Court’s nudge on hospital charges, a reform opportunity

Affordable hospital care requires health-care financing reforms that go beyond price regulations.

Benchmark for pricing

In an unregulated market-driven scenario, health-care providers focus on profit through higher prices and overprovision of care (supplier-induced demand). One potential solution, “yardstick competition”, involves regulatory authorities setting benchmark prices based on market observations. However, this approach faces challenges in India due to diverse patient profiles, unreliable price data, and weak regulatory frameworks. Relying solely on competition from government hospitals is insufficient due to long wait times, perceived service quality issues, and patient information gaps, perpetuating the risk of supplier-induced demand.

As the Court observed, pricing-related discussions must start with a benchmark for price determination. Standard treatment guidelines, or STGs, can help establish relevant clinical needs, the nature and extent of care, and the costs of total inputs required. STGs can address confounders that account for varying levels of care for various hospital procedures while ensuring clinical autonomy to respond to individual needs. Consequently, it enables valuing health-care resources consumed for the precise cost of multiple procedures.

Given limited regulatory capacity, STG formulation and adoption require that providers’ revenues are tied to fewer payers. Providers must rely on reimbursements from pooled payments, covering most of the population with low out-of-pocket (OOP) payment levels. With government support, payers and providers could agree on pricing that provides a reasonable and sustainable surplus over and above the input costs.

However, this would be hindered if providers could access markets with OOP payments as an alternative or add-on to reimbursement payments. Several countries have accomplished this difficult feat through coordinated health-care purchasing reforms, highlighting that pricing issues are health systems challenges rather than law-and-order problems.

In India, over half the total health expenditure is OOP. The other half comes from a multitude of publicly and privately pooled resources. The private sector is predominantly composed of small-scale providers. Even if rates are standardised, their implementation will be uncertain. Enforcement mechanisms for adherence to prescribed rates remain unclear, raising questions about the feasibility of such regulatory measures. What if providers do not adhere to the prescribed procedure rates, much like they have resisted the rates in various health schemes?

Weak implementation

Command-and-control regulations through pecuniary measures such as price caps can swiftly influence actors’ behaviour by making them follow the pronouncements. However, when enforcement mechanisms are weak, these effects are temporary because the overall environment remains unchanged. The suggested measures face enormous enforcement challenges. Only 11 States and seven Union Territories have notified the Clinical Establishment Act, and its implementation remains weak, with little or no evidence about the impact on affordability, care quality, and provider behaviour.

Similar design and implementation capacity constraints have hampered the effective adoption of the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority’s decision to cap the prices of stents and implants since 2017 and of the many directives that mandate doctors to prescribe generic medicines.

Rate standardisation, through capped prices, may not address the fundamental problem of stakeholders’ misaligned incentives. A comprehensive health financing reform strategy informed by robust and ongoing research on appropriate processes for formulating and adopting STGs must be in place, without which the actual pricing can be manipulated and justified in any manner. For example, hospitals with lower average revenue per bed can push their rates higher by appealing to their better care quality. Without STGs, it will be nearly impossible to verify such claims objectively.

Limited data

The Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana and the Department of Health Research have made significant strides in developing STGs for common conditions and adopting a comprehensive costing framework. Efforts are also ongoing to create an Indian version of Diagnostics-Related Groups (DRGs). Although the insurance industry initiated STGs for hospitals in 2010, progress was hindered by a lack of representative and accurate costing data due to limited participation from private hospitals.

This judgment is an opportunity to create effective processes to solve a major health system problem. Rate standardisation policies must be feasible, easily implementable, and follow established price discovery practices. Future efforts must build on previous and ongoing health financing reforms, address anticipated challenges, and ensure broader stakeholder participation.

Arun Tiwari is a Fellow at the Centre for Health Policy and Systems (CHPS), National Council of Applied Economic Research. Sumit Kane is a professor at the University of Melbourne and Centre for Health Policy and Systems (CHPS), National Council of Applied Economic Research. Ajay Mahal is a professor at the University of Melbourne and Centre for Health Policy and Systems (CHPS), National Council of Applied Economic Research.

Basel Committee at 50: From crisis to confidence

Opinion: Udaibir Das and Wayne Byres. 
The crucial role of implementing Basel standardsThe Basel Committee implementation programme has been integral to international financial architecture. Having celebrated its 50th anniversary on 24-25 April, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has journeyed from a humble forum for G7 bank supervisors to a titan among global financial standard-setting bodies.

Its standards and principles – especially the Basel framework, and the core principles for effective banking supervision – remain critical at a time when a wide range of risks, vulnerabilities and transformation impacts the global banking system. Now with a membership of 45 members from 28 jurisdictions, the BCBS oversees over 90% of global banking assets.

The BCBS’s co-operative arrangement with its members has broadly proven effective. Its standards and guidelines are globally recognised and implemented by member (and many more non-member) countries. Importantly, the implementation process is carried out in a proportional manner, tailored to align with the unique legal, institutional and structural realities of each country. This approach ensures that the BCBS’s standards not only enhance global financial stability but also respect and accommodate the diverse contexts within which its members operate.

Answering the call for robust governance

The BCBS fortified its standards after the 2008 financial crisis. Since then, it has established a mechanism to ensure their effective implementation. At a time when the validity of risk-based capital ratios was seriously questioned, a mechanism was needed to reinforce the complete, timely and consistent implementation of the Committee’s post-crisis reforms.

In response to calls for trust and confidence in banking oversight, the BCBS created the Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme in 2012. This programme – founded on the principle of prompt reform and rectification of regulatory shortfalls – requires member jurisdictions to undergo periodic peer assessments on three levels. These are the timeliness of reforms, consistency of implementation and outcomes from applying standards to individual banks. A key component was to evaluate the divergence in intended regulatory outcomes from applying Basel regulatory standards to individual banks.

