar Pradesh, India. World Bank. 1997. “India: New Directions in Health Sector Development at the State Level: An Operational Perspective.” Population and Human Resources Division. South Asia Country Department II. Costs to clients  Formal fees  Informal fees  Travel  Opportunity Formal fee levels  Registration  Consultation  Drugs  Supplies  Room  Food  Other Key informant interviews • Financing mechanisms • Targeting Household survey and FGDs • Utilization • Expenditure • Exemption Facility surveys • Cost recovery • Retention and use • Exemption mechanisms Document review • State policies • Facility policies and procedures Fee exemption policies vs. practices  Eligibility criteria  Determination process o Who? o What? o Where? o When?  Sliding fee scale or pay/no pay? Fee exemption outcomes  Number/% of ANC and delivery clients exempted  % of exempted who are poor  % eligible who are exempted o among clinic attendees o among eligible population Informal fee levels  Registration  Consultation  Drugs  Supplies  Room  Food  Other Figure 1: Data/Information Sources—Maternal Health User Fee Study � EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s ��� � EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s ��� � EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s ��� � EMBED Excel.Chart.8 \s ��� Figure 4: Status 0 20 40 60 80 100 Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Poverty Status Percent Home Facility Figure 2: Composition of Expenditures Incurred at the Hospital Level Building maintenance 7% Utilities 13% Linen/laundry 13% Supplies and medicines 28% Equipment and furniture 24% Maintenance of equipment 13% IEC materials 2% � All costs noted in this report are in U.S. dollars. � This method of constructing a standard of living index has become more popular in recent years. See � HYPERLINK "http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/health/data/index.htm" ��http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/health/data/index.htm� for a complete technical discussion of the general approach as well as examples from other countries and for Bangladesh in the previous round of USAID-funded Demographic and Health Surveys. (Also see Filmer and Pritchett, 2001.) � See Appendix 1 for an explanation of the Board of Governors and the Management Executive Committee. � These facilities include: B.D. Pandey Women’s Hospital, SPS Hospital, District Women’s Hospital, Community Health Center (CHC) Doiwala, Government Women’s Hospital, and Community Health Center (CHC) Bageshwar. (For details see Appendix 2.) � Information regarding the revenue generated through tests and private wards was not available. � Direct costs include expenditures incurred on consultation, hospitalization, medicines, tests, etc. � Indirect costs include expenditures incurred on transport, food, child care, rituals, gifts, tips, etc. PAGE 25 [image: image12.emf][image: image13.emf]_1190117668.xls Chart4 18.5 18.8 36.3 25.7 Used postnatal care Poverty Status Percent Figure 6: Percentage of Women Who Used Postnatal Care ANC Antenatal Care GOVERNMENT only Mean expenditures on antenatal care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Antenatal care Total 85.64 100 119.26 100 230.07 100 165.30 100 First Visit 30.15 100 31.07 100 87.55 100 52.24 100 Second visit 14.12 100 25.93 100 42.81 100 32.17 100 4.2504753398 Third visit 41.37 100 62.26 100 99.71 100 80.88 100 First Visit Consultation 4.9 44.66 3.5 53.03 11.2 70.5 8.1 58.12 3.3020790868 Medicine 60 1 93.6 7.6 119.7 12.9 11.4 6.8 4.6473705667 Tests 126 5.8 116.3 9.1 164.2 20.1 151.4 12.9 61.7203424378 Transportation 64.7 31 27.2 27.3 26.4 45.3 37.4 36.6 15.2466367713 Food and Lodging 0 0 15 27.3 42.5 45.3 37 36.6 15.0835711374 N 103 66 139 308 245.3 Second Visit Consultation 6.3 27.16 3.6 32.14 6.3 40.32 5.8 34.48 2.2188217292 Medicine 50 1.2 160 5.4 66.9 10.5 82.4 6.5 31.5225707728 Tests 115 2.4 55 7.1 148.9 8.8 123.9 6.5 47.3986228003 Transportation 33.5 27 27.9 28.5 25.3 41.1 27.8 34 10.6350420811 Food and Lodging 0 0 15 28.5 23.7 41.1 21.5 34 8.2249426167 N 81 56 124 261 261.4 Third Visit Consultation 12.3 31.58 5.8 56.52 7.4 46.3 7.6 45.83 1.8322082932 Medicine 0 0 193.3 13 74 9.2 118.8 8.3 28.6403085824 Tests 200 10.5 80 17.4 256.62 20.3 219.4 17.7 52.8929604629 Transportation 44.8 36.8 36.1 39 34.2 44.4 36.5 41.6 8.7994214079 Food and Lodging 0 0 15 39 50 44.4 32.5 41.6 7.8351012536 N 19 23 54 96 414.8 Percent distribution of women by place of antenatal care and by economic status Type of care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First ANC visit Consultation 3.3020790868 Place of Care Medicine 4.6473705667 Sub center 30.1 37.88 18.71 26.62 Tests 61.7203424378 SAD 0.97 0 1.44 0.97 Transportation 15.2466367713 APHC 8.74 9.09 6.47 7.79 Food and Lodging 15.0835711374 CHC/PHC 42.72 33.33 40.29 39.61 Hospital 10.68 19.7 27.34 20.13 UFWC 0 0 0.72 0.32 Others 6.79 0 5.03 4.56 N 103 66 139 308 Second ANC visit Place of Care Sub center 32.1 37.5 20.97 27.97 SAD 1.23 0 1.61 1.15 APHC 7.41 8.93 6.45 7.28 CHC/PHC 40.74 32.14 37.1 37.16 Hospital 11.11 21.43 28.23 21.46 UFWC 0 0 1.61 0.77 Others 7.41 0 4.03 4.21 N 81 56 124 261 Third ANC visit Place of Care Subcenter 15.79 21.74 16.67 17.71 SAD 0 0 3.7 2.08 APHC 10.53 4.35 3.7 5.21 CHC/PHC 26.32 34.78 35.19 33.33 Hospital 26.32 39.13 33.33 33.33 Others 21.05 0 7.41 8.33 N 19 23 54 96 ANC - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First ANC visit Public 28.78 23.6 60.53 42.07 N 103 66 139 308 Private 311.04 197.93 326.66 309.22 N 21 16 100 137 Second ANC visit Public 14.24 58.73 605 304.45 N 81 56 124 261 Private 97.28 177.65 230.04 209.38 N 13 12 89 114 Third ANC visit Public 30.93 50.24 64.25 54.29 N 19 23 54 96 Private 123.54 120 223.93 207.47 N 7 4 57 68 Fourth ANC visit Public 24.4 4.81 37.94 27.33 N 19 23 54 96 Private 17.13 57.5 194.57 168.24 N 7 4 57 68 First ANC visit Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Public 28.78 23.6 60.53 42.07 Private 311.04 197.93 326.66 309.22 ANC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Private Poverty Status Amount in Rs. Figure 3: Mean Expenditures in Public and Private FacilitiesFirst ANC Visit Delivery Birth Delivery Mean expenditures on birth delivery services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Birth delivery Home Delivery 205.17 100 264.56 100 423.95 100 297.09 100 Institutional delivery 3022.64 100 2180.83 100 4902.88 100 4177.75 100 Home delivery Consultation 201.5 100 262.9 100 387.9 100 282.4 100 40.5223131009 Medicine 166.7 2.2 200 0.83 393.6 9.16 335.3 4.38 48.1130721768 Other costs due to complications 125.3 5.1 92.2 2.7 20 4.2 79.2 4.97 11.3646147223 N 137 85 120 342 696.9 Institutional delivery Consultation/ medicine 2259.3 100 1686.7 100 4153.9 100 3586.4 100 77.0 Transportation 241.2 92.8 262.1 94.4 257.3 91.3 256.2 91.2 5.5 Food and Lodging 410.1 78.5 300 61 608.9 73.1 391.7 69.8 8.4 Other costs 1016.7 21.4 230 27.7 378.9 18.2 425.7 19.8 9.1 N 14 18 93 126 4660 Percent distribution of women by place of delivery and by economic status Type of Care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Place of delivery Home 92.79 84.43 56.28 76.35 Facility 7.21 15.57 43.72 23.65 N 222 122 231 575 Home Delivery Who provided assistance Government doctor 0.0 1.9 0.8 0.7 private doctor 2.4 3.9 3.9 3.2 ANM/LHV/nurse 5.3 4.9 20.8 9.8 Dai 68.5 77.7 71.5 71.5 Relative/friend 22.3 11.7 3.1 14.1 Others 1.46 0 0 0.68 N 206 103 130 439 Institutional Delivery Government facility 50.0 47.4 21.8 28.7 Private facility 43.8 42.1 73.3 65.4 other 6.3 10.5 4.9 5.9 N 16 19 101 136 Public and private Type of costs Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Home delivery assistance Public providers 73.79 84.47 93.08 82 Private providers 26.21 15.53 6.92 18 N 206 103 130 439 Mean expenditure - home delivery Public 172.29 244.45 411.19 270.02 Private 49.34 121.25 270.78 90.96 N 206 103 130 439 Mean expenditure - institutional delivery Public 1626.875 1278.88 1534.57 1494.49 Private 3664 2775.6 6653.4 6007.07 N 16 19 101 136 Place of delivery Type of Care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Home 92.79 84.43 56.28 76.35 Facility 7.21 15.57 43.72 23.65 Mean expenditure - institutional delivery Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Public 1626.875 1278.88 1534.57 1494.49 Private 3664 2775.6 6653.4 6007.07 Delivery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Home Facility Poverty Status Percent Figure 4: Place of Delivery by Poverty Status PNC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Private Poverty Status Amount in Rs. Figure 5: Mean Expenditure on Delivery Services in Public and Private Facilities child health care Post Natal Care Mean expenditures on postnatal care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Postnatal care Total 227.22 100 320.68 100 