IN-G-02: PM-JAY Ayushman Bharat — The World's Largest Publicly-Funded Health-Insurance Programme (2018–2024)

1. Key Takeaways

• The launch and its scale claim. On 23 September 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) from the Prabhat Tara ground in Ranchi, Jharkhand, formally inaugurating what the Government of India described as "the world's largest publicly-funded health-insurance programme." The headline numbers articulated at launch — coverage for approximately 10.74 crore (107.4 million) "deprived" households drawn from the Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011, equating to an estimated 50 crore (500 million) individual beneficiaries; a benefit cover of ₹5 lakh per family per year for secondary and tertiary inpatient hospitalisation; cashless and paperless treatment at empanelled public and private hospitals across India — placed PM-JAY in a different order of magnitude from any prior Indian government health-insurance scheme and arguably from any single-payer-style public-financing programme globally outside the centrally-financed national health services of the United Kingdom and a handful of European systems. The Ranchi launch venue itself signalled federal politics: Jharkhand, a tribal-majority state then under BJP Chief Minister Raghubar Das, was an early aligned state and provided a symbolically resonant location distinct from the customary Delhi launch.

• The two-pillar Ayushman Bharat architecture, with PM-JAY as Pillar Two. Ayushman Bharat, as conceived in the 2017 National Health Policy and articulated in successive Cabinet decisions through 2018, was not a single insurance scheme but a two-pillar reform: (i) Health and Wellness Centres (HWCs) — the upgrading of approximately 1.5 lakh (150,000) sub-centres and primary health centres into integrated comprehensive primary-care facilities offering an expanded package including non-communicable disease screening, mental health support, and palliative-care basics; and (ii) Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) — the cashless secondary- and tertiary-care insurance entitlement. The two pillars were designed as complements: HWCs would handle screening, prevention, and primary care; PM-JAY would handle the catastrophic hospitalisation costs that drove an estimated 7 percent of India's population into poverty each year. By 2024, approximately 1.7 lakh HWCs had been operationalised and rebranded as "Ayushman Arogya Mandirs" [TBD-VERIFY: exact operationalisation count as of FY2023-24 NHA Annual Report], constituting the largest primary-care infrastructure investment in India since the National Rural Health Mission's 2005 launch.

• The National Health Authority (NHA) as the governance institution. PM-JAY's implementation architecture was unusual within the Indian state. Rather than locate the scheme inside the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's directorate structure, the Government of India created a dedicated implementing agency — first the National Health Agency in 2018, restructured as the National Health Authority (NHA) in January 2019 — operating as a Society under the Ministry but with substantial functional autonomy, modelled in part on the institutional template of UIDAI (the Aadhaar authority) and NPCI (the payments authority). The NHA was led by a Chief Executive Officer with full-time tenure: Indu Bhushan, an IAS officer with prior service at the Asian Development Bank, served as founding CEO from May 2018 to October 2020. R. S. Sharma (former TRAI Chairman and former UIDAI CEO) succeeded him from December 2020 to October 2022, deliberately importing the India Stack governance pedigree. The NHA's responsibilities span beneficiary identification (the Beneficiary Identification System, BIS), hospital empanelment, the Transaction Management System (TMS) processing claims, the Health Benefit Packages (HBP) defining ~1,949 procedures (HBP 2.0, 2020) and subsequent revisions, fraud-and-abuse detection (the Anti-Fraud Cell), and inter-state federation of the scheme.

• The federal opt-in framework and the four hold-out states. PM-JAY was constitutionally constrained by the fact that "Public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries" is Entry 6 of List II (the State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution — a state subject. The Centre therefore could not impose PM-JAY on states; it could only offer co-financing (60:40 Centre:state for most states; 90:10 for the Northeastern and Himalayan states; 100 percent Centre for Union Territories without legislature) under a Memorandum of Understanding framework. By the time of full operational rollout in 2018–2019, approximately 33 of India's 36 states and Union Territories had signed on, but four major non-BJP-governed jurisdictions initially declined: West Bengal (under Mamata Banerjee, AITC), Odisha (under Naveen Patnaik, BJD, who ran the state-funded Biju Swasthya Kalyan Yojana with similar coverage), Telangana (under K. Chandrashekar Rao, BRS, with the Aarogyasri legacy programme), and NCT of Delhi (under Arvind Kejriwal, AAP, who ran the Mohalla Clinic primary-care model and disputed credit-attribution for any Centre-branded scheme). West Bengal had initially signed an MoU in January 2018 but withdrew in January 2019 in a dispute over credit-sharing and beneficiary card branding. The hold-outs were a recurring point of Centre-state friction through 2018–2024, framed by the Centre as opposition obstruction of welfare entitlement, and by the state governments as defence of state-financed schemes with arguably superior coverage in their own jurisdictions.

• The COVID-19 stress test and pandemic-era expansion. The 2020–2021 COVID-19 emergency (see IN-D-04) was an unanticipated and serious stress test for PM-JAY barely two years after launch. The scheme covered COVID-19 hospitalisation as a notified disease from mid-2020, with specific packages added for ICU and ventilator care; cumulative COVID-related PM-JAY hospitalisations through 2021 exceeded 7 lakh (700,000) [TBD-VERIFY: NHA bulletin figures aggregated]. The pandemic exposed structural limits — empanelled private hospitals in many districts refused PM-JAY admissions during peak-demand periods, citing low reimbursement rates; the scheme's secondary-and-tertiary inpatient focus did not cover outpatient COVID management; the urban informal-sector workers who fell sick during the migrant-labour exodus were often outside SECC-2011 beneficiary lists and therefore outside PM-JAY entirely. The Lancet COVID-19 Commission India Task Force (2021) and Sundararaman et al. (Health Policy and Planning, 2021) documented these limits and argued for an expanded "missing middle" coverage tier, a recommendation the NITI Aayog's October 2021 paper Health Insurance for India's Missing Middle echoed.

• The 2024 expansion to all senior citizens 70+ — the universalisation pivot. On 11 September 2024, the Union Cabinet approved an expansion of PM-JAY to cover all Indian citizens aged 70 years and above, irrespective of income. This was a structural pivot: for the first time, PM-JAY abandoned the SECC-2011 deprivation-based targeting that had defined the scheme from launch. Approximately 4.5 crore (45 million) senior-citizen households, covering an estimated 6 crore (60 million) individuals aged 70+, became eligible for the ₹5 lakh family cover, branded as AB PM-JAY Vay Vandana ("Salutation to Elders"). Senior citizens already in beneficiary families would receive an additional separate ₹5 lakh top-up cover specifically for them. The 2024 expansion came four months after the Modi-led BJP failed to win an outright majority in the June 2024 general election and was widely interpreted, particularly by The Print and Mint commentators, as both a policy expansion responsive to demographic ageing and a politically salient response to opposition critique that the Modi government's welfare architecture had under-served the elderly middle-class.

• The 30+ crore Ayushman Card, ~7 crore hospitalisation cumulative claim. By the end of FY 2023–24, the National Health Authority reported that approximately 30 crore (300 million) Ayushman Cards had been issued — the physical or digital identity card linking a verified beneficiary to the scheme — and approximately 7 crore (70 million) cumulative hospitalisations had been authorised through the scheme since the September 2018 launch, with a cumulative authorised expenditure of approximately ₹1 lakh crore (₹1 trillion / approximately USD 12 billion at average rupee exchange rates) [TBD-VERIFY: NHA FY2023-24 Annual Report final figures]. These headline figures must be read with caveats: card issuance is not coverage utilisation; the 7 crore hospitalisations figure includes repeat hospitalisations of the same individuals; the per-capita coverage value relative to private-sector hospitalisation cost remains limited for catastrophic conditions exceeding the ₹5 lakh ceiling. The CAG's August 2023 Performance Audit (Report No. 7 of 2023) raised concerns including ghost beneficiaries with implausible age entries, duplicate PMJAY-ID issuance to the same Aadhaar number, mis-classification of empanelled hospitals' bed-strength, and ineligible-package billing patterns — concerns the NHA partially acknowledged and partially contested in its formal response.

• The comparative-health-financing significance — a US Medicaid analogue at unprecedented scale. PM-JAY's design occupies a specific position in comparative health-financing typology. It is not a National Health Service in the British or post-1950 single-payer European sense — it does not provide universal primary or outpatient care free at the point of use; it does not own or directly operate the hospital network (the empanelled hospitals remain mixed-ownership, with private hospitals constituting approximately 50 percent of the empanelled network as of 2024). It is closer in structural design to the United States' Medicaid programme — a means-tested public health-insurance entitlement, federally specified but state-administered, paying providers (predominantly private) for defined services at administered rates — but operating at a scale (500+ million beneficiaries) approximately seven times larger than US Medicaid's 80 million enrollment, and at a per-capita fiscal cost roughly two orders of magnitude lower. With the 2024 70+ expansion, PM-JAY also acquired a partial Medicare-style component (age-categorical, income-independent coverage for the elderly). The comparison is imperfect — neither the US Medicaid nor Medicare templates map cleanly onto India's federal architecture, ration of empanelled-private hospitals, and SECC-derived targeting — but the typological resemblance is instructive.

