1 / 56

Evaluation of NRHM in Karnataka

Evaluation of NRHM in Karnataka. Project Update Presented to Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, GOK. Presented by Dr R Balasubramaniam. Agenda. Introduction to the project Background and Literature Study NRHM Funds analysis

Download Presentation

Evaluation of NRHM in Karnataka

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Evaluation of NRHM in Karnataka Project Update Presented to Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, GOK Presented by Dr R Balasubramaniam

  2. Agenda • Introduction to the project • Background and Literature Study • NRHM Funds analysis • Exploratory analysis of financial and health indicators • Correlational analysis

  3. Introduction • T o understand the planning and execution processes of NRHM in Karnataka • To understand the efficacy of allotment and flow of funds keeping the taluk as fundamental unit • To make policy suggestions for effective planning, allocation and utilization of funds for achieving goals of NRHM • Focus of the study • NRHM Fund Allocation, Structure and Design • NRHM’s Current Funding Allocation, its utilization, implementation, and its impact on Karnataka’s Health Indicators 3

  4. Proposal • Phase I: NRHM Funds Allocation Structure and Design, current funding and utilization, implementation, and its impact on Karnataka’s Health Indicators • Phase 2: Field validation, stakeholder appraisal of NRHM’s planning processes at the local and regional level

  5. Phase I • Study of existing planning and implementation processes • For identifying focus areas and prioritizing fund allocations • Study of current progress at the taluk level, • Health indicators, fund allocation and expenditure, status of physical infrastructure, human resources • What correlates with taluk health indicators? • Overall development status of the taluk • Funding allocated to that taluk • Physical infrastructure • Human resources • Community involvement • Certain combination of the above What is the optimum combination of inputs needed for improvement in health indicators at the taluka level? 5

  6. Phase II • Understanding • Local NRHM related processes • NRHM’s planning, fund allocation and expenditures from the local perspective • Levels of community engagement, monitoring and ownership of public health systems • Validation and analysis of regional disparities. • Identification of local challenges and gaps. • Possible policy advocacy options obtained during this study 6

  7. Background and Literature Study

  8. Literature Review Outputs • Review of health policies • National Health Policy 2002 • State Health Policy 2004 • Report of the NCMH 2005 • Understanding NRHM • Review of evaluations and critiques of NRHM • Analysis of PIPs and DHAPs • Our impressions

  9. Review of health policies National Health Policy 2002, Karnataka State Integrated Health Policy 2004, Report of NCMH 2005 • Documents the condition of the public health sector of the country • Recognize challenges in like • low quality of health indicators (especially RCH), widespread disparities (regional, rural-urban, gender, social groups) • low levels of public investment in health, • lack of accountability of the public health system and • under-utilization of public health infrastructure and services

  10. Review of health policies • Suggest road-map and strategies • increase in public investment, the active role of centre • the involvement of PRIs in all stages • the emphasis on primary health care and particularly PHCs and SCs • the importance of women’s health • inter-sectoral approach (nutrition, sanitation, water supply) • Importance of planning and monitoring • HR reforms in the health sector

  11. Understanding NRHM Objective: “…improving the availability of and access to quality health care by people, especially for those residing in rural areas, the poor, women and children”.

  12. Evaluations of NRHM • NRHM - Meeting People's Health Needs in Partnership with States - The Journey So Far - 2005 – 2010 • Increase in spending on health has not reached intended targets*. (annual increase in NRHM overlay ~ 20% , annual increase in expenditure ~ 25%) • Planning efficiency, monitoring of expenditure to be improved • Mismatch between pace of increase in demand and availability of infrastructure • Problems of HR • Decentralization is slow, needs to be fostered. • Common Review Missions (Second and Fifth Rounds) • Karnataka is better off in terms of health finances (since multiple sources of funds exist). • Infrastructure is impressive (more than required according to IPHS). However, quality of works needs attention. • Shortage of HR • Frameworks, processes in place, but need to be strengthened. • Decentralization has created some friction. • Funds utilized, but not transformed into higher utilization rates. * Figures presented are at the national level.

  13. Evaluations of NRHM • Report of the Working Group on NRHM for the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012 – 2017) • Centre’s outlay on health has increased substantially. Together with this, state expenditure has also increased. • Karnataka lags significantly behind in IMR and MMR when compared to other southern states. May not achieve the targets with the current pace. • The largest share of NRHM funding has gone into infrastructure strengthening (31%) followed by RCH activities (28%) and disease control programmes (14%) • Funds released on ‘per facility normative basis’ and not responsive to utilization patterns leading to scarcity in some facilities and stagnant funds in others.