411.61 100 315.07 100 First Visit 136.62 100 90.75 100 215.91 100 166.75 100 Second visit 90.60 100 229.93 100 195.70 100 148.32 100 First Visit Consultation 70 100 72.2 100 74.5 98.1 72.1 100 12.4718906764 Medicine 169.2 22.2 85.3 16.7 214.5 39.6 186.9 30.6 32.3300467047 Tests 270 7.4 0 0 350 7.5 278.3 6.1 48.140460128 Transportation 40.6 22.2 26 16.7 41.9 75.5 40.8 50 7.0576024909 N 27 18 53 98 578.1 Second Visit Consultation 45.4 100 116.6 100 88.7 100 77.4 100 Medicine 97.5 40 145 66.7 149.4 50 135 48.4 Transportation 31 20 50 33.3 34.2 94.4 34.7 16.1 N 10 3 18 31 Percent distribution of women by place of postnatal care and by economic status Place of Care and type of providers Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Used postnatal care 18.5 18.8 36.3 25.7 N 222 122 231 575 First PNC visit Place of Care Home 56.1 47.8 28.6 39.2 Government Facility 21.9 26.1 32.1 28.3 Private Facility 12.2 17.4 38.1 27.7 Other Facility 9.76 8.7 1.2 4.7 N 41 23 84 148 Type of Provider Doctor 53.6 65.2 52.3 54.7 ANM/LHV 34.1 30.4 29.7 31.1 Nurse 2.4 4.3 13 8.8 Others 9.7 0 4.7 5.4 N 41 23 84 148 Second PNC visit Place of Care Home 42.8 16.6 13.7 22.4 Government Facility 14.3 50 41.3 34.7 Private Facility 28.5 33.3 44.8 38.7 Other Facility 14.3 0 0 4.08 N 14 6 29 49 Type of Provider Doctor 57.1 50 41.4 46.9 ANM/LHV 28.5 50 34.5 34.7 Nurse 0 0 20.7 12.2 Others 14.3 0 3.4 6.1 N 14 6 29 49 Public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First PNC visit Home 60.6 84.71 44.66 53.66 Public 39.6 2.99 57.396 45.89 Private 232.1 141.2 270.16 250.34 N 38 22 84 144 Second PNC visit Home 25 100 75 51.81 Public 3.5 0 71.51 50.82 Private 169.25 295 188.07 195.35 N 12 6 29 47 Place of Care and type of providers Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Used postnatal care 18.5 18.8 36.3 25.7 child health care 0 0 0 0 Used postnatal care Poverty Status Percent Figure 6: Percentage of Women Who Used Postnatal Care Family planning Child Health care Mean expenditures on child health care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Child Health Care Total 228.50 100 163.35 100 416.89 100 310.09 100 First Visit 75.91 100 50.86 100 173.81 100 123.46 100 Second visit 86.79 100 52.68 100 118.78 100 95.28 100 Third visit 65.80 100 59.81 100 124.30 100 91.35 100 First Visit Consultation 36.8 100 26.1 100 97.5 100 67.4 100 18.985915493 Medicine 122 12.5 90 16.7 167.4 30 149.4 22.7 42.0845070423 Transportation 45.9 40 24.8 36.7 32.3 53.75 34.2 46.7 9.6338028169 Food and Lodging 73.3 7.5 10 6.7 174.5 5 104 6 29.2957746479 N 40 30 80 150 355 Second Visit Consultation 36.9 100 33.7 100 58.8 100 47.2 100 Medicine 129.3 24.2 41 11.1 114.3 37.7 111.4 28.1 Transportation 34 54.5 35.4 40.7 27.1 62.3 30.3 55.4 N 33 27 61 121 Third Visit Consultation 40.8 96.6 39.5 100 67.6 100 52.7 99.1 Medicine 105.5 17.2 98.7 14.3 176.2 23.5 144.7 19.4 Transportation 29.8 27.6 17.4 35.7 29.9 51.0 26.4 41.7 N 29 28 51 108 Percent of women who used government, private or other sources for child health care services Place of Care and type of providers Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Used Child Health Care Services 80.6 88.5 87.4 85 N 222 122 231 575 First Child Health Care visit Place of Care Home 36.8 35.2 26.7 32.3 Government Facility 28.5 33.3 38.9 33.8 Private Facility 12.3 11.1 25.2 17.38 Other Facility 22.4 20.4 9.2 16.52 N 179 108 202 489 Type of Provider Doctor 14.5 14.8 28.7 20.4 ANM/LHV 74.8 63.8 53.9 63.8 Nurse 3.3 6.4 10.4 6.9 Others 7.4 15 7 8.9 N 179 108 202 489 Second child health care visit Place of Care Home 35.5 30.6 18.7 27.7 Government Facility 28.19 37.51 41.88 35.77 Private Facility 14.1 15.91 30.01 20.84 Other Facility 22.21 15.98 9.41 15.69 N 149 88 160 397 Type of Provider Doctor 16.7 19.3 30.6 22.9 ANM/LHV 71.1 62.5 56.2 63.2 Nurse 4 4.5 9.4 6.3 Others 8.2 13.7 3.8 7.6 N 149 88 160 397 Third child health care visit Place of Care Home 32.2 29.8 23.8 28.2 Government Facility 34.4 35.82 33.88 34.57 Private Facility 17.21 19.4 33.94 24.53 Other Facility 16.19 14.98 8.38 12.7 N 93 67 109 269 Type of Provider Doctor 22.5 26.8 33.9 28.2 ANM/LHV 63.4 53.7 54.13 57.2 Nurse 4.3 2.9 5.5 4.5 Others 9.8 16.6 6.47 10.1 N 93 67 109 269 Child health care - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First Child Health Care visit Home 1.66 0 2.97 1.706 Public 2.94 4.85 36.16 18.77 Private 129.03 61.57 224.63 175.61 Other 5.12 31.28 10.6 13.72 N 179 108 202 489 Second child health care visit Home 1.03 0 1.66 0.95 Public 2.43 5.48 14.7 8.94 Private 113.89 1128.41 130.01 288.22 Other 8.1 42.08 8.33 17.55 N 149 88 160 397 Third child health care visit Home 3.5 0 3.8 2.69 Public 6.4 810.84 18.15 210.29 Private 83.17 91.91 153.47 124.31 Other 20.99 41.87 4 24.94 N 93 67 109 269 Abortion Family Planning Mean expenditures on Family planning services and methods and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Sterilization 767.51 100 410.35 100 692.71 100 662.19 100 IUDs 81.95 100 97.48 100 197.88 100 170.49 100 Oral Pills/condoms 7.00 100 14.00 100 14.82 100 13.74 100 Sterilization Services 1135.1 33.3 577.5 30.8 670 21.4 908.5 29.6 48.9889458075 Medicine 608.3 22.2 225 30.8 800 28.6 553.5 25.9 29.8463197627 Transportation 130.8 100.0 126.9 100.0 242 100.0 158.5 100.0 8.5467781073 Food/room 221.7 55.6 118.7 30.8 550 14.3 234 38.9 12.6179563225 N 27 13 14 54 1854.5 IUDs IUCD 12 25.0 0 0.0 249.2 25.0 215.2 21.9 48.7429218573 Services 0 0.0 33.3 75.0 124.8 66.7 109.8 59.4 24.8697621744 Medicine 50 25.0 80 25.0 71 41.7 70 37.5 15.8550396376 Transportation 88.6 75.0 70 75.0 34.2 66.7 46.5 68.8 10.5322763307 N 4 4 24 32 441.5 Pills/condoms Supplies 7 100 14 100 14.9 99.4 13.8 99.6 N 27 39 176 242 Percent of women currently using family planning, and percent distribution of women currently using family planning by type of method Use of family planning Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Percent currently using family planning 42.8 44.4 55.6 48.7 Total sample 856 457 1034 2347 Type of methods Female sterilization 73.8 62.5 46.1 57.9 Male sterilization 6.81 4.9 2.26 4.2 IUCD 1.1 1.9 4.1 2.79 Oral Pills 4.4 5.9 10.1 7.5 Condoms 6.8 14.7 25.7 17.7 Traditional Methods 7.1 9.8 11.6 9.8 N 367 203 575 1145 Sterilization Sterlization within two years 9.8 10.2 7.2 8.8 N 296 137 278 711 Place of sterilization Government 72.42 85.71 70 74.6 Private 6.9 7.1 10 7.9 Others 20.68 7.19 20 17.5 29 14 20 63 IUCD IUCD within two years 66.7 50 50 62.5 N 4 4 24 32 Place of IUCD insertion Government 75 75 37.47 46.89 Private 0 0 58.3 43.75 Others 25 25 4.23 9.36 N 4 4 24 32 Pills and condoms Government 39.03 5.7 16.03 17.56 Private facility 0 0 1.46 1.04 Pharmacy and shops 58.46 90.4 81.55 79.59 Others 2.51 3.9 0.96 1.81 N 41 42 206 289 Family Planning - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Sterilization Public 20.22 17.9 23.52 21.05 Private 6900 2900 1514 4025.6 Other 144.31 15.00 67.5 104.62 N 296 137 278 711 IUCD Public 82 98 64.06 76.27 Private 282.98 282.98 N 4 4 24 32 Use of family planning Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Percent currently using family planning 42.8 44.4 55.6 48.7 Total sample 856 457 1034 2347 Abortion 0 0 0 0 Percent currently using family planning Poverty Status Percent Figure 6: Percent Currently Using Family Planning RTI Post Abortion Care Mean expenditures on abortion services and methods and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Abortion 1474.14 100.0 760.44 100 547.93 100 1205.67 100 After abortion 668.48 100.0 0.00 100 696.20 100 686.71 100 Abortion Services 1130 100.0 502.7 100.0 77.4 96.3 813.5 97.9 60.2458712879 Medicine 303.3 75.0 346.6 66.7 442 74.1 390 74.5 28.8824705621 Transportation 140 83.3 34.3 77.8 187.7 77.8 146.8 80.9 10.87165815 N 12 9 27 48 1350.3 After abortion Services 327.5 100 0 0 201.2 100 264.4 100 36.0906360906 Medicine 273.3 75 0 0 437.5 100 367.1 87.5 50.1092001092 Transportation 136 100 0 0 57.5 100 101.1 100 13.8001638002 N 4 0 4 8 732.6 Percent of women who used abortion services, and percent distribution of abortion service users by type of source and by economic status Type of care Poor Near poor Not poor Total Total sample Used abortion services 2.5 3.6 3.8 3.35 N 589 334 776 1699 Type of Facility Home 0 8.3 3.3 3.5 Government 40 41.7 26.66 33.32 Private 53.3 50 56.6 54.39 Others 6.7 0 13.44 8.79 N 15 12 30 57 Type of provider Private doctor 53.3 33.3 40 42.1 Government doctor 6.67 8.3 10 8.7 Private nurse 6.67 16.67 20 15.79 Government nurse 0 0 3.3 1.7 ANM/LHV 20 33.3 6.6 15.8 Others 13.36 8.43 20.1 15.91 N 15 12 30 57 Type of Facility Home 3.5 Government 33.32 Private 54.39 Others 8.79 RTI 0 0 0 0 Figure 7: Source of Post Abortion Care user fee RTI Mean expenditures on RTI services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent RTI Total 689.55 100 711.89 100 721.62 100 648.95 100 First Visit 