Financial incentives in health: New evidence from India's Janani Suraksha Yojana

Journal of Health Economics

Volumn 43, Issue , 2015, Pages 154-169

  Powell Jackson, Timothy ^a   Mazumdar, Sumit ^b   Mills, Anne ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b Institute for Human Development   (India)

Author keywords

Cash incentives; Demand side financing; Health seeking behaviour; India; Maternal health

Indexed keywords

FINANCIAL SYSTEM; HEALTH INSURANCE; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; INCENTIVE; MATERNAL HEALTH; MORTALITY; WOMENS HEALTH;

ARTICLE; BREAST FEEDING; CASH INCENTIVE PROGRAM; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEALTH CENTER; HEALTH PROGRAM; HELP SEEKING BEHAVIOR; HOME DELIVERY; HUMAN; INDIA; MATERNAL CARE; NEWBORN MORTALITY; PRENATAL CARE; SOCIOECONOMICS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH AUXILIARY; INFANT; INFANT MORTALITY; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICE; MOTIVATION; NEWBORN; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION; TRENDS; UTILIZATION;

INDIA;

BREAST FEEDING; COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; INDIA; INFANT; INFANT MORTALITY; INFANT, NEWBORN; MATERNAL HEALTH SERVICES; MOTIVATION; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PROGRAM EVALUATION;