  14. Evaluations of NRHM • Performance audit of NRHM (CAG, 2008) • Funds released to states on share of population, rather than on equity/need. • Guidelines not being followed in expenditure • Poor accounts and record keeping (also field experience) • Concerns of under-utilization of funds (James et al, 2009) (Gayithri et al, 2011) • Inadequate understanding of NRHM • Confusion over spending of Untied Funds • Mismatch between releases and expenditure

  15. Evaluations of NRHM • Regional Disparities (Gayithri et al, 2011) • Allocation to districts based on population • Urban/rural/geographical/community/gender disparities (documented in many official documents) • Karnataka lags behind other southern states in terms of MMR (178) (SRS, 2009) • Kerala and TN have reached 100 • Estimated MMR of Karnataka in 2012: 130 • Health gains not in line with expenditure on infrastructure and activities

  16. NRHM – Field experiences • NRHM has played a major role in • improving infrastructure • increasing the reach of health services in rural areas • increasing institutional deliveries • reducing mortality rates • improving the overall general health of pregnant women and new mothers

  17. NRHM – Field experiences • Acute shortage of human resources • Issues in disbursal of funds in schemes like PA and JSY • Additional responsibilities: More time spent on documentation and logistics, reduced field time for field workers and MOs • Lack of proper documentation of fund position • Many PHCs, (some lack infrastructure, some are under-utilized), need more PHCs in some areas • Non-availability of drugs, extra charges for drugs • Mismatch in the planned and actual needs of the PHCs • Not many PHCs (and 24 X 7s) handle deliveries • True participation of VHSC and ARS in monitoring and management has a long way to go.

  18. NRHM - PIP Preparation process • Every year, PIP is prepared based on GoI resource envelope. • Resource envelope: • Last year’s allocation + 10 – 15 % increase + state share • PIP template is given to PHCs, taluks and districts (changes every year) • Training, workshops have to be conducted • Teams are prepared for collecting information • Extensive information collected in the form of tables • PIPs are reviewed by the NPCC, revised and the ROP gives the final approval to the PIP

  19. Observations on PIPs • Do not seem to indicate district specific needs and innovations • May not cover actual action/implementation fully • New hospitals constructed , mentioned in next year’s PIP, not matching with PIP of previous years (Infrastructure Strengthening 2008-09, 2009-10 PIPs) • Only in a couple of years, do we see plans integrated from other projects like KHSDRP • Too ambitious in health outcomes Karnataka State PIP, 2009 – 10, pp: 13

  20. Analysis of DHAPs • DHAP is the corner stone of NRHM • considerable time and effort required to build decentralized planning capacities. • However, planning is not new, and in parallel, other planning activities are also going on. • Issues • A lot of data is collected and analysis of this data would give critical district specific information • Non-integration of different activities at the district level (w.r.t health itself as well as related sectors) • Needs and requirements mentioned in different sections of the DHAP are not integrated into the work plan section

  21. Analysis of Sample DHAPs • Issues (Continued) • A lot of material is repeated and taken verbatim from other sources. Most of this does not add any new value. • There is no follow up on DHAP of previous year. • The DHAPs do not mention the analysis of readily available district data through HMIS • The work plans do not explicitly mention prioritization of issues • No discussion on issues related to drug procurement and disbursal (although it’s a recurring practical issue) • The FMR reduces DHAPs to a costing framework • Innovations are basically state-level innovations, rather than those borne out of district needs.

  22. Our Impressions (based on literature review, analysis of PIPs and field experience) • Policies, mission documents, evaluations have clearly and comprehensively pointed out issues of concern. In actual planning and implementation, these concerns are not addressed. • Schemes are designed by top bureaucrats, activists and CBOs. Implementers of missions and schemes may not have internalized their objectives. Patterns of implementation haven’t change much at the ground level. • No valid benchmarks set in planning against which implementation activities can be evaluated. • Some indicators may not be sufficient to draw inferences (indicators on communitization) • Complex set of rules, guidelines and procedures (confusing both MOs as well as community) • Inefficiency and transaction costs continue to be significantly high

  23. NRHM Funds Analysis • Methodology of analysis • Data sources • State level trends in • allocation and expenditure • status of health infrastructure • District trends • Correlational analysis • Regional imbalances

  24. Exploratory analysis Methodology of funds analysis Customized expenditure heads • HR • Infrastructure and Maintenance • RCH Prog. Activities • NRHM Prog Activities • RI Prog Activities • Drugs • IEC and Training • Administration NRHM Heads of Accounts, 3 major heads (from Statement of Expenditure) • RCH Flexipool • NRHM Flexipool • RI About 300 line items (FMR) Remapped Progress: Done at the district level, for one year (2010-11) Not available for other years, not available at taluk level Correlational analysis Selected indicators from HMIS

  25. Methodology of funds analysis • Exploratory analysis • Descriptive analysis of trends in financial and health indicators • Helps to identify un-natural and unexpected trends • Correlation analysis • Measures whether there is similarity in the trends of two or more variables. • Helps to identify whether the program expenditure is consistent with prior goals and objectives