• Budgetary commitments and the fiscal sustainability question. The Union Budget allocations for Ayushman Bharat (combining HWCs and PM-JAY) grew from approximately ₹2,400 crore in the initial FY 2018–19 partial-year to approximately ₹7,500 crore in FY 2023–24, with the post-70+-expansion FY 2025–26 allocation projected upward of ₹10,000 crore [TBD-VERIFY: exact Union Budget 2025–26 Demand for Grants allocation for AB-PMJAY]. These figures are large in nominal terms but small relative to: (i) total Centre+state public-health expenditure, which the National Health Policy 2017 targeted at 2.5 percent of GDP but which stood at approximately 1.4 percent of GDP in FY 2022–23 (Economic Survey 2023–24); (ii) the implicit liability of the ₹5 lakh per-family entitlement multiplied across 500+ million beneficiaries plus the 60-million 70+ expansion; and (iii) the cost trajectory of medical care, which is rising at well above headline CPI in India. Several health-policy analysts — including K. Sujatha Rao in Do We Care? (2017) writing in anticipation, and Sakthivel Selvaraj of PHFI in subsequent commentary — have argued that PM-JAY is structurally under-financed for its promised scope, with eventual rationing manifesting either as benefit-cap erosion, package-rate compression damaging hospital participation, or implicit waitlisting.

• The unresolved tensions and the federalism account. PM-JAY is simultaneously (a) a substantial expansion of public-financed health entitlement to populations previously exposed to catastrophic out-of-pocket health spending; (b) a continuing locus of Centre-state federal friction over credit-attribution, financing share, and scheme branding; and (c) a comparatively under-financed entitlement whose nominal coverage promise (₹5 lakh per family, scaled across 500+ million people, expanded to all 70+) exceeds the fiscal envelope its Union Budget allocation implies. The three accounts coexist. A balanced assessment recognises that the scheme has measurably reduced out-of-pocket expenditure for empanelled-condition hospitalisations among enrolled beneficiaries (Prinja et al., 2019 cost-effectiveness analysis; subsequent NHA-commissioned utilisation studies), while acknowledging that hold-out states' parallel schemes — particularly Odisha's BSKY and Telangana's Aarogyasri — have in their own jurisdictions performed comparably or in some metrics better, complicating the Centre's claim to uniquely-effective design. The federalism account, accordingly, is not opposition-obstructionism alone; it is a policy dispute over whether health-insurance architecture is best built ground-up by states or top-down by the Centre.

---

2. The Pre-2018 Context: From Bhore to RSBY to the 2017 National Health Policy

2.1 The Inherited Architecture and Its Structural Underfunding

India's public-health architecture at independence was anchored in the Bhore Committee Report of 1946, which had envisaged a three-tier rural health-service structure (sub-centres, primary health centres, community health centres) with a parallel hospital network, financed predominantly through general taxation and delivered free at point of use. The Bhore vision was never fully resourced; by the early 1970s, the architecture had been adjusted by the Mudaliar Committee (1962), the Srivastava Committee (1975), and successive Five-Year Plans, but a structural under-financing pattern persisted. From the 1980s onwards, total public-health expenditure in India hovered between 0.9 and 1.3 percent of GDP — among the lowest ratios in any major economy — while out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure rose to approximately 62–65 percent of total health spending by the mid-2000s. K. Sujatha Rao's Do We Care? India's Health System (Oxford University Press, 2017) — written by the former Union Health Secretary on the basis of decades of administrative experience — provides the canonical analytical baseline for this period, arguing that India's pre-2018 health financing was characterised by chronic Centre under-investment, fragmented state schemes, and a private-sector hospital ecosystem that grew faster than the regulatory architecture governing it.

The 2005 launch of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) under UPA-I was the most significant pre-Modi attempt to expand public-health investment, channelling additional Centre funding to states with conditionality on health-system strengthening. The NRHM eventually evolved into the National Health Mission (covering both rural and urban components) and remained the architecture through which most Centre-to-state health transfers flowed. The 2008 launch of Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) under the Ministry of Labour and Employment — providing a ₹30,000 family-floater inpatient cover to households below the poverty line — was the first Centre-level publicly-financed health-insurance scheme operating at scale. By 2014, RSBY had enrolled approximately 4.13 crore (41.3 million) families across 24 states [TBD-VERIFY: exact RSBY enrolment figures vary by source]. The scheme was widely studied: Selvaraj and Karan's 2012 EPW analysis found mixed outcomes — meaningful catastrophic-expenditure reduction in some states (Kerala, Karnataka) and minimal observable impact in others (Bihar, UP, Maharashtra) — driven primarily by variation in state-level implementation, hospital empanelment density, and beneficiary-awareness investment.

2.2 State-Level Innovation: Aarogyasri, Vajpayee Arogyashree, RSBY-Plus

In parallel with RSBY, several state governments developed their own health-insurance schemes that in their respective jurisdictions covered more than the RSBY ₹30,000 ceiling. The most influential was Rajiv Aarogyasri in undivided Andhra Pradesh, launched in 2007 under Chief Minister Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy, providing tertiary-care coverage with a benefit ceiling of ₹2 lakh per family per year for a defined surgical-procedure list. After the 2014 state bifurcation, both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh continued the scheme under modified names (Aarogyasri in Telangana, NTR Vaidya Seva in AP). Karnataka launched the Vajpayee Arogyashree scheme in 2010 for BPL families. Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme (CMCHIS) expanded under the J. Jayalalithaa government. Odisha launched the Biju Krushak Kalyan Yojana (later Biju Swasthya Kalyan Yojana, BSKY, with expanded coverage from 2018). Chhattisgarh, Goa, Maharashtra (the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Jan Arogya Yojana), and West Bengal (the Swasthya Sathi scheme launched by Mamata Banerjee in December 2016) all developed state-level schemes with varying scope.

This pre-existing landscape of state schemes is critical to understanding the federalism dynamics of PM-JAY's 2018 rollout. The Centre's PM-JAY was not entering a vacuum; it was entering a landscape where multiple opposition-governed states had operating, sometimes politically branded, health-insurance schemes that pre-dated PM-JAY by a decade. The Centre's proposition to those states — that PM-JAY would subsume or coexist with their existing schemes under a Centre-defined branding and beneficiary framework — was politically unwelcome to several state governments who had built electoral capital around their own schemes' identities.

2.3 The 2011 High-Level Expert Group and the UHC Vision

In October 2010, the Planning Commission under UPA-II constituted the High-Level Expert Group on Universal Health Coverage chaired by K. Srinath Reddy (President of the Public Health Foundation of India). The HLEG's November 2011 report — running to over 350 pages and engaging 14 working groups — recommended a phased path to Universal Health Coverage, including: (i) raising total public-health expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2017 and 3.0 percent by 2022; (ii) introducing a National Health Package as a guaranteed entitlement; (iii) a single-payer architecture relying on tax-financing rather than insurance premiums; (iv) progressive integration of state schemes under a national framework. The HLEG explicitly recommended against the insurance-purchaser model (Centre as third-party payer to private hospitals), arguing on cost-effectiveness and equity grounds for a tax-financed direct-provision approach.

The HLEG report was politically resonant but never implemented as a complete package. The UPA-II government adopted some recommendations (free essential drugs, free diagnostics initiatives) but the headline UHC architecture was deferred. With the 2014 change of government to the BJP-led NDA under Narendra Modi, the HLEG framework was set aside, though several of its analytical recommendations — particularly on raising health expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP — were retained in the 2017 National Health Policy. The HLEG's preference for tax-financed direct provision over insurance-purchasing was, however, not retained; PM-JAY's design ultimately followed the opposite institutional logic.

2.4 The 2017 National Health Policy

The National Health Policy 2017 (NHP-2017), released by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in March 2017 under Health Minister J. P. Nadda, was the immediate policy progenitor of Ayushman Bharat. NHP-2017 set four operational targets that shaped subsequent scheme design: (i) raising public-health expenditure to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2025; (ii) achieving universal primary-healthcare coverage by 2025 through upgraded sub-centres; (iii) reducing out-of-pocket expenditure as a share of total health expenditure substantially; and (iv) introducing strategic purchasing of secondary and tertiary care services from public and private hospitals under a defined-benefit framework. The Policy explicitly endorsed the strategic-purchaser model — Centre and state governments as third-party payers, hospitals (public and private) as providers — that PM-JAY would subsequently operationalise.

NHP-2017 was the framework; the operationalisation came through the Union Budget speech of 1 February 2018, delivered by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, which announced the National Health Protection Scheme (NHPS) — the working title that became Ayushman Bharat. Jaitley's announcement framed NHPS as "the world's largest government-funded healthcare programme," with the headline numbers — 10 crore families, ₹5 lakh per family per year — that PM-JAY would carry to the September 2018 launch.

---

3. Conceptual Design: Ayushman Bharat as a Two-Pillar Reform (2017–2018)

3.1 The Two-Pillar Structure

Ayushman Bharat as conceived in the 2017–2018 policy documents was explicitly a two-pillar reform, not a single scheme. The conceptual separation matters because public discussion often elides the two; the policy reform requires understanding both.

Pillar One — Health and Wellness Centres (HWCs). The 2017 NHP committed to upgrading approximately 1.5 lakh sub-centres and primary health centres to Health and Wellness Centres offering an expanded "Comprehensive Primary Health Care" package. The HWC package, defined in NHA and MoHFW operational guidelines, included: maternal and child health services; immunisation; communicable-disease screening; screening for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) — hypertension, diabetes, and the three priority cancers (oral, cervical, breast); mental-health support; basic palliative care; eye care and ENT services; basic dental care; and emergency-care triage. Each HWC was to be staffed by a Community Health Officer (CHO) — typically a B.Sc. Nursing graduate or AYUSH practitioner with a six-month bridge course in primary care — supervising an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife and one or more ASHA workers. The HWC programme operationalised through the National Health Mission financing channel, with a Centre-state ratio of 60:40 for general states and 90:10 for Northeastern and Himalayan states.