EID: 84942549468     PISSN: 01676296     EISSN: 18791646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2015.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Babiarz K.S., et al. New evidence on the impact of China's New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme and its implications for rural primary healthcare: multivariate difference-in-difference analysis. BMJ 2010, 341:c5617.
2. Baird S.J., et al. Effect of a cash transfer programme for schooling on prevalence of HIV and herpes simplex type 2 in Malawi: a cluster randomised trial. Lancet 2012, 379:1320-1329.
3. Banerjee A.V., et al. Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives. BMJ 2010, 340:c2220.
4. Bhutta Z.A., et al. What works? Interventions for maternal and child undernutrition and survival. Lancet 2008, 371:417-440.
5. Bhutta Z.A., et al. Countdown to 2015 decade report (2000-10): taking stock of maternal, newborn, and child survival. Lancet 2010, 375:2032-2044.
6. Bonu S., et al. Incidence and correlates of 'catastrophic' maternal health care expenditure in India. Health Policy Plann. 2009, 24:445-456.
7. Campbell O.M., Graham W.J. Strategies for reducing maternal mortality: getting on with what works. Lancet 2006, 368:1284-1299.
8. Chaturvedi S., et al. Quality of obstetric referral services in India's JSY cash transfer programme for institutional births: a study from Madhya Pradesh province. PLoS ONE 2014, 9:e96773.
9. Chaudhury N., et al. Missing in action: teacher and health worker absence in developing countries. J. Econ. Perspect. 2006, 20:91-116.
10. Costello A., et al. An alternative strategy to reduce maternal mortality. Lancet 2006, 368:1477-1479.
11. Darmstadt G.L., et al. Evidence-based, cost-effective interventions: how many newborn babies can we save. Lancet 2005, 365:977-988.
12. Das J., Hammer J. The quality of medical care in India. The Oxford Companion to Economics in India 2006, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, India. K. Basu (Ed.).
13. Das J., Hammer J. Money for nothing: the dire straits of medical practice in Delhi, India. J. Dev. Econ. 2007, 83:1-36.
14. Das J., et al. The quality of medical advice in low-income countries. J. Econ. Perspect. 2008, 22:93-114.
15. Deaton A. Instruments, randomization, and learning about development. J. Econ. Lit. 2010, 48:424-455.
16. Devadasan N., et al. A conditional cash assistance programme for promoting institutional deliveries among the poor in India: process evaluation results. Reducing Financial Barriers to Obstetric Care in Low-Income Countries 2008, 2008. ITM, Antwerp. F. Richard, S. Witter, V. de Brouwere (Eds.).
17. Dugger C. To Help Poor Be Pupils, Not Wage Earners, Brazil Pays Parents 2004, 2004. New York Times, New York, NY, ((Ed)^(Eds)).
18. Fernald L.C., et al. Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health, growth, and development: an analysis of Mexico's Oportunidades. Lancet 2008, 371:828-837.
19. Finkelstein A., et al. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment Evidence from the First Year. NBER Working Paper Series No. w17190 2011, 2011. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, ((Ed)^(Eds)).
20. Fiszbein A., Schady N. Conditional Cash Transfers: Reducing Present and Future Povertys 2009, World Bank, Washington, DC.
21. Gertler P. Final Report: the impact of PROGESA on Health 2000, 2000. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, ((Ed)^(Eds)).
22. Gertler P. Do conditional cash transfers improve child health? Evidence from PROGRESA's control randomized experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004, 94:336-341.
23. Gertler P., Van der Gaag J. The Willingness to Pay For Medical Care: Evidence From Two Developing Countriess 1990, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.
24. Hulton L.A., et al. Applying a framework for assessing the quality of maternal health services in urban India. Soc. Sci. Med. 2007, 64:2083-2095.
25. Human Rights Watch No Tally of Anguish: Accountability of Maternal Health Care in Indians 2009, Human Rights Watch, New York, NY.
26. Hunter B.M., et al. Demand-side financing and promotion of maternal health: what has india learnt?. Econ. Polit. Weekly 2014, XLIX(2):66-73.
27. Imbens G.W., Wooldridge J.M. Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J. Econ. Lit. 2009, 47:5-86.
28. International Institute for Population Sciences National Family Health Survey (MCH and Family Planning), India 1992-93s 1995, IIPS, Mumbai.
29. International Institute for Population Sciences District Level Household and Facility Survey (DLHS-3), 2007-08: Indias 2010, IIPS, Mumbai.
30. International Institute for Population Sciences, Macro International National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06: India 2007, vol. Is. IIPS, Mumbai.
31. Jeffery P., Jeffery R. Only when the boat has started sinking: a maternal death in rural north India. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 71:1711-1718.
32. Jensen R., Oster E. The power of TV: cable television and women's status in India. Q. J. Econ. 2009, 124(3):1057-1094.
33. Jones G., et al. How many child deaths can we prevent this year. Lancet 2003, 362:65-71.
34. Kassebaum N.J., et al. Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2014, 384(9947):980-1004.
35. King G., et al. Public policy for the poor? A randomised assessment of the Mexican universal health insurance programme. Lancet 2009, 373:1447-1454.
36. Lagarde M., et al. Conditional cash transfers for improving uptake of health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. JAMA 2007, 298:1900-1910.
37. Lim S.S., et al. India's Janani Suraksha Yojana, a conditional cash transfer programme to increase births in health facilities: an impact evaluation. Lancet 2010, 375:2009-2023.
38. Malini S., et al. A rapid appraisal on functioning of Janani Suraksha Yojana in South Orissa. Health Popul. Perspect. Issues 2008, 31:126-131.
39. Maluccio J., Flores R. Impact Evaluation of A Conditional Cash Transfer Program: the Nicaraguan Red de Protección Social 2005, 2005. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, ((Ed)^(Eds)).
40. Manning W.G., et al. Health-insurance and the demand for medical-care-evidence from a randomized experiment. Am. Econ. Rev. 1987, 77:251-277.
41. Marteau T.M., et al. Using financial incentives to achieve healthy behaviour. BMJ 2009, 338:b1415.
42. Mills A., et al. What do we mean by rigorous health-systems research. Lancet 2008, 372:1527-1529.
43. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare National Rural Health Mission: Mission Document 2005, 2005. Government of India, Delhi, ((Ed)^(Eds)).
44. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Janani Suraksha Yojana: Features & Frequently Asked Questions and Answers 2006, 2006. Government of India, New Delhi, ((Ed)^(Eds)).
45. Morris S., et al. Monetary incentives in primary health care and effects on use and coverage of preventive health care interventions in rural Honduras: cluster randomised trial. Lancet 2004, 364:2030-2037.
46. Morris S.S., et al. Conditional cash transfers are associated with a small reduction in the rate of weight gain of preschool children in northeast Brazil. J. Nutr. 2004, 134:2336-2341.
47. Muralidharan K., et al. Is there a doctor in the house?. Medical Worker Absence in India 2011, 2011. ((Ed)^(Eds)).
48. Murray S.F., et al. Effects of demand-side financing on utilisation, experiences and outcomes of maternity care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014, 14:30.
49. Nagpal J., et al. Widespread non-adherence to evidence-based maternity care guidelines: a population-based cluster randomised household survey. BJOG 2015, 122:238-247. (an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology).
50. Paxson C., Schady N. Does Money Matter? The Effects of Cash Transfers on Child Health and Development in Rural Ecuador 2008, 2008. World Bank, Washington, DC, ((Ed)^(Eds)).
51. Registrar General of India Maternal Mortality in India: 1997-2003: Trends, Causes And Risk Factors 2006, 2006. Office of the Registrar General of India, New Delhi, ((Ed)^(Eds)).
52. Registrar General of India Special Bulletin on Maternal Mortality in India: 2010-12 2013, 2013. Office of the Registrar General of India, New Delhi, ((Ed)^(Eds)).
53. Rohde J., et al. 30 years after Alma-Ata: has primary health care worked in countries. Lancet 2008, 372:950-961.
54. Sood N., et al. Government health insurance for people below poverty line in India: quasi-experimental evaluation of insurance and health outcomes. BMJ 2014, 349:g5114.
55. Stanton C.K., et al. Direct observation of uterotonic drug use at public health facility-based deliveries in four districts in India. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obst. 2014, 127:25-30. (the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics).
56. Stecklov G., et al. Demographic Externalities from Poverty Programs in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from Latin Americas 2006, American University Department of Economics, Washington, DC.
57. Thornton R.L. The demand for, and impact of, learning HIV status. Am. Econ. Rev. 2008, 98:1829-1863.
58. Thornton R.L., et al. Social security health insurance for the informal sector in Nicaragua: a randomized evaluation. Health Econ. 2010, 19(Suppl):181-206.
59. UNFPA Concurrent Assessment of Janani Suraksha Yojana in Selected States-Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradeshs 2009, UNFPA, New Delhi.
60. United Nations Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Healths 2010, United Nations, Office of the Secretary General, New York, NY.
61. Verma D., et al. Increasing institutional delivery and acess to emergency obstetric care services in rural Uttar Pradesh. J. Fam. Welfare 2010, 56:23-30.
62. Wagstaff A., et al. Extending health insurance to the rural population: an impact evaluation of China's new cooperative medical scheme. J. Health Econ. 2009, 28:1-19.
63. Zhu B.P., et al. Effect of the interval between pregnancies on perinatal outcomes. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 340:589-594.