174.92 100 242.63 100 238.60 100 166.50 100 Second visit 237.14 100 267.21 100 266.90 100 261.77 100 Third visit 277.50 100 202.05 100 216.13 100 220.68 100 First Visit Consultation 66.3 100.0 87.09 97.0 53.5 98.1 66.2 9.7 12.1001645037 Tests 61.6 11.5 283.3 9.1 226.6 27.8 211 18.6 38.5669895814 Medicine 133 38.5 145.8 45.5 145 63.0 143.1 52.2 26.1560957777 Transportation 60.8 73.1 105.1 45.5 42.5 70.4 60.4 63.7 11.0400292451 Food and Lodging 30.8 19.2 151.2 12.1 26.2 7.4 66.4 11.5 12.136720892 N 26 33 54 113 547.1 Second Visit Consultation 47.9 100.0 101.5 100 61.6 100 74.0 100 14.2116381794 Tests 92.2 45.5 219.3 26.1 237.0 35.7 197.5 33.9 37.9297100058 Medicine 191.6 54.5 151.5 34.8 117.6 75.0 138.0 56.5 26.5027847129 Transportation 43.1 90.9 90.3 52.2 33.8 89.3 50.2 75.8 9.6408680622 Food and Lodging 40 9.1 200 4.3 21.6 10.7 61.0 8.1 11.7149990398 N 11 23 28 62 520.7 Third Visit Consultation 41 100.0 78.0 100 79.06 100 72.8 100.0 14.0026928255 Tests 6 40.0 86.6 23.1 150 33.3 101.6 30.3 19.5422196576 Medicine 325 60.0 153.7 30.8 105 53.3 162 45.5 31.1598384305 Transportation 35.1 100.0 61.0 61.5 46.6 66.7 48.5 72.7 9.328717061 Food and Lodging 20 20.0 250.0 7.7 0 0.0 135 6.1 25.9665320254 N 5 13 15 33 519.9 Percent of women who report symptoms related to reproductive tract infections, who report treatment, and who used government, private, or other types of care Type of care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Report an RTI 21.8 21 15.8 19.05 N 856 457 1034 2347 Total Sample with RTIs Report seeking tratment 15.08 32.4 32.3 25.4 N 199 108 189 496 First visit Type of Facility Home 3.3 8.5 1.64 3.9 Government 26.6 25.57 18.04 22.09 Private 63.2 54.2 67.2 62.7 Other 6.9 11.73 13.12 11.31 N 31 35 61 126 Type of provider Private doctor 63.3 51.4 67.2 61.9 Government doctor 20 17.1 19.6 19.05 Private nurse 0 0 3.3 1.5 Government nurse 0 2.8 0 0.79 ANM/LHV 6.67 2.8 3.28 3.9 Others 10.03 25.9 6.62 12.86 N 31 35 61 126 Second visit Type of Facility Home 0 11.5 0 3.7 Government 43.7 19.1 26.2 27.5 Private 49.9 61.54 57.87 57.4 Other 6.4 7.86 15.93 11.4 N 16 26 38 80 Type of provider Private doctor 50 46.1 50 48.7 Government doctor 37.5 15.4 21 22.5 Private nurse 0 0 10.5 5 Government nurse 0 7.6 0 2.5 ANM/LHV 6.2 3.8 7.8 6.2 Others 6.3 27.1 10.7 15.1 N 16 26 38 80 Third visit Type of Facility Home 0 13.3 0 5 Government 42.8 20.01 11.12 20 Private 42.86 46.67 66.66 55 Other 14.34 20.02 22.22 20 N 7 15 18 40 Type of provider Private doctor 42.8 46.6 66.6 55 Government doctor 28.5 13.3 11.1 15 ANM/LHV 14.3 6.6 5.5 7.5 Others 14.4 33.5 16.8 22.5 N 7 15 18 40 RTI - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First RTI visit Public 77 144.6 94.77 108.1 Private 198.92 862.20 2008.23 1320.66 Other 0 153.33 75 97.85 N 30 35 61 126 Second RTI visit Public 219.74 194.05 81.7 154.98 Private 106.12 295.4 274.37 248.98 Other 0 80 20 50 N 16 26 38 80 Third RTI visit Public 285.25 79.56 123.2 144.60 Private 91.99 284.23 217.16 221.43 Other 0 80 20 50 N 7 15 18 40 Fourth RTI visit Public 105 112 134 122.54 Private 50 297.5 144.48 191.52 Other 0 70 15 33.33 N 3 6 12 21 RTI first visit public % share private % share Consultation 28.07 25.98 195.11 14.77 Tests 5.64 5.22 52.68 3.99 Medicine 47.7 44.15 1021.18 77.32 Transportation 24.7 22.86 41.83 3.17 Food and lodging 1.92 1.78 9.86 0.75 108.03 1320.66 RTI first visit Public Consultation 25.98 Tests 5.22 Medicine 44.15 Transport 22.86 Food and lodging 1.78 RTI first visit Private Consultation 14.77 Tests 3.99 Medicine 77.32 Transport 3.17 Food and lodging 0.75 Type of care Report an RTI 21.8 21 15.8 19.05 N 856 457 1034 2347 Percent of those who reported an RTI-related symptom reported seeking medical help Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Seek treatment 15.08 32.4 32.3 25.4 Do not seek treatment 84.92 67.6 67.7 74.6 user fee 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 9: RTI First Visit: Composition Out of Pocket Expenditures in Public Sector formal and informal 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 10: RTI First Visit: Composition of Out of Pocket Expenditures in Private Sector 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seek treatment Do not seek treatment Poverty Status Percent Figure 8: Percent of those who reported an RTI-related symptom reported seeking medical help User fee in government health facilities Poor Near poor Not poor Total Percent women know about registration fee 87.27 91.9 87.43 88.24 N 856 457 1,034 2,347 Percent women know about user fee in government hospitals 23.5 31.9 28.9 27.5 N 856 457 1034 2347 Percent women know about exemptions 8.5 11.6 10 9.9 N 201 146 299 646 Percent women approve user fee For some 13.5 19.9 21.8 18.5 For all 14.6 19.7 14.9 15.7 Do not approve 71.8 60.4 63.1 65.7 N 856 457 1034 2347 Quality in government facilities Poor Near Poor Not poor Total Ever used 84.3 84.6 80.6 82.8 N 856 457 1034 2347 Rate quality of government facilities very bad 1.4 0.78 0.96 1.08 bad 14.3 15.2 13.7 14.2 average 80.4 76.2 77.5 78.3 good 3.6 7.7 6.7 5.7 very good 0.28 0 1 0.57 N 722 387 834 1943 Any improvement in quality Deteriorated 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.4 remained the same 83.2 75.9 75.1 78.3 improved 14.1 21.4 22.5 19.2 N 722 387 834 1943 Willing to pay for improved quality 45.7 54 60.3 53.6 N 722 387 834 1943 Percent women reported that doctors and other health care providers charge for the services provided by them in government facilities Poor Near Poor Not poor Total Doctors 8.4 9 11 9.7 Other health providers 10.2 11.4 16 12.9 N 722 387 834 1943 Reasons for not using government health care facilities Poor Near Poor Not poor Total High transportation costs 60.45 41.43 28 41.09 Staff not courteous 0.75 4.29 2.5 2.23 Prescribe costly medicines 10.45 17.14 16 14.36 Long waiting time 6.72 10 19 13.37 Staff are discrimatory 0 1.43 1 0.74 Unclean 0 0 2 0.99 Timing not suitable 1.49 0 1 0.99 Service providers are usually absent 5.97 8.57 3 4.95 Any other 12.69 14.29 26 19.55 N 134 70 200 404 Reasons for not using government health care facilities Poor High transportation costs 60.45 Staff not courteous 0.75 Prescribe costly medicines 10.45 Long waiting time 6.72 Staff are discrimatory 0 Unclean 0 Timing not suitable 1.49 Service providers are usually absent 5.97 Any other 12.69 Formal minus Informal ANC Birth Delivery Home Facility Home Facility Poor Formal fee 0 0 0 0 Out-of-pocket expenses 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Near poor Formal fee 0 15 0 200 Out-of-pocket expenses 40.67 119.3 244.4 1278.8 Informal 40.67 104.3 244.4 1078.8 Not poor Formal fee 0 15 0 500 Out-of-pocket expenses 75.55 230 411.2 1534.5 Informal 75.55 215 411.2 1034.5 Mean Expenditures Formal fee 0 15 0 300 Out-of-pocket expenses 33.56 165 270 1494.49 Informal 33.56 150 270 1194.49 Informal fee/total fees paid ANC Birth Delivery Home Facility Home Facility Poor Out-of-pocket expenses 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 100% 100% 100% Near poor Out-of-pocket expenses 40.67 119.3 244.4 1278.8 Informal 40.67 104.3 244.4 1078.8 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 87% 100% 84% Not poor Out-of-pocket expenses 75.55 230 411.2 1534.5 Informal 75.55 215 411.2 1034.5 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 93% 100% 67% All women Out-of-pocket expenses 33.56 165 270 1494.49 Informal 33.56 150 270 1194.49 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 91% 100% 80% Client who got free care poor near poor not poor total ANC home 84% 81 80 82 ANC Facility 55 46 29 41 Home delivery 17 8 4 10 Institutional Delivery 25 11 18 17 Post Natal Care 44 66 59 57 Child Health Care 86 75 72 77 Family Planning - sterilization 76 75 85 78 RTI 30 14 33 25 _1194690700.xls Chart7 25.9835230954 5.2207720078 44.1544015551 22.8640192539 1.7772840878 Figure 10: RTI First Visit: Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditures in Public Sector Consultation 26% ANC Antenatal Care GOVERNMENT only Mean expenditures on antenatal care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Antenatal care Total 85.64 100 119.26 100 230.07 100 165.30 100 First Visit 30.15 100 31.07 100 87.55 100 52.24 100 Second visit 14.12 100 25.93 100 42.81 100 32.17 100 4.2504753398 Third visit 41.37 100 62.26 100 99.71 100 80.88 100 First Visit Consultation 4.9 44.66 3.5 53.03 11.2 70.5 8.1 58.12 3.3020790868 Medicine 60 1 93.6 7.6 119.7 12.9 11.4 6.8 4.6473705667 Tests 126 5.8 116.3 9.1 164.2 20.1 151.4 12.9 61.7203424378 Transportation 64.7 31 27.2 27.3 26.4 45.3 37.4 36.6 15.2466367713 Food and Lodging 0 0 15 27.3 42.5 45.3 37 36.6 15.0835711374 N 103 66 139 308 245.3 Second Visit Consultation 6.3 27.16 3.6 32.14 6.3 40.32 5.8 34.48 2.2188217292 Medicine 50 1.2 160 5.4 66.9 10.5 82.4 6.5 31.5225707728 Tests 115 2.4 55 7.1 148.9 8.8 123.9 6.5 