Pillar Two — Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY). The insurance entitlement, providing cashless and paperless secondary- and tertiary-care inpatient hospitalisation up to ₹5 lakh per family per year at empanelled public and private hospitals. PM-JAY did not require beneficiary premium contribution; the scheme was fully tax-financed at Centre and state levels under the 60:40 / 90:10 / 100 percent ratios noted above. The Centre's share was budgeted under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's Demand for Grants, channelled through the NHA.

3.2 The Beneficiary Targeting Logic: SECC-2011

The most consequential design choice in PM-JAY was the beneficiary targeting basis. Rather than use the Below Poverty Line (BPL) lists administered by state governments — which had been the basis for RSBY targeting and which had been widely criticised for inclusion and exclusion errors, political manipulation, and inconsistent updating — PM-JAY drew beneficiaries from the Socio-Economic and Caste Census of 2011 (SECC-2011). The SECC-2011 had captured household-level deprivation indicators for rural and urban India separately, with seven rural-deprivation criteria (D1–D7, including kachcha-house, landlessness, female-headed household, scheduled caste/scheduled tribe identity, disability without able-bodied adult, manual-scavenger household) and eleven occupational categories for urban beneficiaries.

PM-JAY's eligible-family universe was defined as: all rural households satisfying any one of D1–D7 plus automatic-inclusion categories (households without shelter, destitutes, manual scavengers, primitive tribal groups, legally released bonded labour) and all urban households in the 11 occupational categories (rag-pickers, beggars, domestic workers, street-vendors, construction workers, sweepers, home-based workers, transport workers, shop-workers, electricians/mechanics, washermen/chowkidars). Excluded categories were defined symmetrically — automatic-exclusion rural criteria included households with motorised two/three/four-wheelers, mechanised three/four-wheeler agricultural equipment, Kisan Credit Card holders with credit limit above ₹50,000, government employees, or households with any member earning more than ₹10,000 per month.

The SECC-2011 base produced approximately 10.74 crore (107.4 million) eligible families, equating to an estimated 50 crore individual beneficiaries assuming average household size of ~4.7. This headline number — "50 crore" or "500 million" beneficiaries — became the most frequently cited figure in PM-JAY communications, both domestically and internationally.

The SECC-2011 basis was both a design strength and a design vulnerability. Its strength was that it bypassed the politicised BPL-list machinery and used a uniform, recent (2011) national database. Its vulnerability was that the SECC-2011 was already seven years old at launch and aged further over subsequent years — a household that had crossed deprivation thresholds since 2011 (perhaps due to a member finding salaried employment) would remain enrolled, while a household that had fallen into deprivation after 2011 (perhaps due to a member's death or illness) would remain excluded unless covered by state-list additions. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare (Report No. 109, 2018, and successor reports) repeatedly flagged the need for SECC updating; the SECC-2021 exercise was, however, deferred along with the broader Census-2021 indefinitely.

3.3 The Benefit-Package Architecture: Health Benefit Packages (HBP)

PM-JAY's coverage was specified through the Health Benefit Package (HBP) structure — a defined list of procedures with administered package rates that empanelled hospitals would be paid for performing on covered beneficiaries. HBP 1.0, in effect at launch (September 2018), specified approximately 1,393 procedures across 25 specialties. HBP 2.0, released in October 2019 after extensive consultation with medical associations and analytical inputs from PHFI and ICMR, expanded to 1,949 procedures with revised rates. HBP 2.0 was widely seen as a course-correction — initial HBP 1.0 rates had been criticised as below the actual cost of provision for many procedures, contributing to private-hospital reluctance to admit PM-JAY patients in several states. HBP 2.0 increased rates by approximately 20–30 percent on average across the procedure list, with higher revisions for cardiology and oncology packages where private-hospital participation had been weakest [TBD-VERIFY: exact average rate-increase percentages from NHA HBP 2.0 release notes].

Subsequent HBP revisions (HBP 2.2 in 2022; HBP 2024 with the 70+ expansion) further refined rates. The package architecture is structurally important: it allows the scheme to control budgetary exposure (only listed procedures are reimbursed), exclude experimental or unnecessary procedures, and standardise hospital billing nationally. But it also creates the well-known limitations of any defined-package insurance system — emerging conditions, off-formulary drugs, atypical case mixes — that beneficiaries either pay out-of-pocket for or forgo.

3.4 The Information Architecture: BIS, TMS, and the IT Stack

PM-JAY's operational backbone is its IT architecture, developed jointly by the NHA, the National Informatics Centre (NIC), and contracted technology vendors. Three systems are central:

• Beneficiary Identification System (BIS). The portal through which a person presenting at an empanelled hospital is verified as a PM-JAY beneficiary. Verification cross-references the SECC-2011 entry against any of several identification documents (Aadhaar being the most common, but PM-JAY explicitly accepts alternative IDs to avoid the exclusion-error problems documented in Aadhaar-only schemes — see IN-G-01).
• Transaction Management System (TMS). The portal through which empanelled hospitals submit pre-authorisation requests, treatment notes, and discharge claims. The TMS routes claims through a structured workflow: pre-authorisation by NHA medical officers, treatment monitoring, post-treatment claim submission with discharge summaries and bills, and final payment authorisation. The TMS is the data backbone for fraud detection and utilisation analytics.
• Hospital Empanelment Module (HEM). The portal through which hospitals apply for empanelment and through which empanelled hospitals' compliance is monitored. Empanelment criteria specify minimum bed-strength (typically 10 beds for general empanelment, 50+ for specialty empanelment), defined specialty availability, accreditation status (NABH-accreditation receives a higher tier of reimbursement), and infrastructure standards.

The IT architecture deliberately built on the India Stack — Aadhaar identity, eKYC, eSign, the public-financial-management system (PFMS) for fund transfer — which both reduced implementation cost and ensured interoperability with broader Government of India digital infrastructure. The architectural decision to make Aadhaar acceptable but not exclusively mandatory for PM-JAY verification was a deliberate response to the K. S. Puttaswamy Supreme Court ruling (26 September 2018, six days after PM-JAY's launch) which had constrained the universal mandatory use of Aadhaar for welfare entitlement — though Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act preserved welfare-scheme uses, the NHA's choice of multi-document verification was a hedge against further constitutional challenge.

---

4. The Ranchi Launch and the First Year of Operations (23 September 2018 – September 2019)

4.1 The 23 September 2018 Launch

On 23 September 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated PM-JAY at the Prabhat Tara ground in Ranchi, Jharkhand. The choice of Ranchi was deliberate. Jharkhand, a state created in 2000 from southern Bihar, had the second-highest concentration of SECC-2011 deprivation indicators in mainland India after Bihar; the tribal-belt districts of Jharkhand — Khunti, Simdega, West Singhbhum — embodied the rural-poverty profile PM-JAY was politically positioned to serve. The Jharkhand state government under Chief Minister Raghubar Das (BJP) had moved quickly through 2018 to sign the implementing MoU; Jharkhand was among the first wave of operational states.

Modi's launch address situated PM-JAY in three explicit framings. First, scale: "If you add the populations of America, Canada, and Mexico — that is roughly the number of poor Indians PM-JAY will cover" was the most-quoted line, calibrated to register the 500-million headline domestically and internationally. Second, anti-corruption federalism: the scheme's IT architecture and Aadhaar-linked verification were positioned as ensuring beneficiaries receive entitlements without intermediary leakage — implicitly contrasting with the corruption-allegations the BJP had levelled against opposition-state welfare administration. Third, branding sovereignty: the scheme was unambiguously Pradhan Mantri — Prime Minister's — Jan Arogya Yojana, with the Modi-government branding overt and consistent on the Ayushman Card design (the orange-and-white card carrying the PM-JAY logo and the Government of India emblem).

Operational rollout began the same day in approximately 20 states/UTs whose MoUs were already signed and IT-integrated; remaining states joined progressively through October–December 2018.

4.2 The First-Year Operational Pattern

By the September 2019 first-anniversary mark, the NHA's published statistics indicated approximately 46 lakh (4.6 million) cumulative hospitalisations, ₹7,500 crore in cumulative authorised expenditure, and 9 crore Ayushman Cards issued [TBD-VERIFY: exact first-anniversary figures from NHA Annual Report 2018–19]. The state-level distribution was uneven: Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh accounted for a disproportionate share of utilisation, reflecting both higher hospital-network density and stronger state-level implementation engagement.

Three operational patterns emerged in the first year that would persist:

Pattern One: Strong tertiary-care utilisation. Cardiology, oncology, and orthopaedic procedures — the high-cost categories most likely to bankrupt households under previous out-of-pocket arrangements — constituted the bulk of high-value claims. Cardiac procedures (angioplasty, valve replacement, bypass) and cancer treatments (chemotherapy cycles, radiation therapy, oncosurgery) generated the most demonstrable financial-protection benefit per beneficiary, consistent with the international literature on health-insurance impact (Sundararaman et al., 2021, summarises the Indian context).

Pattern Two: Geographic concentration in private-hospital-dense states. States with high private-hospital density — Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat — saw faster scheme uptake than states with predominantly public-hospital systems where empanelled private capacity was thin. The geographic concentration reflected supply-side rather than demand-side factors: in Bihar, UP, and parts of MP, eligible beneficiaries existed in large numbers but the empanelled-hospital network was insufficient to absorb them.

