The impact of demonetisation on the utilisation of hospital services, patient outcomes and finances: a multicentre observational study from India.
health economics
health services research
hospital-based study
Journal
BMJ global health
ISSN: 2059-7908
Titre abrégé: BMJ Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101685275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
20
03
2020
revised:
10
07
2020
accepted:
18
07
2020
entrez:
17
9
2020
pubmed:
18
9
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study assessed trends in healthcare utilisation in relation to the implementation of an economic policy in India wherein 500 and 1000 rupee notes were demonetised. In this ambidirectional observational study of private not-for-profit hospitals, data on hospital outpatient and inpatient numbers, surgeries, emergency department (ED) visits, obstetric admissions and mortality were obtained for pre-demonetisation (September/October 2016), early (November/December 2016) and late demonetisation (January/February 2017), and post-demonetisation periods (March/April 2017) and compared with the control period (2015-2016) from 11 centres (three tertiary hospitals; eight secondary). A Bayesian regression analysis was performed to adjust for seasonal (winter) effect. Monthly financial data, including the proportion of cash versus non-cash transactions, were collected. Overall, at the pooled all-hospital level, Bayesian analysis showed non-significant increase in outpatients (535.4, 95% CI -7097 to 8116) and decrease in deaths (-6.3 per 1000 inpatients, 95% CI -15.45 to 2.75) and a significant decrease in inpatients (-145.6, 95% CI -286.4 to -10.63) during demonetisation. Analysis at the level of secondary and tertiary hospitals showed a variable effect. For individual hospitals, after adjusting for the seasonal effect, some hospitals observed a significant reduction in outpatient (n=2) and inpatient (n=3) numbers, ED visits (n=4) and mortality (n=2) during demonetisation, while others reported significantly increased outpatient numbers (n=3) and ED visits (n=2). Deliveries remained unchanged during demonetisation in the hospitals that provided the service. There was no significant reduction in hospital incomes during demonetisation. In tertiary hospitals, there was a significant increase in non-cash component of transactions from 35% to 60% (p=0.02) that persisted beyond the demonetisation period. The effect of demonetisation on healthcare utilisation was variable. Some hospitals witnessed a significant reduction in utilisation in some areas, while others reported increased utilisation. There was an increase in non-cash transactions that persisted beyond the period of demonetisation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study assessed trends in healthcare utilisation in relation to the implementation of an economic policy in India wherein 500 and 1000 rupee notes were demonetised.
METHODS
In this ambidirectional observational study of private not-for-profit hospitals, data on hospital outpatient and inpatient numbers, surgeries, emergency department (ED) visits, obstetric admissions and mortality were obtained for pre-demonetisation (September/October 2016), early (November/December 2016) and late demonetisation (January/February 2017), and post-demonetisation periods (March/April 2017) and compared with the control period (2015-2016) from 11 centres (three tertiary hospitals; eight secondary). A Bayesian regression analysis was performed to adjust for seasonal (winter) effect. Monthly financial data, including the proportion of cash versus non-cash transactions, were collected.
FINDINGS
Overall, at the pooled all-hospital level, Bayesian analysis showed non-significant increase in outpatients (535.4, 95% CI -7097 to 8116) and decrease in deaths (-6.3 per 1000 inpatients, 95% CI -15.45 to 2.75) and a significant decrease in inpatients (-145.6, 95% CI -286.4 to -10.63) during demonetisation. Analysis at the level of secondary and tertiary hospitals showed a variable effect. For individual hospitals, after adjusting for the seasonal effect, some hospitals observed a significant reduction in outpatient (n=2) and inpatient (n=3) numbers, ED visits (n=4) and mortality (n=2) during demonetisation, while others reported significantly increased outpatient numbers (n=3) and ED visits (n=2). Deliveries remained unchanged during demonetisation in the hospitals that provided the service. There was no significant reduction in hospital incomes during demonetisation. In tertiary hospitals, there was a significant increase in non-cash component of transactions from 35% to 60% (p=0.02) that persisted beyond the demonetisation period.
CONCLUSIONS
The effect of demonetisation on healthcare utilisation was variable. Some hospitals witnessed a significant reduction in utilisation in some areas, while others reported increased utilisation. There was an increase in non-cash transactions that persisted beyond the period of demonetisation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32938612
pii: bmjgh-2020-002509
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002509
pmc: PMC7493109
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
World J Psychiatry. 2015 Jun 22;5(2):243-54
pubmed: 26110126
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1151-1210
pubmed: 28919116
Health Policy Plan. 2001 Dec;16(4):372-85
pubmed: 11739362
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 06;6(1):e007546
pubmed: 26739715
PLoS One. 2017 May 4;12(5):e0176916
pubmed: 28472197
Econ Hum Biol. 2016 Mar;20:90-107
pubmed: 26687768
Br J Gen Pract. 2005 Aug;55(517):589-95
pubmed: 16105366
Int J Health Serv. 2018 Jul;48(3):482-494
pubmed: 29695202
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Nov;7(11):e1575-e1583
pubmed: 31607469
Indian J Psychiatry. 2018 Jan-Mar;60(1):6-9
pubmed: 29736056
Health Policy Plan. 2003 Jun;18(2):172-81
pubmed: 12740322
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):32-33
pubmed: 27989560
J Family Med Prim Care. 2018 May-Jun;7(3):495-496
pubmed: 30112295
BMC Public Health. 2016 Feb 03;16:115
pubmed: 26847554
BMJ. 2016 Sep 06;354:i4588
pubmed: 27601477