+ Follow
Image by Pixabay.com

Universal Health Coverage (UHC) has been enshrined in India’s recent policy discourse and international commitments, yet the reality on the ground suggests a yawning gap between ambition and implementation. India’s health system faces a heavy burden: hundreds of millions still lack even basic care, and high out-of-pocket spending pushes families into poverty. The National Health Policy 2017 itself envisioned raising public health spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2025, but actual allocations remain far lower. Against this backdrop, the government has launched flagship programmes like Ayushman Bharat – India’s audacious bid at UHC – and announced ambitious goals (for example, extending health cover to the elderly). This essay examines the policy framework for health in India, including the official schemes and budgets, as well as the lived reality of access and equity. We will show that despite legal commitments and lavish pronouncements, systemic shortfalls – in infrastructure, workforce, funding, and governance – create stark rural–urban and rich–poor divides. In this analysis, we draw on recent data, expert commentaries, and government reports to critically assess whether India’s UHC aspiration is a genuine step forward or a politically expedient mirage.

Constitutional and Policy Framework

India’s Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a “right to health” as a fundamental right; health is placed among the Directive Principles of State Policy (Art. 47), which urge the state to improve public health. The Supreme Court has, however, interpreted the right to life (Article 21) to encompass basic health care. In practice, India’s approach has been to set policy targets rather than new rights-based entitlements. The government’s own National Health Policy 2017 emphasises UHC and aims to increase public health expenditure to 2.5% of GDP by 2025. Legislative initiatives like the National Health Mission (a consolidation of rural and urban health programmes) and the proposed National Medical Commission show policy activism, but funding has lagged. For example, official figures show central government health spending grew from ₹2.31 lakh crore in 2017–18 to ₹4.34 lakh crore in 2021–22 – a marked increase in nominal terms, yet still only about 1.5–1.7% of GDP. Experts note that even combined public and private health spending is only about 3.8% of GDP, much below the ~5% average for middle-income countries. The Indian Medical Association (IMA) and others decry this as among the lowest levels of health investment in the world, urging a baseline of ~2.5% of GDP on health. Thus, despite lofty policy pronouncements, India continues to undershoot global norms on health funding, even as its population grows and ages.

Politically, health has struggled to compete with other budget items. While the government publicly celebrates achievements in immunisation and disease control, critics argue that UHC goals have become more of a political slogan than a funded reality. Parliament has heard pleas for a health budget commensurate with India’s needs: as one IMA leader noted, incremental spending of only 1.1–1.6% GDP is “one of the lowest in the world,” and boosting it to 2.5% is vital. The National Health Policy’s own targets (2 beds per 1000 people, 2.5% GDP) remain aspirational. Even official data expose infrastructure shortfalls: as of 2023, India had only 818,661 public hospital beds (across PHCs, CHCs, district hospitals, etc.) for 1.4 billion people, roughly 0.6 beds per 1000 population – far below the 2 per 1000 norm the policy espouses. In short, the constitutional and policy framework sets ambitious goals for UHC, but concrete resources and implementation have been modest, raising questions about political will and priorities.

Government Schemes: Promises and Pitfalls

In recent years, the centrepiece of India’s UHC strategy has been the Ayushman Bharat initiative (launched in 2018), which in theory integrates health insurance and primary care. Ayushman Bharat has two components: (a) the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), a health insurance scheme offering up to ₹500,000 per poor family per year, and (b) a network of Health and Wellness Centres (HWCs, now called Ayushman Arogya Mandirs) to provide comprehensive primary care. PM-JAY targets roughly 100 million families (about 500 million people, or 40% of India’s population), identified via poverty-line criteria, and empanels public and private hospitals to deliver cashless secondary/tertiary care. The HWC component envisages converting 150,000 existing subcentres/PHCs into community clinics offering preventive, promotive, and basic curative services, essentially integrating nutrition, maternal-child health, NCD screening, etc., free at the point of service.