Pattern Three: Hospital-side complaints on package rates and payment delays. Private hospitals empanelled with PM-JAY — particularly in cardiology and oncology — complained through their representative bodies (the Association of Healthcare Providers India, AHPI; the Indian Medical Association, IMA) that HBP 1.0 package rates were below the actual procedural cost. Compounding the rate complaint were payment delays: claims processed and authorised by NHA were taking 30–90 days to actually pay through the PFMS pipeline, generating working-capital stress for medium-sized empanelled hospitals. The HBP 2.0 revision (October 2019) was the direct response to the rate complaints; payment-cycle issues remained chronic through 2019–2024.

4.3 The West Bengal Withdrawal

The single most prominent inter-state friction event of PM-JAY's first year was West Bengal's January 2019 withdrawal from the scheme. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee (AITC) had initially signed an MoU on 18 January 2018 — among the first state signatures — bringing West Bengal into PM-JAY's planning. The state's withdrawal nearly twelve months later, in early January 2019, was framed officially around two grievances: (i) the Centre's insistence on its own branding (PM-JAY, Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana, Ayushman Card) at the expense of state-government credit-attribution; and (ii) the Centre's reluctance to fully integrate the existing state Swasthya Sathi scheme (launched by Banerjee's government in December 2016) under joint branding.

The withdrawal was significant because West Bengal had approximately 1.5 crore SECC-eligible families [TBD-VERIFY: precise West Bengal SECC family count] who would now be served by Swasthya Sathi alone rather than the parallel PM-JAY entitlement. Swasthya Sathi itself was subsequently expanded by the state government — first to cover OBC and SC/ST households categorically (December 2020), then universalised to all West Bengal residents in December 2020 — making it a genuine state-level competitor to PM-JAY in coverage breadth (though with a lower ₹5 lakh per family floater ceiling matching PM-JAY's). The West Bengal precedent was watched closely by other opposition-governed states.

---

5. The Four Hold-Out States and the Federalism Account

5.1 The Constitutional Substrate: Health as a State Subject

The federalism dynamics around PM-JAY are anchored in a specific constitutional fact: under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, Entry 6 of List II (the State List) reads: "Public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries." Health is, in constitutional terms, a state subject, with the Centre's role confined to listed Concurrent List entries (Entry 29: prevention of infectious or contagious diseases or pests; Entry 30: vital statistics including registration of births and deaths; medical professions are Concurrent under Entry 26) and to the spending power of the Union under Article 282. The Centre cannot legislatively impose a health-insurance scheme on the states; it can only offer co-financed cooperative arrangements.

This constitutional substrate explains both the architecture of PM-JAY (60:40 / 90:10 Centre-state cost-sharing, MoU-based participation, voluntary opt-in) and the four states' decision to decline. The hold-outs were not constitutionally obligated to participate; they exercised the discretion the Constitution itself preserves to them.

5.2 West Bengal — Mamata Banerjee and Swasthya Sathi

West Bengal's withdrawal from PM-JAY in January 2019 (Section 4.3) was the most prominent and politically charged of the four hold-outs. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's AITC government had launched Swasthya Sathi in December 2016, then progressively expanded it: first to lower-income groups in 2017, then categorically to OBC and SC/ST households in 2020, and finally universally to all West Bengal residents on 1 December 2020 — making West Bengal the first Indian state to declare universal state-financed health-insurance coverage for its entire resident population. The Swasthya Sathi card was distributed to women household-heads, an explicit feminist design choice Banerjee's government emphasised.

The political contest over PM-JAY-versus-Swasthya-Sathi was sharpened in the run-up to the 2021 West Bengal Assembly election. BJP campaign materials accused Banerjee of denying Bengalis their PM-JAY entitlement; AITC campaign materials accused the Centre of refusing to subsume Swasthya Sathi under the joint Centre-state architecture. The AITC's 2021 election victory — winning 213 of 294 seats — effectively settled the political question for the remainder of the Modi-2 period: West Bengal would continue to operate Swasthya Sathi alone.

5.3 Odisha — Naveen Patnaik and BSKY

Odisha's hold-out position was structurally different from West Bengal's. Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik (BJD) led a long-running provincial-party government (1997–2024) that maintained a deliberately calibrated distance from both the BJP and the Congress at the national level — neither formally aligned with the NDA nor with the UPA/INDIA, but typically voting with the Centre on key bills. The state's Biju Swasthya Kalyan Yojana (BSKY), launched in August 2018 — one month before PM-JAY's Ranchi launch — was named after Patnaik's father Biju Patnaik and provided a benefit cover of ₹5 lakh per family (₹10 lakh for women members), explicitly matched to PM-JAY's headline number. The BSKY launch timing was widely understood as a deliberate pre-emption of PM-JAY's branding in Odisha.

BSKY's coverage was wider than PM-JAY's SECC-2011-restricted entitlement: BSKY extended to approximately 96 lakh families (over 3.5 crore individuals), covering nearly all Odisha residents except income-tax-paying households. This wider coverage was politically central to BJD's claim that opting out of PM-JAY did not disentitle any Odisha resident from health-insurance access — indeed, BJD claimed BSKY provided wider coverage than PM-JAY would have provided in Odisha given SECC-2011 restrictions.

The 2024 state election in Odisha — held concurrently with the Lok Sabha elections in May–June 2024 — produced a BJP victory and the end of Patnaik's 24-year tenure, with Mohan Charan Majhi becoming BJP Chief Minister on 12 June 2024. One of the new Majhi government's earliest decisions was to integrate Odisha into PM-JAY: the state signed the implementing MoU and the integration was operationalised through late 2024, with BSKY continuing for non-SECC-eligible Odisha residents as a parallel layer. Odisha's 2024 PM-JAY entry — the first hold-out's reversal — was politically and operationally significant: it brought approximately 3.5 crore Odisha residents into the PM-JAY framework and reduced the hold-out cohort from four states to three.

5.4 Telangana — KCR, Aarogyasri, and the Revanth Reddy Transition

Telangana's PM-JAY hold-out reflected the inheritance of the Aarogyasri legacy from undivided Andhra Pradesh (2007). Chief Minister K. Chandrashekar Rao (BRS) maintained Aarogyasri as the state's primary health-insurance vehicle, with the benefit ceiling progressively raised — from the original ₹2 lakh through ₹5 lakh and, by 2022, ₹10 lakh per family for tertiary procedures. The BRS framing was politically explicit: Aarogyasri was a Telangana programme administered to Telangana standards; PM-JAY's Centre branding would dilute Telangana credit-attribution.

The December 2023 Telangana Assembly election produced a Congress victory and the swearing-in of A. Revanth Reddy as Chief Minister on 7 December 2023. The Reddy government, while broadly maintaining Aarogyasri, signalled openness to partial PM-JAY integration. Through 2024, Telangana moved toward a convergence model: combining Aarogyasri and PM-JAY for SECC-eligible families to ensure they received the higher of the two benefit ceilings, with the Centre's PM-JAY share covering the up-to-₹5-lakh layer and the state's Aarogyasri share covering the layer beyond. The exact convergence operationalisation was still being finalised through 2024–2025 [TBD-VERIFY: status of Telangana-PM-JAY convergence agreement as of early 2025].

5.5 NCT of Delhi — Kejriwal, Mohalla Clinics, and the Federalism Stand-Off

Delhi's hold-out from PM-JAY was the most politically theatrical of the four. Arvind Kejriwal (AAP) had built his political identity around the Mohalla Clinic primary-care model (launched 2015) and the upgrading of Delhi government hospitals — a primary-care-and-public-hospital model different from PM-JAY's insurance-purchaser model. Kejriwal's framing was twofold: (i) Delhi's public-hospital network (AIIMS, Safdarjung, RML Hospital under the Centre; Lok Nayak, GTB, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial under Delhi state) already provided free tertiary care to Delhi residents, making PM-JAY's insurance entitlement duplicative; and (ii) the Centre's PM-JAY architecture was branding-asymmetric, with the political credit attached to Modi rather than to Delhi state.

The Delhi government's underlying federalism position — sharpened by the broader Centre-Delhi conflict over the constitutional status of the NCT after the 2018 Supreme Court ruling and the 2023 GNCTD Amendment Act — meant that PM-JAY became one more locus in the broader political contest between AAP and BJP. Through 2024, Delhi remained outside PM-JAY. The political environment shifted with the February 2025 Delhi Assembly election in which the BJP won 48 of 70 seats, ending the AAP government; Rekha Gupta was sworn in as Chief Minister on 20 February 2025. One of the early Gupta-government decisions was to bring Delhi into PM-JAY, with operational rollout commencing through 2025 [TBD-VERIFY: exact Delhi PM-JAY operational start date and beneficiary rollout figures].

5.6 The Federalism Account in Aggregate

The hold-out story is not a story of opposition obstructionism alone. Each of the four hold-out states had a policy rationale rooted in pre-existing state schemes (West Bengal's Swasthya Sathi, Odisha's BSKY, Telangana's Aarogyasri) or distinct delivery models (Delhi's Mohalla Clinic primary-care emphasis). The hold-outs simultaneously reflected: (i) a view that state-built schemes were already comparable or superior in their own jurisdictions; (ii) credit-attribution politics in which states were unwilling to absorb a Centre-branded scheme that would politically benefit the BJP; and (iii) the constitutional fact that Health is a state subject, leaving states genuine discretion.