  26. Health and Finance Data Sources • NRHM HMIS • Various publications on the NRHM’s GOI and GOK websites • Progress of Programme publications • Dynamic reports from HMIS • District Level Household Survey 3 • PIPs, ROPs and DHAPs of various years • District Statement of Expenditures – 2010-11 (FMR) (taluk-wise details not available) • SHS audit reports

  27. Differences and limitations in data • HMIS Data

  28. Differences and limitations in data • IMR and MMR (HMIS data) • IMR in Karnataka - 38 (SRS Bulletin, Dec 2011) • MMR in Karnataka – 178 (SRS, 2009) IMR: ratio of the number of deaths of babies under one year of age per 1,000 live births MMR: ratio of the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births

  29. Differences and limitations in data • These limitations (and no readily available taluk data) are addressed in the following ways: • Ratios and comparative trends (and not actual numbers considered wherever feasible) • Outliers not considered for state level analysis • Use various sources of data • Finance data

  30. Analysis of NRHM in Karnataka • State government expenditure on health and family welfare since 2007 has increased annually by 19%. • GOI allocation and release under NRHM has shown an increased annually by 22% and 25% respectively. • State’s NRHM expenditure has increased annually by around 40% Karnataka Budget documents NRHM – Statewise Progress as on 31-03-2012, NRHM Facility Centre, MOH&FW, GOI

  31. Analysis of NRHM in Karnataka • NRHM Flexipool is the major component, followed by RCH flexipool and infrastructure and maintenance grants (channeled through the revenue route) • Immunization funds form around 1%-2% of the total funds Approved ROPs (2007 – 2011)

  32. Analysis of NRHM in Karnataka Releases and expenditure of the State Health Society from 2005-09 NRHM – Statewise Progress as on 31-03-2012, NRHM Facility Centre, MOH&FW, GOI 2010 and 2011 expenditure figures - provisional

  33. District level trends in expenditure • Fund utilization levels at the district level has largely improved, (visible due to increasing absorption rates of NRHM flexipool funds. • Major allocation of funds is at the district level. • Overall funding pattern for districts relate to population (rather than rural population and health indicators) • Availability and timing of funds is not an issue at the district level. (Timing of fund releases within districts have to be verified in the second phase) • Funds released is usually higher than fund allotment • Districts with better health indicators seem to be spending more on infrastructure and maintenance (in their basket of allotment)

  34. NRHM Statement of expenditures (2005-10)

  35. Analysis of funds given to districts Health Ranks: Based on tables in situation analysis in State PIP – 2009-10 Population statistics: Census 2011 Funds received by districts: Yearly audit reports

  36. Planning, fund availability and expenditures Total Fund Availability more than allocation (most expressed in RI)

  37. Planning, fund availability and expenditures – RCH Flexipool

  38. Planning, fund availability and expenditures – NRHM Flexipool

  39. Planning, fund availability and expenditures – Routine Immunization

  40. Districts with better health indicators seem to spend more available funds on infrastructure and maintenance

  41. 43

  42. 44

  43. Regional Imbalances • Regional imbalances recorded and presented in great detail in numerous documents and reports • State health policy • HPCRRI report (Dr Nanjundappa Report) • Individual PIPs • However, fund allocations in PIPs and DHAPs are influenced by existing number of units

  44. Mapping of PHCs in Karnataka Regional imbalances

  45. Regional Imbalances • Districts with more than 50% of PHCs as 24 x 7s • Chamarajanagar • Tumkur • Kolar • Gulbarga • Bidar • Bijapur • Koppal • Dharwad • Bagalkot Rural Health Statistics 2011

  46. Correlation analysis - 1 • Relationship between expenditures, existing infrastructure and Health Indicators • district-wise expenditure under major heads: RCH NRHM and RI, for all years between 2005 – 2011 • existing health infrastructure (2011) • district populations in 2011 (and population growth rates) • holistic health indicators (devised by National Commission on Population, GOI, 2001, used in 2008-09 state PIP to demonstrate regional imbalances) – serves as a guideline for regional prioritization

  47. Correlation analysis - 1 • RCH expenditure is higher in regions with where health indicators are poor. • NRHM flexipool, Routine immunization and total funds in NRHM have not targeted the imbalance in health indicators. • Over-all expenditure is strongly and positively correlated with existing infrastructure (and not health indicators). • Expenditure is strongly and positively correlated with district populations. • Existing infrastructure does not have significant correlation with population (and is corroborated with the imbalance analysis) • Infrastructure does not have significant correlation with health indicators (however, there is a general –ve relationship) • SCs, PHCs, CHCs, Sub-divisional hospitals are also highly positively correlated with each other

  48. Activities completed • Literature review • Background data collection • Macro-level data collection • Methodology for analysis (based on existing data) • District expenditure analysis • Formulation of financial indicators • Selection and formulation of health indicators from HMIS • Correlation analysis • Analysis of PIPs, DHAPs

More Related