On paper, Ayushman Bharat is the largest government health insurance programme in the world. In practice, its reach and equity are debated. The government claims that 12 crore poor families have been enrolled under PM-JAY, and that Ayushman Arogya Mandirs exceed their target with ~173,881 centres operational by mid-2024. These figures suggest broad coverage and uptake: for example, the Ayushman Arogya Mandir scheme itself reports over 317 crore clinic “footfalls” (visits) and massive screening volumes in 2024. However, analysts warn that quantitative milestones mask deeper issues. The insurance scheme primarily covers inpatient hospitalisation, ignoring outpatient and preventive care (except as provided by HWCs). Critics argue this bias toward tertiary care, often delivered by private hospitals, effectively subsidises private providers and neglects the public sector. Opponents of Ayushman Bharat note that its reliance on insurance may encourage over-servicing (“supplier-induced demand”) by profit-driven hospitals, while still leaving many poor patients outside the net due to targeting or enrollment gaps. Indeed, studies have found that far from universal, utilisation under Ayushman is uneven: one rural survey found only 42% of households had the health card, and among those, less than half used it in the past year. Beneficiaries often still make co-payments or avoid care if costs are high. Thus, although Ayushman Bharat is the flagship “UHC” policy, its design limitations and implementation hurdles have tempered its impact.

Other government schemes also figure in the landscape. The legacy National Health Mission (NHM) continues to support millions of village health workers (ASHAs) and the basic primary infrastructure, though funding growth is slow. Vertical programmes (like the drastically expanded immunisation campaign, HIV/AIDS control, and maternal health schemes) have improved targeted outcomes, but many argue India still lags on broad determinants like sanitation and nutrition. In this sense, India’s UHC effort has been more a bundle of programs than a unified system – a political choice that favours earmarked schemes over systemic reform.

Infrastructure and Workforce Shortages (Ground-Level Challenges)

The clearest evidence of the gap between India’s health rhetoric and reality lies in its infrastructure and workforce. On paper, India has a vast network of rural facilities: as of 2023, there are about 31,900 Primary Health Centres (PHCs) and 6,359 Community Health Centres (CHCs) nationwide. Yet these numbers fall short of recommended norms in many states, and many facilities are understaffed or ill-equipped. The Ministry of Health’s own data show ~40,583 doctors at PHCs and ~26,280 specialists at CHCs nationwide, implying on average only about one doctor per rural clinic, and few specialists for the large rural population. Such averages mask acute local shortages: the WHO recommends at least 44.5 doctors, nurses, and midwives per 10,000 population, but India’s all-India density is only 20.6 per 10,000. A recent scoping review found “persistent shortage and inequitable distribution” of health workers, with rural areas “experiencing the most severe shortage”. In fact, doctor density in urban areas is roughly four times higher than in rural ones, meaning most villages have little medical presence.

This human-resource gap translates into stark barriers for rural people. According to health experts, nearly 86% of all medical visits in India are made by rural inhabitants, yet these patients face long journeys and high costs to get care. Many rural patients routinely travel over 100 km to reach the nearest facility, and end up bearing 70–80% of their medical costs out-of-pocket. In other words, despite being the vast majority of the population, rural communities must contend with far fewer doctors and beds while paying the bulk of costs themselves. The public infrastructure shortfall is also evident in hospital beds: all of India’s public PHCs, CHCs, and hospitals together have only about 818,661 beds, or roughly 0.6 beds per 1000 population, well below the national norm of 2 beds per 1000. Thus, even as policies promise free or subsidised care, the actual facilities to deliver that care – especially in remote areas – remain deeply inadequate.

Health Outcomes and Equity – A Data-Driven Perspective

If policy vision is the “dream,” health indicators reveal the “reality.” India’s performance on key health outcomes underscores the inequity. Nationally, infant and maternal mortality have fallen over time, but huge inter-state and rural–urban gaps persist. For example, states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu achieve infant mortality rates (IMR) and life expectancies comparable to developed nations, whereas Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand linger far behind (former with MMR ~200, Kerala ~46). Wealth and location matter: recent data show life expectancy in the richest quintile outstrips the poorest by 7–8 years, and urban residents live longer than rural ones at every level. Women’s health also suffers more in rural areas, where maternal mortality is much higher. In short, access to and utilisation of care – especially preventive care – is far from uniform.