The reversal pattern — Odisha entering in 2024 after the BJD loss, Delhi entering in 2025 after the AAP loss — suggests that hold-out positions were politically rather than constitutionally durable: once state governments changed to BJP, integration into the Centre's scheme followed. By 2025, only West Bengal and Telangana remained as hold-outs, with Telangana's convergence model effectively reducing the divergence to West Bengal alone.

---

6. The National Health Authority — Governance, Personnel, and Institutional Design

6.1 The NHA's Institutional Form

The National Health Authority (NHA) was constituted by Cabinet decision on 23 January 2019 as a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, replacing the earlier National Health Agency (which had operationalised the launch). The Society form was an institutionally significant choice: it gave the NHA the operational autonomy of an arms-length implementing body rather than a directorate of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, with implications for staffing flexibility (lateral hires from the private sector at market-comparable compensation), procurement flexibility, and operational agility. The institutional template drew on the UIDAI (Aadhaar) and NPCI (Unified Payments Interface) precedents — both implementing bodies that had successfully delivered large-scale digital infrastructure operating in Society / Section-8-company form rather than as Ministry directorates.

The NHA's governance structure includes: (i) a Governing Board chaired by the Union Health Minister, with the Cabinet Secretary, Health Secretary, NITI Aayog Member (Health), three state-government representatives on rotation, three independent members, and the CEO; (ii) an Executive Committee chaired by the Health Secretary handling operational decisions; and (iii) the CEO and core operational staff, including a Deputy CEO for Operations, a Chief Technology Officer overseeing the IT architecture, a Chief Medical Officer overseeing clinical and HBP architecture, and state-level State Health Authorities (SHA) in each participating state mirroring the NHA structure.

6.2 Indu Bhushan — The Founding CEO

Indu Bhushan, IAS officer of the 1983 Uttar Pradesh cadre with extensive prior service at the Asian Development Bank in Manila, was appointed founding CEO of the National Health Agency in May 2018 and continued through the transition to NHA, serving until October 2020. Bhushan's tenure spanned the design-and-launch phase: HBP 1.0 architecture, the SECC-2011 beneficiary identification framework, the initial 20-state operational launch, the HBP 2.0 revision of October 2019, and the early COVID-19 response through 2020. His commentary published through 2019–2024 — in The Print, BusinessLine, Hindustan Times, and at various policy conferences — provides the most accessible insider account of PM-JAY's design rationale and early operational experience.

Bhushan's writings emphasise three design principles. First, simplicity of beneficiary verification: the multi-document acceptance (Aadhaar, ration card, voter ID, driving licence) at point of service was a deliberate choice to avoid Aadhaar-only exclusion errors. Second, package-rate calibration: HBP rates needed to be set high enough that private hospitals would participate, while low enough that the Centre's fiscal envelope was containable; the resulting calibration required iterative revision. Third, federal accommodation: state-level customisation (state-specific top-up packages, state-administered SHAs, state-branded co-branded cards in some states) was a feature, not a bug — uniform Centre imposition would have produced more hold-outs.

6.3 R. S. Sharma and the IT Architecture Phase

R. S. Sharma, IAS officer of the 1978 Tripura cadre and former Chairman of TRAI and former CEO of UIDAI, succeeded Bhushan as NHA CEO in December 2020 and served through October 2022. Sharma's appointment was institutionally significant: it explicitly imported the India Stack governance pedigree into PM-JAY's operational leadership at a moment when the scheme was integrating with the broader digital-public-infrastructure ecosystem.

Under Sharma's tenure, the NHA launched the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM) in September 2021 — an architecture parallel to PM-JAY focused on creating digital health records and a federated health-information exchange (the Health ID, later rebranded as ABHA — Ayushman Bharat Health Account). ABDM is distinct from PM-JAY operationally: PM-JAY is an insurance entitlement; ABDM is a digital health-records infrastructure. The two are designed to interoperate — a PM-JAY beneficiary's hospitalisation can be recorded against their ABHA — but they are funded and governed separately. ABDM's launch positioned the NHA as not only the PM-JAY implementer but the broader steward of India's health-data architecture. Subsequent CEOs (Lov Verma in interim capacity; Sangeeta Singh through 2024 [TBD-VERIFY: exact succession dates and CEO names through 2024]) maintained both portfolios.

6.4 The State Health Authorities

The State Health Authority (SHA) in each participating state is operationally as significant as the NHA itself. The SHA, typically chaired by the state Health Secretary and led by a CEO drawn either from the state IAS cadre or contract-hired, is responsible for state-level beneficiary enrolment, hospital empanelment, claim processing for state-hospitalised beneficiaries, and SHA-NHA reconciliation. State capacity varies substantially: Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra operate well-resourced SHAs with strong analytical and audit capacity; smaller and resource-constrained states (Bihar, UP in early years, Jharkhand) have SHAs that have struggled with capacity. The CAG's 2023 Performance Audit (Report No. 7 of 2023, Section 7) explicitly attributed several operational weaknesses to SHA capacity gaps rather than to the Centre-level NHA, recommending strengthened technical-assistance flows from the NHA to weaker SHAs.

---

7. The COVID-19 Stress Test (2020–2022)

7.1 The First-Wave Operational Pattern

The first wave of COVID-19 in India — from the early case identification in late January 2020 through the September–October 2020 peak and the December 2020 trough — overlapped with the second year of PM-JAY operations. The scheme covered COVID-19 hospitalisation through a specifically-notified package added in mid-2020, with sub-packages for: (i) isolation and supportive care (basic ward admission with supplemental oxygen); (ii) ICU without ventilation (advanced supportive care with non-invasive oxygen support); (iii) ICU with ventilation (invasive ventilation, including ECMO in subsequent revisions). The package rates were calibrated to existing pneumonia and respiratory-failure packages and revised through 2020–2021 in response to hospital-side feedback that COVID-specific costs (PPE, isolation overhead) exceeded conventional respiratory-illness costs.

Empanelled private hospitals' approach to COVID-PM-JAY admissions varied widely. In several metros — Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai — private hospitals during peak-demand periods (September–October 2020 first-wave peak; April–May 2021 Delta second-wave peak) effectively prioritised cash-paying patients over PM-JAY admissions, citing both the package-rate-versus-cost gap and the operational complexity of PM-JAY pre-authorisation in emergency-admission scenarios. State governments in several jurisdictions issued orders capping private-hospital COVID treatment charges and mandating PM-JAY admission for eligible beneficiaries, with variable enforcement.

7.2 The Delta Second Wave (April–May 2021)

The Delta-variant second wave of April–May 2021 was the most severe stress test (see IN-D-04). The combination of oxygen scarcity, ICU-bed unavailability, mortuary overflows in major cities, and the collapse of routine health-service delivery exposed not only PM-JAY's specific limits but India's broader public-health infrastructure constraints. PM-JAY claim approvals during the April–May 2021 peak rose sharply but in absolute terms remained a fraction of the total COVID-hospitalisation burden, reflecting both the SECC-2011-restricted beneficiary base (urban informal-sector COVID victims often fell outside SECC-2011) and the supply-side rationing inside hospitals.

The Lancet COVID-19 Commission India Task Force report (2021) and the subsequent analysis by Sundararaman, Muraleedharan, and Ranjan in Health Policy and Planning (2021) framed the second-wave experience as evidence of a structural mismatch: India's pandemic response required both (a) substantial public-hospital capacity expansion, particularly in oxygen, ICU, and trained respiratory-care personnel; and (b) an insurance entitlement covering the population segments outside both PM-JAY's SECC-base and the salaried-class employer-insurance market — the so-called "missing middle." The October 2021 NITI Aayog paper Health Insurance for India's Missing Middle — published while the Delta wave's aftermath was still acute — formally articulated the case for extending PM-JAY-style coverage to the estimated 40 crore (400 million) Indians in this missing-middle category. The recommendation did not result in immediate scheme expansion but informed the conceptual groundwork for the 2024 70+ expansion (which addressed a sub-segment of the missing middle).

7.3 The Vaccination Programme and PM-JAY's Tangential Role

The 2021–2022 vaccination rollout — Covishield (Serum Institute of India / AstraZeneca), Covaxin (Bharat Biotech / ICMR-NIV), and subsequently Sputnik V, Corbevax, Covovax — was operationally separate from PM-JAY, running through the Co-WIN platform under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Informatics Centre. The vaccination programme was free at point of service for government-administered doses (at government health facilities and government-run camps) and ran on a parallel-private-procurement basis for those choosing private-clinic vaccination. PM-JAY did not finance vaccination directly, but the ABHA (Health ID) architecture that the NHA developed under R. S. Sharma in 2021 was designed to integrate vaccination records into the broader health-record infrastructure — a connecting layer between PM-JAY's transactional architecture and the broader digital health ecosystem.

7.4 The Post-COVID Operational Recalibration

By 2022–2023, PM-JAY's operational scale had returned to and exceeded pre-pandemic trajectory. Cumulative hospitalisations crossed 5 crore by mid-2023 and continued rising. The HBP architecture was revised again (HBP 2.2 in 2022) with COVID-related procedural learnings incorporated — notably stronger packages for post-acute respiratory rehabilitation, ICU-stay extensions, and oncological treatments that had been deferred during the pandemic period. The scheme had survived the stress test of the most severe public-health emergency in modern Indian history without operational collapse; it had also demonstrated, through the Lancet Commission and missing-middle analyses, that its design constituted a partial rather than complete answer to India's catastrophic-health-expenditure problem.