47.3986228003 Transportation 33.5 27 27.9 28.5 25.3 41.1 27.8 34 10.6350420811 Food and Lodging 0 0 15 28.5 23.7 41.1 21.5 34 8.2249426167 N 81 56 124 261 261.4 Third Visit Consultation 12.3 31.58 5.8 56.52 7.4 46.3 7.6 45.83 1.8322082932 Medicine 0 0 193.3 13 74 9.2 118.8 8.3 28.6403085824 Tests 200 10.5 80 17.4 256.62 20.3 219.4 17.7 52.8929604629 Transportation 44.8 36.8 36.1 39 34.2 44.4 36.5 41.6 8.7994214079 Food and Lodging 0 0 15 39 50 44.4 32.5 41.6 7.8351012536 N 19 23 54 96 414.8 Percent distribution of women by place of antenatal care and by economic status Type of care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First ANC visit Consultation 3.3020790868 Place of Care Medicine 4.6473705667 Sub center 30.1 37.88 18.71 26.62 Tests 61.7203424378 SAD 0.97 0 1.44 0.97 Transportation 15.2466367713 APHC 8.74 9.09 6.47 7.79 Food and Lodging 15.0835711374 CHC/PHC 42.72 33.33 40.29 39.61 Hospital 10.68 19.7 27.34 20.13 UFWC 0 0 0.72 0.32 Others 6.79 0 5.03 4.56 N 103 66 139 308 Second ANC visit Place of Care Sub center 32.1 37.5 20.97 27.97 SAD 1.23 0 1.61 1.15 APHC 7.41 8.93 6.45 7.28 CHC/PHC 40.74 32.14 37.1 37.16 Hospital 11.11 21.43 28.23 21.46 UFWC 0 0 1.61 0.77 Others 7.41 0 4.03 4.21 N 81 56 124 261 Third ANC visit Place of Care Subcenter 15.79 21.74 16.67 17.71 SAD 0 0 3.7 2.08 APHC 10.53 4.35 3.7 5.21 CHC/PHC 26.32 34.78 35.19 33.33 Hospital 26.32 39.13 33.33 33.33 Others 21.05 0 7.41 8.33 N 19 23 54 96 ANC - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First ANC visit Public 28.78 23.6 60.53 42.07 N 103 66 139 308 Private 311.04 197.93 326.66 309.22 N 21 16 100 137 Second ANC visit Public 14.24 58.73 605 304.45 N 81 56 124 261 Private 97.28 177.65 230.04 209.38 N 13 12 89 114 Third ANC visit Public 30.93 50.24 64.25 54.29 N 19 23 54 96 Private 123.54 120 223.93 207.47 N 7 4 57 68 Fourth ANC visit Public 24.4 4.81 37.94 27.33 N 19 23 54 96 Private 17.13 57.5 194.57 168.24 N 7 4 57 68 First ANC visit Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Public 28.78 23.6 60.53 42.07 Private 311.04 197.93 326.66 309.22 ANC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Private Poverty Status Amount in Rs. Figure 3: Mean Expenditures in Public and Private FacilitiesFirst ANC Visit Delivery Birth Delivery Mean expenditures on birth delivery services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Birth delivery Home Delivery 205.17 100 264.56 100 423.95 100 297.09 100 Institutional delivery 3022.64 100 2180.83 100 4902.88 100 4177.75 100 Home delivery Consultation 201.5 100 262.9 100 387.9 100 282.4 100 40.5223131009 Medicine 166.7 2.2 200 0.83 393.6 9.16 335.3 4.38 48.1130721768 Other costs due to complications 125.3 5.1 92.2 2.7 20 4.2 79.2 4.97 11.3646147223 N 137 85 120 342 696.9 Institutional delivery Consultation/ medicine 2259.3 100 1686.7 100 4153.9 100 3586.4 100 77.0 Transportation 241.2 92.8 262.1 94.4 257.3 91.3 256.2 91.2 5.5 Food and Lodging 410.1 78.5 300 61 608.9 73.1 391.7 69.8 8.4 Other costs 1016.7 21.4 230 27.7 378.9 18.2 425.7 19.8 9.1 N 14 18 93 126 4660 Percent distribution of women by place of delivery and by economic status Type of Care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Place of delivery Home 92.79 84.43 56.28 76.35 Facility 7.21 15.57 43.72 23.65 N 222 122 231 575 Home Delivery Who provided assistance Government doctor 0.0 1.9 0.8 0.7 private doctor 2.4 3.9 3.9 3.2 ANM/LHV/nurse 5.3 4.9 20.8 9.8 Dai 68.5 77.7 71.5 71.5 Relative/friend 22.3 11.7 3.1 14.1 Others 1.46 0 0 0.68 N 206 103 130 439 Institutional Delivery Government facility 50.0 47.4 21.8 28.7 Private facility 43.8 42.1 73.3 65.4 other 6.3 10.5 4.9 5.9 N 16 19 101 136 Public and private Type of costs Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Home delivery assistance Public providers 73.79 84.47 93.08 82 Private providers 26.21 15.53 6.92 18 N 206 103 130 439 Mean expenditure - home delivery Public 172.29 244.45 411.19 270.02 Private 49.34 121.25 270.78 90.96 N 206 103 130 439 Mean expenditure - institutional delivery Public 1626.875 1278.88 1534.57 1494.49 Private 3664 2775.6 6653.4 6007.07 N 16 19 101 136 Place of delivery Type of Care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Home 92.79 84.43 56.28 76.35 Facility 7.21 15.57 43.72 23.65 Mean expenditure - institutional delivery Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Public 1626.875 1278.88 1534.57 1494.49 Private 3664 2775.6 6653.4 6007.07 Delivery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Home Facility Poverty Status Percent Figure 4: Place of Delivery by Poverty Status PNC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Private Poverty Status Amount in Rs. Figure 5: Mean Expenditure on Delivery Services in Public and Private Facilities child health care Post Natal Care Mean expenditures on postnatal care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Postnatal care Total 227.22 100 320.68 100 411.61 100 315.07 100 First Visit 136.62 100 90.75 100 215.91 100 166.75 100 Second visit 90.60 100 229.93 100 195.70 100 148.32 100 First Visit Consultation 70 100 72.2 100 74.5 98.1 72.1 100 12.4718906764 Medicine 169.2 22.2 85.3 16.7 214.5 39.6 186.9 30.6 32.3300467047 Tests 270 7.4 0 0 350 7.5 278.3 6.1 48.140460128 Transportation 40.6 22.2 26 16.7 41.9 75.5 40.8 50 7.0576024909 N 27 18 53 98 578.1 Second Visit Consultation 45.4 100 116.6 100 88.7 100 77.4 100 Medicine 97.5 40 145 66.7 149.4 50 135 48.4 Transportation 31 20 50 33.3 34.2 94.4 34.7 16.1 N 10 3 18 31 Percent distribution of women by place of postnatal care and by economic status Place of Care and type of providers Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Used postnatal care 18.5 18.8 36.3 25.7 N 222 122 231 575 First PNC visit Place of Care Home 56.1 47.8 28.6 39.2 Government Facility 21.9 26.1 32.1 28.3 Private Facility 12.2 17.4 38.1 27.7 Other Facility 9.76 8.7 1.2 4.7 N 41 23 84 148 Type of Provider Doctor 53.6 65.2 52.3 54.7 ANM/LHV 34.1 30.4 29.7 31.1 Nurse 2.4 4.3 13 8.8 Others 9.7 0 4.7 5.4 N 41 23 84 148 Second PNC visit Place of Care Home 42.8 16.6 13.7 22.4 Government Facility 14.3 50 41.3 34.7 Private Facility 28.5 33.3 44.8 38.7 Other Facility 14.3 0 0 4.08 N 14 6 29 49 Type of Provider Doctor 57.1 50 41.4 46.9 ANM/LHV 28.5 50 34.5 34.7 Nurse 0 0 20.7 12.2 Others 14.3 0 3.4 6.1 N 14 6 29 49 Public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First PNC visit Home 60.6 84.71 44.66 53.66 Public 39.6 2.99 57.396 45.89 Private 232.1 141.2 270.16 250.34 N 38 22 84 144 Second PNC visit Home 25 100 75 51.81 Public 3.5 0 71.51 50.82 Private 169.25 295 188.07 195.35 N 12 6 29 47 Place of Care and type of providers Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Used postnatal care 18.5 18.8 36.3 25.7 child health care 0 0 0 0 Used postnatal care Poverty Status Percent Figure 6: Percentage of Women Who Used Postnatal Care Family planning Child Health care Mean expenditures on child health care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Child Health Care Total 228.50 100 163.35 100 416.89 100 310.09 100 First Visit 75.91 100 50.86 100 173.81 100 123.46 100 Second visit 86.79 100 52.68 100 118.78 100 95.28 100 Third visit 65.80 100 59.81 100 124.30 100 91.35 100 First Visit Consultation 36.8 100 26.1 100 97.5 100 67.4 100 18.985915493 Medicine 122 12.5 90 16.7 167.4 30 149.4 22.7 42.0845070423 Transportation 45.9 40 24.8 36.7 32.3 53.75 34.2 46.7 9.6338028169 Food and Lodging 73.3 7.5 10 6.7 174.5 5 104 6 29.2957746479 N 40 30 80 150 355 Second Visit Consultation 36.9 100 33.7 100 58.8 100 47.2 100 Medicine 129.3 24.2 41 11.1 114.3 37.7 111.4 28.1 Transportation 34 54.5 35.4 40.7 27.1 62.3 30.3 55.4 N 33 27 61 121 Third Visit Consultation 40.8 96.6 39.5 100 67.6 100 52.7 99.1 Medicine 105.5 17.2 98.7 14.3 176.2 23.5 144.7 19.4 Transportation 29.8 27.6 17.4 35.7 29.9 51.0 26.4 41.7 N 29 28 51 108 Percent of women who used government, private or other sources for child health care services Place of Care and type of providers Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Used Child Health Care Services 80.6 88.5 87.4 85 N 222 122 231 575 First Child Health Care visit Place of Care Home 36.8 35.2 26.7 32.3 Government Facility 28.5 33.3 38.9 33.8 Private Facility 12.3 11.1 25.2 17.38 Other Facility 22.4 20.4 9.2 16.52 N 179 108 202 489 Type of Provider Doctor 14.5 14.8 28.7 20.4 ANM/LHV 74.8 63.8 53.9 63.8 Nurse 3.3 6.4 10.4 6.9 Others 7.4 15 7 8.9 N 179 108 202 489 Second child health care visit Place of Care Home 35.5 30.6 18.7 27.7 Government Facility 28.19 37.51 41.88 35.77 Private Facility 14.1 15.91 30.01 20.84 Other Facility 22.21 15.98 9.41 15.69 N 149 88 160 397 Type of Provider Doctor 16.7 19.3 30.6 22.9 ANM/LHV 71.1 62.5 56.2 63.2 Nurse 4 4.5 9.4 6.3 Others 8.2 13.7 3.8 7.6 N 149 88 160 397 Third child health care visit Place of Care Home 32.2 29.8 23.8 28.2 Government