Establishing the RCAP  

Setting up an objective and fair global assessment programme like the RCAP was however no small feat. It marked a significant expansion of the Committee’s activities. The BCBS had never previously subjected its member jurisdictions to peer review. Instead, it left implementation to each jurisdiction’s discretion and assessments to banking and financial sector supervisory reviews by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The BCBS had to navigate a labyrinth of technical and design challenges, such as diverse regulatory environments and the timely adoption of Basel standards, all against the backdrop of an evolving financial landscape. Over time, the RCAP’s focus expanded from risk-based capital to include Basel III standards on liquidity, leverage and systemically important banks.

Resistance and pushback

The Basel Committee assessments were also occasionally met with resistance due to several challenges. First, national interests. As the impact of the 2008 financial crisis faded, some jurisdictions resisted certain aspects of the Basel III standards due to national interests or the specific characteristics of their domestic financial systems.

Some also distanced themselves as implementing Basel III standards could be perceived as increasing the regulatory burden on banks, leading to resistance from the banking industry.

Another challenge was the perceived rigidity of assessments. Some jurisdictions questioned whether the evaluation was an overly mechanical exercise that should apply more nuanced judgments. From then, various ambiguities were identified during the RCAP, leaving some of the Committee’s standards open to interpretation.

Despite these challenges, the Basel Committee – supported by the Bank for International Settlements – established the RCAP across its member jurisdictions. The leadership of Stefan Ingves, the then-BCBS chair, and Jaime Caruana, the then-BIS general manager, played a key role in this process.

Commitment and transparency

Members of the BCBS must commit to implementing BCBS decisions and under the RCAP, they are required to demonstrate to their peers, markets, and other stakeholders that they have done so. As a way of promoting transparency, this is achieved through the publication of various assessments, regulatory rectifications made and follow-up.

Today, the RCAP is a pivotal governance tool. It fosters confidence in the prudential policies adopted across member jurisdictions. The RCAP purposefully promotes reliable capital and liquidity ratios, higher-quality capital and effective oversight. It bolsters the credibility of the BCBS’s commitments by transparently reporting on the national implementation of the Basel standards, including where the departures exist.

Broadening the scope

The RCAP has broadened its focus from risk-based capital to include Basel III standards on liquidity, leverage and systemically important banks. It has also scrutinised differences in the implementation of standards between individual banks – identifying areas where consistent domestic standards may yield materially divergent measures of financial soundness.

Focusing on material gaps and shortcomings has proven to be an effective strategy for promoting standards’ complete, timely and consistent implementation. This approach has been so successful that several other financial sector standard-setters have adopted the RCAP model.

After 50 years, the Basel Committee’s standards are crucial for maintaining global financial stability. However, well-designed global standards will not achieve their objectives if they are not implemented with equal rigour.

With the post-crisis reforms now primarily implemented and assessed, one might consider the need for the RCAP diminished. This would be a colossal mistake. Instead, the RCAP needs to evolve in response to the evolution of banking and regulation and should continue to serve as the platform through which the Committee reinforces the strong foundations of the regulatory framework.

Beyond this, the RCAP not only facilitates open financial borders, a level playing field and sensible risk-taking incentives, it can also provide early alerts for policy gaps, allowing it to lead rather than react. The programme could also be used to monitor regulatory rollbacks and help foster regulatory coordination where the Basel standards efficiency requires regulatory co-operation. However, as it stands, the RCAP continues to shed light on areas needing attention and evaluates the reliability of banks’ reported prudential ratios.

Throughout its history, the RCAP continues to serve as a technical appraisal and a communication exercise to inform and explain BCBS standards, their meaning and their impact on the safety and surety of Basel standards and their implementation. A revamped and purposeful RCAP can continue to play a crucial role in ensuring comprehensive and consistent implementation of the agreed-upon Basel standards – fostering confidence in the prudential policies adopted across various jurisdictions.

Udaibir Das is a Visiting Professor at the National Council of Applied Economic Research, a Senior Non-Resident Adviser at the Bank of England, a Senior Adviser of the International Forum for Sovereign Wealth Funds, and a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation America and Wayne Byres is former Secretary General of the Basel Committee and former Chair of the Australian Prudential Authority.

India Human Development Survey: April 2024

The IHDS Forum is a monthly update of socio-economic developments in India by the IHDS research community, based on the India Human Development Survey, jointly conducted by NCAER and the University of Maryland. While two earlier rounds of the survey were completed in 2004-05 and 2011-12, respectively, the third round has also been launched and surveys have already been conducted in a number of States.

 

Click here for previous issues

Rural Non-Farm Sector Employment in the North-Eastern Region of India: Determinants and Implications for Wellbeing

The paper analyses the causal relationship between rural non-farm employment (RNFE) and the wellbeing of the people in India’s North-Eastern Region (NER). When India experienced a decline in poverty, specifically during the post-liberalisation period, the reduction of poverty was lower in NER, with a wide variation at the State level in the region than in the rest of the country. However, the structural shift in occupations and livelihoods in NER has been sharper than in other parts of the country. In this context, this paper aims to contribute to an understanding of the issue of occupational diversification in NER. Based on data from three rounds of the National Sample Survey (NSS), Employment & Unemployment Survey (EUS), and two rounds of the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), that is, the PLFS of 2017-18 and 2019-20. The 2SLS regression analysis highlights the higher inclination of young persons with technical education, people belonging to large families, and females in rural NER towards seeking livelihoods in the non-farm sector.

    Get updates from NCAER