---

8. The CAG August 2023 Performance Audit — Findings and Implications

8.1 The Audit Scope and Methodology

In August 2023, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India tabled Report No. 7 of 2023: Performance Audit of Ayushman Bharat — Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana before Parliament. The audit covered the period from the September 2018 launch through March 2021, examining the scheme's design, implementation, financial management, and operational outcomes across selected states and at the Centre. The audit was substantial — running to several hundred pages — and is the most authoritative single external assessment of PM-JAY's first three years.

The CAG's audit methodology included: (i) sampling of empanelled hospitals across states for compliance verification; (ii) database analysis of NHA's BIS and TMS data for anomalies including duplicate registrations, implausible demographic entries, and pattern-irregular claim flows; (iii) field visits to selected hospitals and beneficiary households; (iv) cross-referencing with state-level CAG audit findings on SHA-level operations; (v) review of the NHA's internal audit and anti-fraud cell outputs.

8.2 The Major Findings

The CAG audit's principal findings, grouped:

Beneficiary-database anomalies. The audit identified instances of: (i) approximately 7.5 lakh beneficiaries linked to a single phone number in the BIS database — a clear data-quality red flag, though the NHA's response argued that many such entries reflected shared family phones in rural areas rather than deliberate fraud; (ii) beneficiaries with implausible ages (over 100,000 entries showing ages exceeding 110 or under 1) — partially attributable to data-entry errors during SECC enrolment that PM-JAY had inherited; (iii) duplicate PM-JAY IDs against the same Aadhaar in a subset of cases — operational deduplication had not caught all such instances.

Empanelment quality issues. The audit identified hospitals empanelled with documented infrastructure-deficiency markers: bed-strength claims unverified against ground inspection in selected cases; specialty-claims (cardiac surgery, oncology) made by hospitals lacking documented specialty workforce; geographic clustering of empanelled hospitals in district-headquarter towns with thin coverage in the deeper rural areas SECC-targeting was supposed to serve.

Claims-pattern irregularities. The audit identified statistical patterns suggesting potential fraud or upcoding: hospitals with implausibly high female-genital-surgery claims relative to local demographic ratios; hospitals with anomalously high oncology-claim rates relative to specialty-bed strength; clustering of high-value claims in a small subset of empanelled hospitals suggestive of either genuine concentration of expertise or potential fraud-collusion. The audit recommended strengthened predictive-analytics fraud detection.

Financial-management issues. The audit found instances of: (i) Centre's share released to states with significant delays, hampering state cash-flow management; (ii) NHA's own administrative overheads rising as a share of total scheme expenditure; (iii) parked funds in state SHAs not deployed within the financial year for which they were sanctioned.

8.3 The NHA Response and Subsequent Reform

The NHA's formal response to the CAG audit — published as an appendix to the audit report and elaborated through NHA public communications — partially acknowledged and partially contested specific findings. The Authority accepted the recommendation to strengthen the BIS deduplication architecture; commissioned the revised SECC-listing exercise for beneficiary refresh (though this remained constrained by the broader Census-2021 deferral); strengthened the Anti-Fraud Cell with new analytical tools; and committed to enhanced empanelment-quality auditing.

The CAG audit became politically significant in the run-up to the 2024 election. Opposition parties — particularly the Congress and AITC — cited the audit's data-quality findings as evidence of operational weakness in the BJP's flagship welfare scheme. Government spokespersons countered that the audit's findings related primarily to the 2018–2021 launch period and that subsequent reforms had addressed the issues; the underlying scheme architecture, the government argued, remained sound. The 2024 audit-versus-government exchange foreshadowed the broader political contestation over PM-JAY's effectiveness that continued into the post-election period.

---

9. The Empanelled Hospital Network — Structure, Composition, and Reimbursement Dynamics

9.1 The Public–Private Split and the Geographic Profile

The empanelled-hospital network is the operational core through which PM-JAY's insurance entitlement is realised — without empanelled hospitals willing to admit beneficiaries at administered rates, the entitlement is paper coverage. By the September 2018 launch, approximately 15,000 hospitals had been empanelled in the first cohort; the network grew progressively to approximately 25,000 empanelled hospitals by March 2021 (the CAG audit cut-off), and to approximately 30,500 hospitals by March 2024 (NHA FY2023–24 Annual Report figures) [TBD-VERIFY: exact March 2024 empanelment count from the NHA Annual Report].

The composition of the network was a deliberate hybrid. As of 2024, approximately 50–55 percent of empanelled hospitals were private (for-profit and not-for-profit charitable trust hospitals combined), with the remaining 45–50 percent constituted by public hospitals — Centre-government hospitals (AIIMS network, Safdarjung, RML), state-government district and sub-district hospitals, ESI hospitals, Railways hospitals, and Defence hospitals on a selective basis. The public-private balance varied across states: in Kerala and Tamil Nadu the public-hospital share of empanelment was higher than the national average, reflecting strong state public-health infrastructure; in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh the private-hospital share dominated, reflecting the historical density of private secondary- and tertiary-care capacity in those states.

Geographic distribution surfaced a persistent gap. Empanelled hospitals clustered in district-headquarter towns and the larger urban centres; the deeper rural areas — the tehsil and block levels where the largest SECC-deprivation populations live — were under-served. The CAG audit (Section 8.2) and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare reports (Reports 116 and 133) flagged this gap repeatedly, recommending that the NHA's empanelment-incentive structure be revised to encourage rural and small-town empanelment, including through capital-grant top-ups for hospitals empanelling in aspirational districts. The NHA's response — including the Aspirational Districts Programme health component and the FY 2023–24 incentives announced for empanelment in 117 aspirational districts — partially addressed the gap but did not close it.

9.2 Package Rates, NABH-Accreditation Tiers, and Hospital Economics

The Health Benefit Package (HBP) rate architecture (Section 3.3) included a two-tier accreditation differential: NABH-accredited hospitals received approximately 10 percent higher reimbursement for the same procedure than non-NABH-accredited hospitals, with an additional differential for state-government-designated specialty hospitals. The tier structure was intended both to incentivise accreditation uptake (improving quality) and to reflect the higher cost base of accredited facilities.

Hospital-side economics around PM-JAY participation followed a recurrent pattern that has been well documented in the trade press (BusinessLine, Mint, Indian Express) and in Association of Healthcare Providers India (AHPI) and Indian Medical Association (IMA) communications. The principal complaints, in order of frequency and intensity: (i) package rates below cost for select procedures, particularly in cardiac surgery, oncology, and complex neurosurgery; (ii) payment delays of 30–120 days from claim submission to actual receipt, generating working-capital stress; (iii) pre-authorisation administrative burden, with hospitals reporting medical-records and TMS-portal documentation requirements adding significant non-clinical staffing costs; (iv) denial rates higher than commercial insurance, with audit-driven retrospective claim denials creating financial uncertainty. The HBP 2.0 (October 2019) and subsequent HBP 2.2 (2022) revisions addressed parts of (i); the NHA's investment in the Claim Adjudication Module and parallel auto-adjudication of low-value claims (under ₹30,000) accelerated payment for a substantial fraction of claim volume; the pre-authorisation burden and the retrospective-denial concern remained persistent issues into 2024.

The hospital-economics question is structurally important. PM-JAY's promise of universal cashless tertiary care at empanelled private hospitals depends on those hospitals continuing to participate. If the package-rate calibration drifts below cost over time — through medical-cost inflation outpacing HBP revisions — private hospitals will either exit empanelment, ration PM-JAY admissions (de facto if not de jure), or compress quality. The 2022 PM-JAY revision (Section 11) and the 2024 HBP supplement responded to this calibration concern with selective rate increases for procedures where private-hospital participation had thinned.

9.3 Specialty Concentration: Cardiology, Oncology, Orthopaedics, Nephrology

Through the September 2018 launch period and into 2024, the procedural mix authorised under PM-JAY concentrated in a small number of high-cost specialties. Cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery — angioplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, valve replacement — were the highest-value single category, with approximately ₹15,000–₹20,000 crore in cumulative authorised expenditure through 2024 [TBD-VERIFY: NHA Annual Report 2023–24 specialty-wise cumulative figures]. Oncology — chemotherapy regimens, radiation therapy, oncosurgery — was the second-largest category by value, with the package mix expanded in HBP 2.2 to cover newer chemotherapy regimens and selected targeted-therapy drugs (though the most expensive immunotherapy regimens remained off-formulary on cost-effectiveness grounds). Orthopaedics — joint replacements, trauma surgery — was the third-largest category, with knee and hip replacement procedures generating high volumes among the elderly beneficiary cohort. Nephrology — dialysis sessions, kidney-stone procedures — was a significant volume category given India's diabetes-driven chronic-kidney-disease prevalence.

The specialty concentration is consistent with the design logic: PM-JAY targeted catastrophic-expenditure conditions, which empirically cluster in cardiology, oncology, orthopaedics, and nephrology. It also implies that PM-JAY's beneficiary impact is concentrated in a sub-population of beneficiaries who actually hospitalise for these conditions — the median PM-JAY beneficiary will not utilise the scheme in any given year. This is the structural feature of insurance generally: financial protection accrues to the small share of beneficiaries who experience high-cost events, while the broader population benefits from the option value of coverage in the event of future need.