Facility 34.4 35.82 33.88 34.57 Private Facility 17.21 19.4 33.94 24.53 Other Facility 16.19 14.98 8.38 12.7 N 93 67 109 269 Type of Provider Doctor 22.5 26.8 33.9 28.2 ANM/LHV 63.4 53.7 54.13 57.2 Nurse 4.3 2.9 5.5 4.5 Others 9.8 16.6 6.47 10.1 N 93 67 109 269 Child health care - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First Child Health Care visit Home 1.66 0 2.97 1.706 Public 2.94 4.85 36.16 18.77 Private 129.03 61.57 224.63 175.61 Other 5.12 31.28 10.6 13.72 N 179 108 202 489 Second child health care visit Home 1.03 0 1.66 0.95 Public 2.43 5.48 14.7 8.94 Private 113.89 1128.41 130.01 288.22 Other 8.1 42.08 8.33 17.55 N 149 88 160 397 Third child health care visit Home 3.5 0 3.8 2.69 Public 6.4 810.84 18.15 210.29 Private 83.17 91.91 153.47 124.31 Other 20.99 41.87 4 24.94 N 93 67 109 269 Abortion Family Planning Mean expenditures on Family planning services and methods and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Sterilization 767.51 100 410.35 100 692.71 100 662.19 100 IUDs 81.95 100 97.48 100 197.88 100 170.49 100 Oral Pills/condoms 7.00 100 14.00 100 14.82 100 13.74 100 Sterilization Services 1135.1 33.3 577.5 30.8 670 21.4 908.5 29.6 48.9889458075 Medicine 608.3 22.2 225 30.8 800 28.6 553.5 25.9 29.8463197627 Transportation 130.8 100.0 126.9 100.0 242 100.0 158.5 100.0 8.5467781073 Food/room 221.7 55.6 118.7 30.8 550 14.3 234 38.9 12.6179563225 N 27 13 14 54 1854.5 IUDs IUCD 12 25.0 0 0.0 249.2 25.0 215.2 21.9 48.7429218573 Services 0 0.0 33.3 75.0 124.8 66.7 109.8 59.4 24.8697621744 Medicine 50 25.0 80 25.0 71 41.7 70 37.5 15.8550396376 Transportation 88.6 75.0 70 75.0 34.2 66.7 46.5 68.8 10.5322763307 N 4 4 24 32 441.5 Pills/condoms Supplies 7 100 14 100 14.9 99.4 13.8 99.6 N 27 39 176 242 Percent of women currently using family planning, and percent distribution of women currently using family planning by type of method Use of family planning Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Percent currently using family planning 42.8 44.4 55.6 48.7 Total sample 856 457 1034 2347 Type of methods Female sterilization 73.8 62.5 46.1 57.9 Male sterilization 6.81 4.9 2.26 4.2 IUCD 1.1 1.9 4.1 2.79 Oral Pills 4.4 5.9 10.1 7.5 Condoms 6.8 14.7 25.7 17.7 Traditional Methods 7.1 9.8 11.6 9.8 N 367 203 575 1145 Sterilization Sterlization within two years 9.8 10.2 7.2 8.8 N 296 137 278 711 Place of sterilization Government 72.42 85.71 70 74.6 Private 6.9 7.1 10 7.9 Others 20.68 7.19 20 17.5 29 14 20 63 IUCD IUCD within two years 66.7 50 50 62.5 N 4 4 24 32 Place of IUCD insertion Government 75 75 37.47 46.89 Private 0 0 58.3 43.75 Others 25 25 4.23 9.36 N 4 4 24 32 Pills and condoms Government 39.03 5.7 16.03 17.56 Private facility 0 0 1.46 1.04 Pharmacy and shops 58.46 90.4 81.55 79.59 Others 2.51 3.9 0.96 1.81 N 41 42 206 289 Family Planning - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Sterilization Public 20.22 17.9 23.52 21.05 Private 6900 2900 1514 4025.6 Other 144.31 15.00 67.5 104.62 N 296 137 278 711 IUCD Public 82 98 64.06 76.27 Private 282.98 282.98 N 4 4 24 32 Use of family planning Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Percent currently using family planning 42.8 44.4 55.6 48.7 Total sample 856 457 1034 2347 Abortion 0 0 0 0 Percent currently using family planning Poverty Status Percent Figure 7: Percent Currently Using Family Planning RTI Post Abortion Care Mean expenditures on abortion services and methods and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Abortion 1474.14 100.0 760.44 100 547.93 100 1205.67 100 After abortion 668.48 100.0 0.00 100 696.20 100 686.71 100 Abortion Services 1130 100.0 502.7 100.0 77.4 96.3 813.5 97.9 60.2458712879 Medicine 303.3 75.0 346.6 66.7 442 74.1 390 74.5 28.8824705621 Transportation 140 83.3 34.3 77.8 187.7 77.8 146.8 80.9 10.87165815 N 12 9 27 48 1350.3 After abortion Services 327.5 100 0 0 201.2 100 264.4 100 36.0906360906 Medicine 273.3 75 0 0 437.5 100 367.1 87.5 50.1092001092 Transportation 136 100 0 0 57.5 100 101.1 100 13.8001638002 N 4 0 4 8 732.6 Percent of women who used abortion services, and percent distribution of abortion service users by type of source and by economic status Type of care Poor Near poor Not poor Total Total sample Used abortion services 2.5 3.6 3.8 3.35 N 589 334 776 1699 Type of Facility Home 0 8.3 3.3 3.5 Government 40 41.7 26.66 33.32 Private 53.3 50 56.6 54.39 Others 6.7 0 13.44 8.79 N 15 12 30 57 Type of provider Private doctor 53.3 33.3 40 42.1 Government doctor 6.67 8.3 10 8.7 Private nurse 6.67 16.67 20 15.79 Government nurse 0 0 3.3 1.7 ANM/LHV 20 33.3 6.6 15.8 Others 13.36 8.43 20.1 15.91 N 15 12 30 57 Type of Facility Home 3.5 Government 33.32 Private 54.39 Others 8.79 RTI 0 0 0 0 Figure 7: Source of Post Abortion Care user fee RTI Mean expenditures on RTI services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent RTI Total 689.55 100 711.89 100 721.62 100 648.95 100 First Visit 174.92 100 242.63 100 238.60 100 166.50 100 Second visit 237.14 100 267.21 100 266.90 100 261.77 100 Third visit 277.50 100 202.05 100 216.13 100 220.68 100 First Visit Consultation 66.3 100.0 87.09 97.0 53.5 98.1 66.2 9.7 12.1001645037 Tests 61.6 11.5 283.3 9.1 226.6 27.8 211 18.6 38.5669895814 Medicine 133 38.5 145.8 45.5 145 63.0 143.1 52.2 26.1560957777 Transportation 60.8 73.1 105.1 45.5 42.5 70.4 60.4 63.7 11.0400292451 Food and Lodging 30.8 19.2 151.2 12.1 26.2 7.4 66.4 11.5 12.136720892 N 26 33 54 113 547.1 Second Visit Consultation 47.9 100.0 101.5 100 61.6 100 74.0 100 14.2116381794 Tests 92.2 45.5 219.3 26.1 237.0 35.7 197.5 33.9 37.9297100058 Medicine 191.6 54.5 151.5 34.8 117.6 75.0 138.0 56.5 26.5027847129 Transportation 43.1 90.9 90.3 52.2 33.8 89.3 50.2 75.8 9.6408680622 Food and Lodging 40 9.1 200 4.3 21.6 10.7 61.0 8.1 11.7149990398 N 11 23 28 62 520.7 Third Visit Consultation 41 100.0 78.0 100 79.06 100 72.8 100.0 14.0026928255 Tests 6 40.0 86.6 23.1 150 33.3 101.6 30.3 19.5422196576 Medicine 325 60.0 153.7 30.8 105 53.3 162 45.5 31.1598384305 Transportation 35.1 100.0 61.0 61.5 46.6 66.7 48.5 72.7 9.328717061 Food and Lodging 20 20.0 250.0 7.7 0 0.0 135 6.1 25.9665320254 N 5 13 15 33 519.9 Percent of women who report symptoms related to reproductive tract infections, who report treatment, and who used government, private, or other types of care Type of care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Report an RTI 21.8 21 15.8 19.05 N 856 457 1034 2347 Total Sample with RTIs Report seeking tratment 15.08 32.4 32.3 25.4 N 199 108 189 496 First visit Type of Facility Home 3.3 8.5 1.64 3.9 Government 26.6 25.57 18.04 22.09 Private 63.2 54.2 67.2 62.7 Other 6.9 11.73 13.12 11.31 N 31 35 61 126 Type of provider Private doctor 63.3 51.4 67.2 61.9 Government doctor 20 17.1 19.6 19.05 Private nurse 0 0 3.3 1.5 Government nurse 0 2.8 0 0.79 ANM/LHV 6.67 2.8 3.28 3.9 Others 10.03 25.9 6.62 12.86 N 31 35 61 126 Second visit Type of Facility Home 0 11.5 0 3.7 Government 43.7 19.1 26.2 27.5 Private 49.9 61.54 57.87 57.4 Other 6.4 7.86 15.93 11.4 N 16 26 38 80 Type of provider Private doctor 50 46.1 50 48.7 Government doctor 37.5 15.4 21 22.5 Private nurse 0 0 10.5 5 Government nurse 0 7.6 0 2.5 ANM/LHV 6.2 3.8 7.8 6.2 Others 6.3 27.1 10.7 15.1 N 16 26 38 80 Third visit Type of Facility Home 0 13.3 0 5 Government 42.8 20.01 11.12 20 Private 42.86 46.67 66.66 55 Other 14.34 20.02 22.22 20 N 7 15 18 40 Type of provider Private doctor 42.8 46.6 66.6 55 Government doctor 28.5 13.3 11.1 15 ANM/LHV 14.3 6.6 5.5 7.5 Others 14.4 33.5 16.8 22.5 N 7 15 18 40 RTI - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First RTI visit Public 77 144.6 94.77 108.1 Private 198.92 862.20 2008.23 1320.66 Other 0 153.33 75 97.85 N 30 35 61 126 Second RTI visit Public 219.74 194.05 81.7 154.98 Private 106.12 295.4 274.37 248.98 Other 0 80 20 50 N 16 26 38 80 Third RTI visit Public 285.25 79.56 123.2 144.60 Private 91.99 284.23 217.16 221.43 Other 0 80 20 50 N 7 15 18 40 Fourth RTI visit Public 105 112 134 122.54 Private 50 297.5 144.48 191.52 Other 0 70 15 33.33 N 3 6 12 21 RTI first visit public % share private % share Consultation 28.07 25.98 195.11 14.77 Tests 5.64 5.22 52.68 3.99 Medicine 47.7 44.15 1021.18 77.32 Transportation 24.7 22.86 41.83 3.17 Food and lodging 1.92 1.78 9.86 0.75 108.03 1320.66 RTI first visit Public Consultation 25.98 Tests 5.22 Medicine 44.15 Transport 22.86 Food and lodging 1.78 RTI first visit Private Consultation 14.77 Tests 3.99 Medicine 77.32 Transport 3.17 Food and lodging 0.75 Type of care Report an RTI 21.8 21 15.8 19.05 N 856 457 1034 2347 Percent of those who reported an RTI-related symptom reported seeking medical help Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Seek treatment 15.08 32.4 32.3 25.4 Do not seek treatment 84.92 67.6 67.7 74.6 user fee 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 10: RTI First