RESUMEN
Introduction: The most reliable indicator for anaemia diagnosis at the population level is haemoglobin (Hb) estimation. The direct cyanmethaemoglobin method is considered the gold standard method for haemoglobin estimation. However, for resource constraint areas like primary health care (PHC) level, either blood samples are transported on filter paper for Hb testing (indirect cyanmethaemoglobin method) in laboratory or point of care testing is commonly used. Therefore, a comparative analysis of haemoglobin estimation of direct with indirect cyanmethaemoglobin method and also with TrueHb (Wrig Nanosystems Pvt. Ltd.) haemometer was done to strengthen anaemia diagnosis at the PHC level. Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. A total of 90 participants above 9 years of age, who visited the outpatient department (OPD) of health centre, Kheri and gave consent were included. Comparative analysis was done between Hb concentration assessed by indirect cyanmethaemoglobin method and TrueHb haemometer device against the gold standard method. Results: The mean Hb value estimated by direct method, TrueHb haemometer and indirect methods (filter paper A, B and C) was 11.42 ± 1.59 g/dl, 11.52 ± 1.54 g/dl, 10.66 ± 1.52 g/dl, 9.84 ± 1.50 g/dl and 10.19 ± 1.62 g/dl, respectively. There was no significant difference found between the mean Hb concentration estimated by the direct method and the TrueHb haemometer device. However, there was a significant difference in mean Hb values between the direct method and the indirect method. Therefore, regression analysis was done to estimate the correction factor for the indirect method. Conclusion: TrueHb metre device gave promising results in comparison to the gold standard method and can be used if resource permits in PHC centres. Indirect methods of haemoglobin estimation can be an alternative in resource-constraint settings, specifically for surveys. However, further studies are required for the validation of the indirect method.
RESUMEN
Background: The design of health benefits package (HBP), and its associated payment and pricing system, is central to the performance of government-funded health insurance programmes. We evaluated the impact of revision in HBP within India's Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) on provider behaviour, manifesting in terms of utilisation of services. Methods: We analysed the data on 1.35 million hospitalisation claims submitted by all the 886 (222 government and 664 private) empanelled hospitals in state of Punjab, from August 2019 to December 2022, to assess the change in utilisation from HBP 1.0 to HBP 2.0. The packages were stratified based on the nature of revision introduced in HBP 2.0, i.e., change in nomenclature, construct, price, or a combination of these. Data from National Health System Cost Database on cost of each of the packages was used to determine the cost-price differential for each package during HBP 1.0 and 2.0 respectively. A dose-response relationship was also evaluated, based on the multiplicity of revision type undertaken, or based on extent of price correction done. Change in the number of monthly claims, and the number of monthly claims per package was computed for each package category using an appropriate seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) time series model. Findings: Overall, we found that the HBP revision led to a positive impact on utilisation of services. While changes in HBP nomenclature and construct had a positive effect, incorporating price corrections further accentuated the impact. The pricing reforms highly impacted those packages which were originally significantly under-priced. However, we did not find statistically significant dose-response relationship based on extent of price correction. Thirdly, the overall impact of HBP revision was similar in public and private hospitals. Interpretation: Our paper demonstrates the significant positive impact of PM-JAY HBP revisions on utilisation. HBP revisions need to be undertaken with the anticipation of its long-term intended effects. Funding: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).