9.4 The Pradhan Mantri National Dialysis Programme Interaction

A specific operational interaction worth flagging is between PM-JAY and the Pradhan Mantri National Dialysis Programme (PMNDP), launched in 2016 under the National Health Mission. PMNDP provided free dialysis sessions at district hospitals on a PPP basis with private dialysis-service operators. With PM-JAY's launch in 2018, the dialysis-package architecture was integrated such that SECC-eligible beneficiaries receiving PMNDP dialysis at district hospitals were processed through PM-JAY claim flows, while non-SECC-eligible beneficiaries continued under PMNDP's direct-service model. The integration was operationally significant — dialysis is a recurring, high-frequency service uniquely suited to insurance-financed delivery — and demonstrated PM-JAY's capacity to layer onto existing NHM programmes rather than displace them.

---

10. Post-COVID Operational Recovery and the 2022 HBP Architecture Update

10.1 The FY 2021–22 and FY 2022–23 Recovery Trajectory

By FY 2021–22, with the Delta wave having receded and Omicron (December 2021 – February 2022) having proved milder, PM-JAY's operational tempo recovered and exceeded pre-pandemic trajectory. Annual hospitalisation authorisations rose from approximately 1.4 crore in FY 2020–21 to approximately 1.9 crore in FY 2021–22, and to approximately 2.4 crore in FY 2022–23 [TBD-VERIFY: annual hospitalisation figures from successive NHA Annual Reports]. The post-pandemic recovery reflected the resumption of deferred elective procedures — particularly cardiac and oncology cases that had been postponed during the pandemic peaks — alongside continued growth in the empanelled-hospital network and progressive beneficiary-card issuance.

The cumulative figures by end-FY 2022–23 stood at approximately: 23 crore Ayushman Cards issued, 5.4 crore cumulative hospitalisations authorised, ₹65,000 crore cumulative authorised expenditure, and approximately 28,000 empanelled hospitals across approximately 33 participating states and UTs (Odisha, Delhi, West Bengal still hold-out at this point) [TBD-VERIFY: precise end-FY 2022–23 figures from NHA Annual Report].

10.2 The October 2022 HBP 2.2 Revision

The most consequential operational change in this period was the October 2022 HBP 2.2 revision, which both expanded the procedure list (from approximately 1,949 procedures under HBP 2.0 to approximately 1,961 procedures under HBP 2.2, with internal recombination of several existing packages) and revised rates upward across a substantial fraction of the package list. The HBP 2.2 process — running through the National Health Authority's Health Benefit Package Working Group with consultation inputs from PHFI, ICMR, AIIMS, the Indian Medical Association, and the Association of Healthcare Providers — was the first systematic rate revision since HBP 2.0 in October 2019 and reflected three years of operational experience.

Key HBP 2.2 changes included: (i) cardiology-package rate increases of approximately 15–30 percent for angioplasty, valve-replacement, and bypass procedures, addressing private-hospital underparticipation that had thinned the cardiac network in some states; (ii) oncology-package expansion to include selected targeted-therapy regimens and improved chemotherapy packages, though immunotherapy remained off-formulary; (iii) mental-health package additions — modest in scope (essentially severe psychiatric-inpatient packages) but symbolically significant as a first step toward integrating mental health into the package architecture; (iv) palliative-care package introduction — covering end-of-life and chronic-disease palliative inpatient care; (v) NABH-tier differential adjustment — modestly increasing the accreditation premium to further incentivise hospital accreditation; (vi) rural-empanelment incentive packages with location-based rate top-ups for hospitals in aspirational and tribal-majority districts.

10.3 The Public-Hospital Reimbursement Question

An interpretive question persistent through PM-JAY's operation has been: how should reimbursement to public hospitals be treated, given that they are already financed through state budgets for general operation? The NHA's operational position has been that PM-JAY reimbursement to public hospitals constitutes an additionality flow — funding that supplements rather than substitutes for the existing public-hospital operational budget, intended to be retained at hospital level for upgrading, supplementary staffing, and beneficiary-amenity improvements. In practice, the additionality has varied: in some states (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka), PM-JAY public-hospital reimbursements have been retained at hospital level under "Rogi Kalyan Samiti"-style governance, generating real upgrading; in other states, the reimbursements have flowed to state consolidated funds, with the additionality effectively dissolving into general state-health financing.

The HBP 2.2 revision included strengthened guidance on public-hospital fund retention, but the implementation remained state-discretionary. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare Report 133 (2022) flagged the public-hospital additionality question as an area requiring strengthened guidance and reporting.

---

11. The 2022 ₹5 Lakh Cover Affirmation and the Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY Branding Evolution

11.1 The Continuing ₹5 Lakh Promise and Inflation-Adjustment Question

Through 2018–2024, PM-JAY's headline benefit ceiling has remained at ₹5 lakh per family per year — the figure announced in the February 2018 Union Budget speech. The ceiling has not been adjusted for medical-cost inflation, which has run at approximately 10–14 percent per year in India over this period — well above headline CPI. In real terms, the ₹5 lakh cover of 2024 is meaningfully smaller than the ₹5 lakh cover of 2018: deflated by medical-cost inflation, the 2024 real value of the cover is approximately ₹2.8–₹3.2 lakh in 2018 prices [TBD-VERIFY: precise medical-cost inflation calculation using the WPI medical-care sub-index].

The non-indexation of the ceiling is a deliberate fiscal-management choice — indexing ₹5 lakh annually would compound the budget envelope over time — but it raises a structural question: at what point does the real-value erosion of the cover become sufficient to undermine the catastrophic-protection promise that grounds the scheme? For the most expensive procedures — multi-cycle oncology, complex cardiac surgery with post-operative complications, multi-trauma intensive care — the ₹5 lakh ceiling can be reached and exceeded within a single hospitalisation episode, with the beneficiary back to out-of-pocket exposure beyond the cap. Anecdotal cases reported in Indian Express and The Hindu through 2022–2024 documented beneficiaries reaching the cover ceiling mid-treatment and either accepting downgraded care or facing renewed financial distress.

11.2 State-Level Top-Ups and the Convergence Approach

The structural answer adopted by several states has been state-level top-up convergence — combining PM-JAY's ₹5 lakh Centre-financed cover with a state-financed additional layer to produce an effective higher ceiling. Karnataka's Suvarna Arogya Suraksha Trust (SAST) integrated with PM-JAY to provide an effective ₹10 lakh ceiling for SECC-eligible beneficiaries in the state; Rajasthan's Chiranjeevi Yojana (launched May 2021 under the Ashok Gehlot Congress government) provided ₹10 lakh cover universally to Rajasthan residents (re-named Mukhyamantri Ayushman Aarogya Yojana under the Bhajan Lal Sharma BJP government from 2024); Gujarat's Mukhyamantri Amrutam Vatsalya (MAV) similarly provided top-up cover. The convergence approach reflected the practical recognition by states that PM-JAY's ceiling was insufficient for the highest-cost catastrophic events and that state-financed augmentation was operationally feasible.

The convergence approach also pointed to a federal-design implication: PM-JAY's ₹5 lakh national floor was a useful baseline but not a complete catastrophic-protection envelope. The state-level top-ups, where they existed, were doing meaningful work; in states without top-ups, beneficiaries faced ceiling exposure that the national scheme alone did not cover.

11.3 The Branding Evolution — From PM-JAY to Ayushman Arogya Mandir to Vay Vandana

Across 2018–2024, the Ayushman Bharat branding architecture evolved progressively. The original 2018 launch presented two pillars — Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) for insurance and Health and Wellness Centres (HWCs) for primary care. By 2023–24, the branding had been refined: HWCs were rebranded "Ayushman Arogya Mandir" in February 2024 in a Cabinet-approved exercise, with the Sanskrit "Mandir" (temple/place of) framing chosen for cultural resonance; PM-JAY continued under its original name but with progressive integration with the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM) Health ID architecture. The September 2024 70+ expansion introduced a new sub-brand — AB PM-JAY Vay Vandana ("Salutation to Elders") — for the senior-citizen layer. The cumulative branding architecture by end-2024 thus included: Ayushman Bharat (umbrella), PM-JAY (core SECC entitlement), Vay Vandana (70+ expansion layer), Ayushman Arogya Mandir (primary-care pillar), and ABDM/ABHA (digital health-records pillar). The branding density was politically deliberate, ensuring that the Modi-government identification was visible at multiple touchpoints in the citizen-health interaction.

---

12. The 30+ Crore Ayushman Card Milestone and the 2023–24 Operational Scale

12.1 Card Issuance — Mechanics and Cumulative Trajectory

The Ayushman Card — initially a physical orange-and-white printed card with a 14-digit PM-JAY ID and beneficiary photograph; from 2022 progressively delivered as a digital card downloadable through the PM-JAY mobile application and the Ayushman App — is the operational artefact linking a SECC-2011 (or state-listed) beneficiary to the scheme. Card issuance is distinct from coverage: a SECC-eligible household is covered by virtue of being in the eligible database, but operational access — the ability to present at an empanelled hospital and have a claim processed — depends on the card.

Card-issuance figures progressed as follows: approximately 9 crore by September 2019 (one-year anniversary); 14 crore by March 2021 (CAG audit cut-off); 19 crore by March 2022; 23 crore by March 2023; and approximately 30 crore (300 million) by March 2024, with continued growth through 2024 [TBD-VERIFY: precise March 2024 card-issuance figure from NHA Annual Report 2023–24]. The 30-crore figure — widely cited in Modi-government communications through the 2024 election campaign and after — represents approximately 60 percent of the SECC-eligible 50-crore individual beneficiary base.