Visit: Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditures in Public Sector formal and informal 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 11: RTI First Visit: Composition of Out of Pocket Expenditures in Private Sector 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Seek treatment Do not seek treatment Poverty Status Percent Figure 9: Percent of Those Who Seek Medical Help for a Reported RTI-related Symptom User fee in government health facilities Poor Near poor Not poor Total Percent women know about registration fee 87.27 91.9 87.43 88.24 N 856 457 1,034 2,347 Percent women know about user fee in government hospitals 23.5 31.9 28.9 27.5 N 856 457 1034 2347 Percent women know about exemptions 8.5 11.6 10 9.9 N 201 146 299 646 Percent women approve user fee For some 13.5 19.9 21.8 18.5 For all 14.6 19.7 14.9 15.7 Do not approve 71.8 60.4 63.1 65.7 N 856 457 1034 2347 Quality in government facilities Poor Near Poor Not poor Total Ever used 84.3 84.6 80.6 82.8 N 856 457 1034 2347 Rate quality of government facilities very bad 1.4 0.78 0.96 1.08 bad 14.3 15.2 13.7 14.2 average 80.4 76.2 77.5 78.3 good 3.6 7.7 6.7 5.7 very good 0.28 0 1 0.57 N 722 387 834 1943 Any improvement in quality Deteriorated 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.4 remained the same 83.2 75.9 75.1 78.3 improved 14.1 21.4 22.5 19.2 N 722 387 834 1943 Willing to pay for improved quality 45.7 54 60.3 53.6 N 722 387 834 1943 Percent women reported that doctors and other health care providers charge for the services provided by them in government facilities Poor Near Poor Not poor Total Doctors 8.4 9 11 9.7 Other health providers 10.2 11.4 16 12.9 N 722 387 834 1943 Reasons for not using government health care facilities Poor Near Poor Not poor Total High transportation costs 60.45 41.43 28 41.09 Staff not courteous 0.75 4.29 2.5 2.23 Prescribe costly medicines 10.45 17.14 16 14.36 Long waiting time 6.72 10 19 13.37 Staff are discrimatory 0 1.43 1 0.74 Unclean 0 0 2 0.99 Timing not suitable 1.49 0 1 0.99 Service providers are usually absent 5.97 8.57 3 4.95 Any other 12.69 14.29 26 19.55 N 134 70 200 404 Reasons for not using government health care facilities Poor High transportation costs 60.45 Staff not courteous 0.75 Prescribe costly medicines 10.45 Long waiting time 6.72 Staff are discrimatory 0 Unclean 0 Timing not suitable 1.49 Service providers are usually absent 5.97 Any other 12.69 Formal minus Informal ANC Birth Delivery Home Facility Home Facility Poor Formal fee 0 0 0 0 Out-of-pocket expenses 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Near poor Formal fee 0 15 0 200 Out-of-pocket expenses 40.67 119.3 244.4 1278.8 Informal 40.67 104.3 244.4 1078.8 Not poor Formal fee 0 15 0 500 Out-of-pocket expenses 75.55 230 411.2 1534.5 Informal 75.55 215 411.2 1034.5 Mean Expenditures Formal fee 0 15 0 300 Out-of-pocket expenses 33.56 165 270 1494.49 Informal 33.56 150 270 1194.49 Informal fee/total fees paid ANC Birth Delivery Home Facility Home Facility Poor Out-of-pocket expenses 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 100% 100% 100% Near poor Out-of-pocket expenses 40.67 119.3 244.4 1278.8 Informal 40.67 104.3 244.4 1078.8 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 87% 100% 84% Not poor Out-of-pocket expenses 75.55 230 411.2 1534.5 Informal 75.55 215 411.2 1034.5 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 93% 100% 67% All women Out-of-pocket expenses 33.56 165 270 1494.49 Informal 33.56 150 270 1194.49 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 91% 100% 80% Client who got free care poor near poor not poor total ANC home 84% 81 80 82 ANC Facility 55 46 29 41 Home delivery 17 8 4 10 Institutional Delivery 25 11 18 17 Post Natal Care 44 66 59 57 Child Health Care 86 75 72 77 Family Planning - sterilization 76 75 85 78 RTI 30 14 33 25 _1194690897.xls Chart1 14.7736737692 3.9889146336 77.3234594824 3.1673557161 0.7465963988 Figure 11: RTI First Visit: Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditures in Private Sector ANC Antenatal Care GOVERNMENT only Mean expenditures on antenatal care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Antenatal care Total 85.64 100 119.26 100 230.07 100 165.30 100 First Visit 30.15 100 31.07 100 87.55 100 52.24 100 Second visit 14.12 100 25.93 100 42.81 100 32.17 100 4.2504753398 Third visit 41.37 100 62.26 100 99.71 100 80.88 100 First Visit Consultation 4.9 44.66 3.5 53.03 11.2 70.5 8.1 58.12 3.3020790868 Medicine 60 1 93.6 7.6 119.7 12.9 11.4 6.8 4.6473705667 Tests 126 5.8 116.3 9.1 164.2 20.1 151.4 12.9 61.7203424378 Transportation 64.7 31 27.2 27.3 26.4 45.3 37.4 36.6 15.2466367713 Food and Lodging 0 0 15 27.3 42.5 45.3 37 36.6 15.0835711374 N 103 66 139 308 245.3 Second Visit Consultation 6.3 27.16 3.6 32.14 6.3 40.32 5.8 34.48 2.2188217292 Medicine 50 1.2 160 5.4 66.9 10.5 82.4 6.5 31.5225707728 Tests 115 2.4 55 7.1 148.9 8.8 123.9 6.5 47.3986228003 Transportation 33.5 27 27.9 28.5 25.3 41.1 27.8 34 10.6350420811 Food and Lodging 0 0 15 28.5 23.7 41.1 21.5 34 8.2249426167 N 81 56 124 261 261.4 Third Visit Consultation 12.3 31.58 5.8 56.52 7.4 46.3 7.6 45.83 1.8322082932 Medicine 0 0 193.3 13 74 9.2 118.8 8.3 28.6403085824 Tests 200 10.5 80 17.4 256.62 20.3 219.4 17.7 52.8929604629 Transportation 44.8 36.8 36.1 39 34.2 44.4 36.5 41.6 8.7994214079 Food and Lodging 0 0 15 39 50 44.4 32.5 41.6 7.8351012536 N 19 23 54 96 414.8 Percent distribution of women by place of antenatal care and by economic status Type of care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First ANC visit Consultation 3.3020790868 Place of Care Medicine 4.6473705667 Sub center 30.1 37.88 18.71 26.62 Tests 61.7203424378 SAD 0.97 0 1.44 0.97 Transportation 15.2466367713 APHC 8.74 9.09 6.47 7.79 Food and Lodging 15.0835711374 CHC/PHC 42.72 33.33 40.29 39.61 Hospital 10.68 19.7 27.34 20.13 UFWC 0 0 0.72 0.32 Others 6.79 0 5.03 4.56 N 103 66 139 308 Second ANC visit Place of Care Sub center 32.1 37.5 20.97 27.97 SAD 1.23 0 1.61 1.15 APHC 7.41 8.93 6.45 7.28 CHC/PHC 40.74 32.14 37.1 37.16 Hospital 11.11 21.43 28.23 21.46 UFWC 0 0 1.61 0.77 Others 7.41 0 4.03 4.21 N 81 56 124 261 Third ANC visit Place of Care Subcenter 15.79 21.74 16.67 17.71 SAD 0 0 3.7 2.08 APHC 10.53 4.35 3.7 5.21 CHC/PHC 26.32 34.78 35.19 33.33 Hospital 26.32 39.13 33.33 33.33 Others 21.05 0 7.41 8.33 N 19 23 54 96 ANC - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First ANC visit Public 28.78 23.6 60.53 42.07 N 103 66 139 308 Private 311.04 197.93 326.66 309.22 N 21 16 100 137 Second ANC visit Public 14.24 58.73 605 304.45 N 81 56 124 261 Private 97.28 177.65 230.04 209.38 N 13 12 89 114 Third ANC visit Public 30.93 50.24 64.25 54.29 N 19 23 54 96 Private 123.54 120 223.93 207.47 N 7 4 57 68 Fourth ANC visit Public 24.4 4.81 37.94 27.33 N 19 23 54 96 Private 17.13 57.5 194.57 168.24 N 7 4 57 68 First ANC visit Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Public 28.78 23.6 60.53 42.07 Private 311.04 197.93 326.66 309.22 ANC 28.78 311.04 23.6 197.93 60.53 326.66 42.07 309.22 Public Private Poverty Status Amount in Rs. Figure 3: Mean Expenditures in Public and Private FacilitiesFirst ANC Visit Delivery Birth Delivery Mean expenditures on birth delivery services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Birth delivery Home Delivery 205.17 100 264.56 100 423.95 100 297.09 100 Institutional delivery 3022.64 100 2180.83 100 4902.88 100 4177.75 100 Home delivery Consultation 201.5 100 262.9 100 387.9 100 282.4 100 40.5223131009 Medicine 166.7 2.2 200 0.83 393.6 9.16 335.3 4.38 48.1130721768 Other costs due to complications 125.3 5.1 92.2 2.7 20 4.2 79.2 4.97 11.3646147223 N 137 85 120 342 696.9 Institutional delivery Consultation/ medicine 2259.3 100 1686.7 100 4153.9 100 3586.4 100 77.0 Transportation 241.2 92.8 262.1 94.4 257.3 91.3 256.2 91.2 5.5 Food and Lodging 410.1 78.5 300 61 608.9 73.1 391.7 69.8 8.4 Other costs 1016.7 21.4 230 27.7 378.9 18.2 425.7 19.8 9.1 N 14 18 93 126 4660 Percent distribution of women by place of delivery and by economic status Type of Care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Place of delivery Home 92.79 84.43 56.28 76.35 Facility 7.21 15.57 43.72 23.65 N 222 122 231 575 Home Delivery Who provided assistance Government doctor 0.0 1.9 0.8 0.7 private doctor 2.4 3.9 3.9 3.2 ANM/LHV/nurse 5.3 4.9 20.8 9.8 Dai 68.5 77.7 71.5 71.5 Relative/friend 22.3 11.7 3.1 14.1 Others 1.46 0 0 0.68 N 206 103 130 439 Institutional Delivery Government facility 50.0 47.4 21.8 28.7 Private facility 43.8 42.1 73.3 65.4 other 6.3 10.5 4.9 5.9 N 16 19 101 136 Public and private Type of costs Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Home delivery assistance Public providers 73.79 84.47 93.08 82 Private providers 26.21 15.53 6.92 18 N 206 103 130 439 Mean expenditure - home delivery Public 172.29 244.45 411.19 270.02 Private 49.34 