Economically, the data are stark. India’s total health spending (public + private) is estimated at only ~3.8% of GDP, again below global peers, and about 62–75% of that comes from out-of-pocket payments. Such spending patterns translate into hardship: one study estimated that over 63 million Indians are pushed into poverty each year by medical expenses. In other words, despite government insurance schemes, catastrophic costs remain common. Surveillance data also show low coverage of essential services in many regions: rural immunisation rates, institutional delivery rates, and screening uptake fall well behind urban rates. Even where services exist, quality and continuity are issues (many women receive fewer antenatal visits than recommended).

By contrast, the few areas where India excels (for example, polio eradication, COVID vaccine rollout) have been those with overwhelming political and financial focus. These successes show what concentrated political will can achieve. But the chronic everyday challenges – provision of primary care, management of chronic illness, early diagnosis – remain under-resourced. The available data thus paint a picture of partial progress: life expectancy and some disease indicators improve, but inequities and gaps remain entrenched, particularly across economic and geographic divides.

Political and Fiscal Dynamics

The political narrative around health in India is ambivalent. On one hand, leaders regularly tout health schemes as evidence of government concern – for instance, the President of India in 2024 announced that all citizens over age 70 would be covered by Ayushman Bharat insurance. Budget speeches and addresses highlight flagship programmes like Ayushman and dedicated health infrastructure missions. In practice, however, health has had to compete for limited fiscal space. Union health spending (from all sources) continues at a low share of GDP, and the Centre’s share of that is often below target. The 2024 interim budget raised the allocation for Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY to ₹7,200 crore, but experts argue that broader health funding remains inadequate. Medical professionals and industry leaders alike urged the government to classify healthcare as a national priority and raise spending to around 2.5% of GDP.

The debate has a partisan angle as well. Opposition parties and civil society often fault the government for underfunding public health, pointing to long waiting times and empty rural clinics as evidence. The ruling party emphasises new schemes and private sector partnerships. Indeed, there is tension over private-sector involvement: many private hospitals have been empanelled under PM-JAY, and the policy stance largely welcomes private investment in medical education and hospital expansion. Some critics see this as a slippery slope toward commoditization of care, arguing that the poor will remain reliant on inadequate public facilities while private chains accumulate capital. Proposals like mandating doctor rotations or providing incentives for specialists to serve in rural areas have been floated as band-aids, but deep reform of public health capacity has been slow.

State governments also figure in the politics. Health is a state subject, so some affluent states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu) have built strong public systems and spend well above the national average, whereas poorer states (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh) struggle. This diversity means that policies like Ayushman Bharat look very different on the ground. On budget priorities, health has sometimes been overshadowed by infrastructure, defence, or subsidies, despite public demand. Commentators note that despite the rhetoric, India’s actual health budget is a tiny fraction of total spending, reflecting a political dilemma: citizens may want UHC, but few governments have risked the tax increases or reallocation needed to finance it fully.

Conclusion

In sum, India’s quest for universal health care remains a dream with one foot in reality and one in political expediency. The legal and policy framework for health is stronger than ever: UHC is enshrined in the National Health Policy and reflected in headline schemes like Ayushman Bharat. The government can rightly cite progress – millions covered by insurance, thousands of new clinics opened, dramatic improvements in child immunisation, and specific disease control. Yet the ground-level picture tells a different story. Public health spending is low, infrastructure is overstretched, and the rural poor still face immense barriers of distance, cost, and quality. Data consistently show that health outcomes are far more favourable for the urban rich than the rural poor, betraying inequities that no policy document intends.

Policymakers and politicians often frame UHC as a moral and developmental imperative, yet budget allocations and enforcement lag. Without a sharp increase in public funding, better regulation of the private sector, and a commitment to strengthening primary care (especially in underserved areas), the gap between vision and reality will widen. In this sense, universal healthcare in India today is as much a political dilemma as a public health one: balancing short-term costs against long-term social benefits, and aligning ambitious goals with on-the-ground action.

India’s journey toward UHC will continue to be monitored closely. For now, it remains a high ideal partially realised – evidence that policy alone cannot ensure health for all. Sustaining the dream of UHC will require sustained political will, transparent governance, and significant investment, or else the phrase “health for all” risks being no more than a catchphrase.

References

.    .    .

Discus