121.25 270.78 90.96 N 206 103 130 439 Mean expenditure - institutional delivery Public 1626.875 1278.88 1534.57 1494.49 Private 3664 2775.6 6653.4 6007.07 N 16 19 101 136 Place of delivery Type of Care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Home 92.79 84.43 56.28 76.35 Facility 7.21 15.57 43.72 23.65 Mean expenditure - institutional delivery Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Public 1626.875 1278.88 1534.57 1494.49 Private 3664 2775.6 6653.4 6007.07 Delivery 92.79 7.21 84.43 15.57 56.28 43.72 76.35 23.65 Home Facility Poverty Status Percent Figure 4: Place of Delivery by Poverty Status PNC 1626.875 3664 1278.88 2775.6 1534.57 6653.4 1494.49 6007.07 Public Private Poverty Status Amount in Rs. Figure 5: Mean Expenditure on Delivery Services in Public and Private Facilities child health care Post Natal Care Mean expenditures on postnatal care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Postnatal care Total 227.22 100 320.68 100 411.61 100 315.07 100 First Visit 136.62 100 90.75 100 215.91 100 166.75 100 Second visit 90.60 100 229.93 100 195.70 100 148.32 100 First Visit Consultation 70 100 72.2 100 74.5 98.1 72.1 100 12.4718906764 Medicine 169.2 22.2 85.3 16.7 214.5 39.6 186.9 30.6 32.3300467047 Tests 270 7.4 0 0 350 7.5 278.3 6.1 48.140460128 Transportation 40.6 22.2 26 16.7 41.9 75.5 40.8 50 7.0576024909 N 27 18 53 98 578.1 Second Visit Consultation 45.4 100 116.6 100 88.7 100 77.4 100 Medicine 97.5 40 145 66.7 149.4 50 135 48.4 Transportation 31 20 50 33.3 34.2 94.4 34.7 16.1 N 10 3 18 31 Percent distribution of women by place of postnatal care and by economic status Place of Care and type of providers Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Used postnatal care 18.5 18.8 36.3 25.7 N 222 122 231 575 First PNC visit Place of Care Home 56.1 47.8 28.6 39.2 Government Facility 21.9 26.1 32.1 28.3 Private Facility 12.2 17.4 38.1 27.7 Other Facility 9.76 8.7 1.2 4.7 N 41 23 84 148 Type of Provider Doctor 53.6 65.2 52.3 54.7 ANM/LHV 34.1 30.4 29.7 31.1 Nurse 2.4 4.3 13 8.8 Others 9.7 0 4.7 5.4 N 41 23 84 148 Second PNC visit Place of Care Home 42.8 16.6 13.7 22.4 Government Facility 14.3 50 41.3 34.7 Private Facility 28.5 33.3 44.8 38.7 Other Facility 14.3 0 0 4.08 N 14 6 29 49 Type of Provider Doctor 57.1 50 41.4 46.9 ANM/LHV 28.5 50 34.5 34.7 Nurse 0 0 20.7 12.2 Others 14.3 0 3.4 6.1 N 14 6 29 49 Public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First PNC visit Home 60.6 84.71 44.66 53.66 Public 39.6 2.99 57.396 45.89 Private 232.1 141.2 270.16 250.34 N 38 22 84 144 Second PNC visit Home 25 100 75 51.81 Public 3.5 0 71.51 50.82 Private 169.25 295 188.07 195.35 N 12 6 29 47 Place of Care and type of providers Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Used postnatal care 18.5 18.8 36.3 25.7 child health care 18.5 18.8 36.3 25.7 Used postnatal care Poverty Status Percent Figure 6: Percentage of Women Who Used Postnatal Care Family planning Child Health care Mean expenditures on child health care services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Child Health Care Total 228.50 100 163.35 100 416.89 100 310.09 100 First Visit 75.91 100 50.86 100 173.81 100 123.46 100 Second visit 86.79 100 52.68 100 118.78 100 95.28 100 Third visit 65.80 100 59.81 100 124.30 100 91.35 100 First Visit Consultation 36.8 100 26.1 100 97.5 100 67.4 100 18.985915493 Medicine 122 12.5 90 16.7 167.4 30 149.4 22.7 42.0845070423 Transportation 45.9 40 24.8 36.7 32.3 53.75 34.2 46.7 9.6338028169 Food and Lodging 73.3 7.5 10 6.7 174.5 5 104 6 29.2957746479 N 40 30 80 150 355 Second Visit Consultation 36.9 100 33.7 100 58.8 100 47.2 100 Medicine 129.3 24.2 41 11.1 114.3 37.7 111.4 28.1 Transportation 34 54.5 35.4 40.7 27.1 62.3 30.3 55.4 N 33 27 61 121 Third Visit Consultation 40.8 96.6 39.5 100 67.6 100 52.7 99.1 Medicine 105.5 17.2 98.7 14.3 176.2 23.5 144.7 19.4 Transportation 29.8 27.6 17.4 35.7 29.9 51.0 26.4 41.7 N 29 28 51 108 Percent of women who used government, private or other sources for child health care services Place of Care and type of providers Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Used Child Health Care Services 80.6 88.5 87.4 85 N 222 122 231 575 First Child Health Care visit Place of Care Home 36.8 35.2 26.7 32.3 Government Facility 28.5 33.3 38.9 33.8 Private Facility 12.3 11.1 25.2 17.38 Other Facility 22.4 20.4 9.2 16.52 N 179 108 202 489 Type of Provider Doctor 14.5 14.8 28.7 20.4 ANM/LHV 74.8 63.8 53.9 63.8 Nurse 3.3 6.4 10.4 6.9 Others 7.4 15 7 8.9 N 179 108 202 489 Second child health care visit Place of Care Home 35.5 30.6 18.7 27.7 Government Facility 28.19 37.51 41.88 35.77 Private Facility 14.1 15.91 30.01 20.84 Other Facility 22.21 15.98 9.41 15.69 N 149 88 160 397 Type of Provider Doctor 16.7 19.3 30.6 22.9 ANM/LHV 71.1 62.5 56.2 63.2 Nurse 4 4.5 9.4 6.3 Others 8.2 13.7 3.8 7.6 N 149 88 160 397 Third child health care visit Place of Care Home 32.2 29.8 23.8 28.2 Government Facility 34.4 35.82 33.88 34.57 Private Facility 17.21 19.4 33.94 24.53 Other Facility 16.19 14.98 8.38 12.7 N 93 67 109 269 Type of Provider Doctor 22.5 26.8 33.9 28.2 ANM/LHV 63.4 53.7 54.13 57.2 Nurse 4.3 2.9 5.5 4.5 Others 9.8 16.6 6.47 10.1 N 93 67 109 269 Child health care - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First Child Health Care visit Home 1.66 0 2.97 1.706 Public 2.94 4.85 36.16 18.77 Private 129.03 61.57 224.63 175.61 Other 5.12 31.28 10.6 13.72 N 179 108 202 489 Second child health care visit Home 1.03 0 1.66 0.95 Public 2.43 5.48 14.7 8.94 Private 113.89 1128.41 130.01 288.22 Other 8.1 42.08 8.33 17.55 N 149 88 160 397 Third child health care visit Home 3.5 0 3.8 2.69 Public 6.4 810.84 18.15 210.29 Private 83.17 91.91 153.47 124.31 Other 20.99 41.87 4 24.94 N 93 67 109 269 Abortion Family Planning Mean expenditures on Family planning services and methods and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Sterilization 767.51 100 410.35 100 692.71 100 662.19 100 IUDs 81.95 100 97.48 100 197.88 100 170.49 100 Oral Pills/condoms 7.00 100 14.00 100 14.82 100 13.74 100 Sterilization Services 1135.1 33.3 577.5 30.8 670 21.4 908.5 29.6 48.9889458075 Medicine 608.3 22.2 225 30.8 800 28.6 553.5 25.9 29.8463197627 Transportation 130.8 100.0 126.9 100.0 242 100.0 158.5 100.0 8.5467781073 Food/room 221.7 55.6 118.7 30.8 550 14.3 234 38.9 12.6179563225 N 27 13 14 54 1854.5 IUDs IUCD 12 25.0 0 0.0 249.2 25.0 215.2 21.9 48.7429218573 Services 0 0.0 33.3 75.0 124.8 66.7 109.8 59.4 24.8697621744 Medicine 50 25.0 80 25.0 71 41.7 70 37.5 15.8550396376 Transportation 88.6 75.0 70 75.0 34.2 66.7 46.5 68.8 10.5322763307 N 4 4 24 32 441.5 Pills/condoms Supplies 7 100 14 100 14.9 99.4 13.8 99.6 N 27 39 176 242 Percent of women currently using family planning, and percent distribution of women currently using family planning by type of method Use of family planning Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Percent currently using family planning 42.8 44.4 55.6 48.7 Total sample 856 457 1034 2347 Type of methods Female sterilization 73.8 62.5 46.1 57.9 Male sterilization 6.81 4.9 2.26 4.2 IUCD 1.1 1.9 4.1 2.79 Oral Pills 4.4 5.9 10.1 7.5 Condoms 6.8 14.7 25.7 17.7 Traditional Methods 7.1 9.8 11.6 9.8 N 367 203 575 1145 Sterilization Sterlization within two years 9.8 10.2 7.2 8.8 N 296 137 278 711 Place of sterilization Government 72.42 85.71 70 74.6 Private 6.9 7.1 10 7.9 Others 20.68 7.19 20 17.5 29 14 20 63 IUCD IUCD within two years 66.7 50 50 62.5 N 4 4 24 32 Place of IUCD insertion Government 75 75 37.47 46.89 Private 0 0 58.3 43.75 Others 25 25 4.23 9.36 N 4 4 24 32 Pills and condoms Government 39.03 5.7 16.03 17.56 Private facility 0 0 1.46 1.04 Pharmacy and shops 58.46 90.4 81.55 79.59 Others 2.51 3.9 0.96 1.81 N 41 42 206 289 Family Planning - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Sterilization Public 20.22 17.9 23.52 21.05 Private 6900 2900 1514 4025.6 Other 144.31 15.00 67.5 104.62 N 296 137 278 711 IUCD Public 82 98 64.06 76.27 Private 282.98 282.98 N 4 4 24 32 Use of family planning Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Percent currently using family planning 42.8 44.4 55.6 48.7 Total sample 856 457 1034 2347 Abortion 42.8 44.4 55.6 48.7 Percent currently using family planning Poverty Status Percent Figure 7: Percent Currently Using Family Planning RTI Post Abortion Care Mean expenditures on abortion services and methods and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Abortion 1474.14 100.0 760.44 100 547.93 100 1205.67 100 After abortion 668.48 100.0 0.00 100 696.20 100 686.71 100 Abortion Services 1130 100.0 502.7 100.0 77.4 96.3 813.5 97.9 60.2458712879 Medicine 303.3 75.0 346.6 66.7 442 74.1 390 74.5 28.8824705621 Transportation 140 83.3 34.3 77.8 187.7 77.8 146.8 80.9 10.87165815 N 12 9 27 48 1350.3 After abortion Services 327.5 100 0 0 201.2 100 264.4 100 36.0906360906 Medicine 273.3 75 0 0 437.5 100 367.1 87.5 50.1092001092 Transportation 136 100 0 0 57.5 100 101.1 100 13.8001638002 N 4 0 4 8 732.6 Percent of women who used abortion services, and percent distribution of abortion service users by type of source and by economic status Type of care Poor Near poor Not poor Total Total sample Used abortion services 2.5 3.6 3.8 3.35 N 589 334 776 1699 Type of Facility Home 0 8.3 3.3 3.5 Government 40 41.7 26.66 33.32 Private 53.3 50 56.6 54.39 Others 6.7 0 13.44 8.79 N 15 12 30 57 Type of provider Private doctor 53.3 33.3 40 42.1 Government doctor 6.67 8.3 10 8.7 Private nurse 6.67 16.67 20 15.79 Government nurse 0 0 3.3 1.7 ANM/LHV 20 33.3 6.6 15.8 Others 13.36 8.43 20.1 15.91 N 15 12 30 57 Type of Facility Home 3.5 Government 33.32 Private 54.39 Others 8.79 RTI 0 0 0 0 Figure 7: Source of Post Abortion Care user fee RTI Mean expenditures on RTI services and percent distribution of expenditures by type of service and by economic status Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Type of costs Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent RTI Total 689.55 100 711.89 100 721.62 100 648.95 100 First Visit 174.92 100 242.63 100 238.60 100 166.50 100 Second visit 237.14 100 267.21 100 266.90 100 261.77 100 Third visit 277.50 100 202.05 100 216.13 100 220.68 100 First Visit Consultation 66.3 100.0 87.09 97.0 53.5 98.1 66.2 9.7 12.1001645037 Tests 61.6 11.5 283.3 9.1 226.6 27.8 211 18.6 38.5669895814 Medicine 133 38.5 145.8 45.5 145 63.0 143.1 52.2 26.1560957777 Transportation 60.8 73.1 105.1 45.5 42.5 70.4 60.4 63.7 11.0400292451 Food and Lodging 30.8 19.2 151.2 12.1 26.2 7.4 66.4 11.5 12.136720892 N 26 33 54 113 547.1 Second Visit Consultation 47.9 100.0 101.5 100 61.6 100 74.0 100 14.2116381794 Tests 92.2 45.5 219.3 26.1 237.0 35.7 197.5 33.9 37.9297100058 Medicine 191.6 54.5 151.5 34.8 117.6 75.0 138.0 56.5 26.5027847129 Transportation 43.1 90.9 90.3 52.2 33.8 89.3 50.2 75.8 9.6408680622 Food and Lodging 40 9.1 200 4.3 21.6 10.7 61.0 8.1 11.7149990398 N 11 23 28 62 520.7 Third Visit Consultation 41 100.0 78.0 100 79.06 100 72.8 100.0 14.0026928255 Tests 6 40.0 86.6 23.1 150 33.3 101.6 30.3 19.5422196576 Medicine 325 60.0 153.7 30.8 105 53.3 162 45.5 31.1598384305 Transportation 35.1 100.0 61.0 61.5 46.6 66.7 48.5 72.7 9.328717061 Food and Lodging 20 20.0 250.0 7.7 0 0.0 135 6.1 25.9665320254 N 5 13 15 33 519.9 Percent of women who report symptoms related to reproductive tract infections, who report treatment, and who used government, private, or other types of care Type of care Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Report an RTI 21.8 21 15.8 19.05 N 856 457 1034 2347 Total Sample with RTIs Report seeking tratment 15.08 32.4 32.3 25.4 N 199 108 189 496 First visit Type of Facility Home 3.3 8.5 1.64 3.9 Government 26.6 25.57 18.04 22.09 Private 63.2 54.2 67.2 62.7 Other 6.9 11.73 13.12 11.31 N 31 35 61 126 Type of provider Private doctor 63.3 51.4 67.2 61.9 Government doctor 20 17.1 19.6 19.05 Private nurse 0 0 3.3 1.5 Government nurse 0 2.8 0 0.79 ANM/LHV 6.67 2.8 3.28 3.9 Others 10.03 25.9 6.62 12.86 N 31 35 61 126 Second visit Type of Facility Home 0 11.5 0 3.7 Government 43.7 19.1 26.2 27.5 Private 49.9 61.54 57.87 57.4 Other 6.4 7.86 15.93 11.4 N 16 26 38 80 Type of provider Private doctor 50 46.1 50 48.7 Government doctor 37.5 15.4 21 22.5 Private nurse 0 0 10.5 5 Government nurse 0 7.6 0 2.5 ANM/LHV 6.2 3.8 7.8 6.2 Others 6.3 27.1 10.7 15.1 N 16 26 38 80 Third visit Type of Facility Home 0 13.3 0 5 Government 42.8 20.01 11.12 20 Private 42.86 46.67 66.66 55 Other 14.34 20.02 22.22 20 N 7 15 18 40 Type of provider Private doctor 42.8 46.6 66.6 55 Government doctor 28.5 13.3 11.1 15 ANM/LHV 14.3 6.6 5.5 7.5 Others 14.4 33.5 16.8 22.5 N 7 15 18 40 RTI - public and private Mean Expenditures Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total First RTI visit Public 77 144.6 94.77 108.1 Private 198.92 862.20 2008.23 1320.66 Other 0 153.33 75 97.85 N 30 35 61 126 Second RTI visit Public 219.74 194.05 81.7 154.98 Private 106.12 295.4 274.37 248.98 Other 0 80 20 50 N 16 26 38 80 Third RTI visit Public 285.25 79.56 123.2 144.60 Private 91.99 284.23 217.16 221.43 Other 0 80 20 50 N 7 15 18 40 Fourth RTI visit Public 105 112 134 122.54 Private 50 297.5 144.48 191.52 Other 0 70 15 33.33 N 3 6 12 21 RTI first visit public % share private % share Consultation 28.07 25.98 195.11 14.77 Tests 5.64 5.22 52.68 3.99 Medicine 47.7 44.15 1021.18 77.32 Transportation 24.7 22.86 41.83 3.17 Food and lodging 1.92 1.78 9.86 0.75 108.03 1320.66 RTI first visit Public Consultation 25.98 Tests 5.22 Medicine 44.15 Transport 22.86 Food and lodging 1.78 RTI first visit Private Consultation 14.77 Tests 3.99 Medicine 77.32 Transport 3.17 Food and lodging 0.75 Type of care Report an RTI 21.8 21 15.8 19.05 N 856 457 1034 2347 Percent of those who reported an RTI-related symptom reported seeking medical help Poor Near Poor Not Poor Total Seek treatment 15.08 32.4 32.3 25.4 Do not seek treatment 84.92 67.6 67.7 74.6 user fee 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 10: RTI First Visit: Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditures in Public Sector formal and informal 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 11: RTI First Visit: Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditures in Private Sector 15.08 84.92 32.4 67.6 32.3 67.7 25.4 74.6 Seek treatment Do not seek treatment Poverty Status Percent Figure 9: Percent of Those Who Seek Medical Help for a Reported RTI-related Symptom User fee in government health facilities Poor Near poor Not poor Total Percent women know about registration fee 87.27 91.9 87.43 88.24 N 856 457 1,034 2,347 Percent women know about user fee in government hospitals 23.5 31.9 28.9 27.5 N 856 457 1034 2347 Percent women know about exemptions 8.5 11.6 10 9.9 N 201 146 299 646 Percent women approve user fee For some 13.5 19.9 21.8 18.5 For all 14.6 19.7 14.9 15.7 Do not approve 71.8 60.4 63.1 65.7 N 856 457 1034 2347 Quality in government facilities Poor Near Poor Not poor Total Ever used 84.3 84.6 80.6 82.8 N 856 457 1034 2347 Rate quality of government facilities very bad 1.4 0.78 0.96 1.08 bad 14.3 15.2 13.7 14.2 average 80.4 76.2 77.5 78.3 good 3.6 7.7 6.7 5.7 very good 0.28 0 1 0.57 N 722 387 834 1943 Any improvement in quality Deteriorated 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.4 remained the same 83.2 75.9 75.1 78.3 improved 14.1 21.4 22.5 19.2 N 722 387 834 1943 Willing to pay for improved quality 45.7 54 60.3 53.6 N 722 387 834 1943 Percent women reported that doctors and other health care providers charge for the services provided by them in government facilities Poor Near Poor Not poor Total Doctors 8.4 9 11 9.7 Other health providers 10.2 11.4 16 12.9 N 722 387 834 1943 Reasons for not using government health care facilities Poor Near Poor Not poor Total High transportation costs 60.45 41.43 28 41.09 Staff not courteous 0.75 4.29 2.5 2.23 Prescribe costly medicines 10.45 17.14 16 14.36 Long waiting time 6.72 10 19 13.37 Staff are discrimatory 0 1.43 1 0.74 Unclean 0 0 2 0.99 Timing not suitable 1.49 0 1 0.99 Service providers are usually absent 5.97 8.57 3 4.95 Any other 12.69 14.29 26 19.55 N 134 70 200 404 Reasons for not using government health care facilities Poor High transportation costs 60.45 Staff not courteous 0.75 Prescribe costly medicines 10.45 Long waiting time 6.72 Staff are discrimatory 0 Unclean 0 Timing not suitable 1.49 Service providers are usually absent 5.97 Any other 12.69 Formal minus Informal ANC Birth Delivery Home Facility Home Facility Poor Formal fee 0 0 0 0 Out-of-pocket expenses 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Near poor Formal fee 0 15 0 200 Out-of-pocket expenses 40.67 119.3 244.4 1278.8 Informal 40.67 104.3 244.4 1078.8 Not poor Formal fee 0 15 0 500 Out-of-pocket expenses 75.55 230 411.2 1534.5 Informal 75.55 215 411.2 1034.5 Mean Expenditures Formal fee 0 15 0 300 Out-of-pocket expenses 33.56 165 270 1494.49 Informal 33.56 150 270 1194.49 Informal fee/total fees paid ANC Birth Delivery Home Facility Home Facility Poor Out-of-pocket expenses 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal 11.23 85.64 172 1626.9 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 100% 100% 100% Near poor Out-of-pocket expenses 40.67 119.3 244.4 1278.8 Informal 40.67 104.3 244.4 1078.8 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 87% 100% 84% Not poor Out-of-pocket expenses 75.55 230 411.2 1534.5 Informal 75.55 215 411.2 1034.5 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 93% 100% 67% All women Out-of-pocket expenses 33.56 165 270 1494.49 Informal 33.56 150 270 1194.49 Informal/out-of-pocket expenses 100% 91% 100% 80% Client who got free

View the publication

You are currently offline. Some pages or content may fail to load.