The remaining 40 percent gap between SECC-eligibility and actual card issuance reflects three operational realities. First, uptake friction: card issuance requires the beneficiary or family member to visit a Common Service Centre, hospital empanelment desk, or Camp — and to provide identification cross-referencing the SECC entry; rural awareness and accessibility gaps mean many eligible beneficiaries have not completed enrolment. Second, database mismatches: SECC-2011 entries with name-spelling variants, ID-number mismatches against Aadhaar/voter-roll, or address changes since 2011 require manual reconciliation that has lagged. Third, demographic deceased-or-migrated entries: an unknown but significant share of SECC-2011 entries represent persons since deceased or migrated, who will never enrol. The NHA's 2023–24 enrolment campaigns — including Ayushman Bhav (launched 13 September 2023) and the door-to-door card-distribution drives in selected aspirational districts — were designed to close the uptake gap.

12.2 The 7 Crore Hospitalisation Milestone and the Authorised-Expenditure Trajectory

Cumulative hospitalisations authorised under PM-JAY from launch through March 2024 stood at approximately 7 crore (70 million), with cumulative authorised expenditure of approximately ₹1 lakh crore (₹1 trillion / approximately USD 12 billion at average exchange rates) [TBD-VERIFY: NHA Annual Report 2023–24 cumulative figures]. The figures are operationally significant for several reasons.

First, the average authorised value per hospitalisation is approximately ₹14,000–₹15,000 — below the ₹5 lakh family ceiling, reflecting the procedural mix dominated by secondary-care admissions, with tertiary-care high-value claims representing a tail of the distribution. Second, the repeat-hospitalisation profile: NHA analytics indicate that approximately 30–35 percent of authorised hospitalisations are second or subsequent admissions of the same beneficiary, consistent with chronic-condition repeat-care patterns (dialysis sessions, chemotherapy cycles). Third, the claim-rejection rate of approximately 5–8 percent indicates a non-trivial but not catastrophic compliance regime — neither so loose that fraud goes unchecked nor so tight that legitimate claims face systematic obstruction.

12.3 The Ayushman Bhav 2023 Campaign and the September 2023 Service-Saturation Push

In September 2023 — coinciding with the fifth anniversary of the 23 September 2018 launch — the Government of India launched the Ayushman Bhav campaign, a service-saturation push designed to: (i) complete Ayushman Card distribution to all SECC-eligible families through Common Service Centre (CSC) camps, panchayat-level enrolment drives, and door-to-door verification; (ii) achieve full ABHA Health ID coverage; (iii) operationalise the Ayushman Arogya Mandir / Health and Wellness Centre primary-care network at full population reach; (iv) saturate Pradhan Mantri Jan Aushadhi Kendras (the generic-drug pharmacies network) at the village level. The Ayushman Bhav campaign was launched by President Droupadi Murmu at a national event and was structured as a Centre-state coordinated push with state Health Secretaries setting block-level targets.

The campaign's outputs through 2023–24 included approximately 6 crore additional Ayushman Cards issued during the campaign period, approximately 35 crore ABHA Health IDs created cumulatively, and partial Ayushman Arogya Mandir operationalisation completion (target ~1.7 lakh facilities) [TBD-VERIFY: precise Ayushman Bhav campaign output figures from NHA documentation]. The campaign was politically significant — running in the year preceding the 2024 general election — and was widely interpreted as both genuine welfare-delivery push and electoral mobilisation around the scheme's flagship status.

---

13. The September 2024 Senior-Citizen Expansion — PM-JAY Vay Vandana

13.1 The 11 September 2024 Cabinet Decision

On 11 September 2024, three months after the Modi-3 government took office following the BJP's loss of an outright Lok Sabha majority in the June 2024 general election, the Union Cabinet approved the expansion of PM-JAY to all Indian citizens aged 70 years and above, irrespective of income or SECC-2011 eligibility. The decision was announced through a Press Information Bureau release the same day, branded as AB PM-JAY Vay Vandana ("Salutation to Elders"), with operational rollout commencing through October 2024 across participating states.

The 2024 expansion was the most structurally significant change to PM-JAY's design since the 2018 launch. It abandoned the SECC-2011 deprivation-based targeting that had defined the scheme from inception and introduced an age-categorical, income-independent eligibility tier — the first such tier in the scheme's architecture. The estimated beneficiary universe was approximately 4.5 crore (45 million) households containing approximately 6 crore (60 million) individuals aged 70+, with the operational logic that:

• Senior citizens (70+) in families already enrolled in PM-JAY through SECC-2011 eligibility would receive an additional separate ₹5 lakh top-up cover specifically for them — distinct from and supplementary to the family's existing ₹5 lakh floater cover.
• Senior citizens (70+) in families not in the SECC-2011 base — middle-class, salaried, and higher-income households — would receive a new ₹5 lakh cover for themselves (the rest of the family remaining outside PM-JAY unless covered through other channels).
• Senior citizens with existing private health insurance, ESI coverage, or CGHS would retain the right to additionally enrol in Vay Vandana, with PM-JAY paying as the primary or secondary payer depending on choice and operational coordination.

13.2 The Pivot from Means-Tested to Categorical Coverage

The structural significance of the Vay Vandana expansion lies in its pivot from means-tested targeting to age-categorical entitlement. The pivot has multiple interpretive readings, which the corpus must hold simultaneously.

Reading 1 — Demographic-policy responsiveness. India's elderly population (60+) was approximately 14 crore in 2024 and projected to reach 22 crore by 2036; the 70+ sub-cohort is rising particularly fast as the cohort born in the 1950s ages. Elderly Indians have higher per-capita health-expenditure needs than the working-age population, and the pre-2024 PM-JAY architecture — restricted to SECC-2011 deprivation — left a substantial elderly middle-class cohort exposed to catastrophic-expenditure risk. The Vay Vandana expansion addresses this demographic-policy gap.

Reading 2 — Electoral-political response to 2024. The Modi-led BJP's failure to win an outright majority in the June 2024 general election — winning 240 seats versus the 272 required, falling significantly short of its 2019 303-seat performance — generated post-election commentary about under-performance among middle-class and elderly voters who felt under-served by Modi-2 welfare architecture (which had been heavily directed toward the SECC-base). The September 2024 70+ expansion was widely interpreted by The Print, Mint, and Indian Express commentary as responsive to this electoral signal — a calibrated re-orientation toward middle-class entitlement.

Reading 3 — Health-financing path-extension toward universalism. The Vay Vandana expansion can be read as a step on a longer path toward more universal Indian health-insurance coverage, partially answering the "missing middle" critique that the October 2021 NITI Aayog paper had articulated. By covering all 70+ Indians regardless of income, the Centre established the operational mechanism through which categorical expansion can be extended further — to all 65+, all 60+, or to other age or condition categories — in subsequent phases. The architecture for non-SECC enrolment, premium-free at the beneficiary level, with administered package rates, is now demonstrated at 6-crore scale.

The three readings are compatible rather than competing. The expansion is simultaneously a demographic-policy response, an electoral-political response, and a path-extending architectural move.

13.3 Operational Rollout — October 2024 Onwards

Operational rollout of Vay Vandana commenced through October 2024 with the following architecture: (i) Aadhaar-based age verification at empanelled hospitals — a senior citizen presenting at an empanelled facility could be enrolled into Vay Vandana on the spot through eKYC verification; (ii) the Ayushman Vay Vandana Card issued separately from the family PM-JAY card, with distinct visual branding emphasising the senior-citizen entitlement; (iii) integration of Vay Vandana into existing HBP package architecture, with select packages prioritised for senior-citizen-relevant conditions (cardiac care, oncology, orthopaedic joint replacement, ophthalmology cataract surgery, age-related neurology); (iv) state-level participation following the existing PM-JAY MoU framework — states already in PM-JAY were automatically eligible to participate in Vay Vandana, with the hold-out states (West Bengal, Delhi at decision time, Odisha in transition) initially outside the expansion. Odisha's 2024 PM-JAY entry under the new BJP Majhi government brought Vay Vandana coverage to Odisha's 70+ population from late 2024.

The Union Budget 2025–26 (presented 1 February 2025 by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman) provided the first full-year fiscal allocation incorporating Vay Vandana, with the AB-PMJAY Demand for Grants rising to approximately ₹9,400 crore for FY 2025–26 [TBD-VERIFY: exact 2025–26 Demand for Grants figure for AB-PMJAY], up from approximately ₹7,500 crore in FY 2023–24 — a roughly 25 percent year-on-year increase reflecting the 70+ layer's incremental cost.

---

14. Budgetary Commitments, Comparative Significance, and the Forward Account

14.1 The Budgetary Trajectory and the Under-Financing Critique

The Union Budget allocation for Ayushman Bharat — combining PM-JAY and the HWC / Ayushman Arogya Mandir primary-care pillar under the unified Demand for Grants — has grown materially since the 2018 launch, while remaining a comparatively small fraction of total Centre-state public-health expenditure:

• FY 2018–19 (partial-year, post-September launch): approximately ₹2,400 crore.
• FY 2019–20: approximately ₹6,400 crore.
• FY 2020–21 (COVID-affected): approximately ₹6,400 crore.
• FY 2021–22: approximately ₹6,400 crore.
• FY 2022–23: approximately ₹6,500 crore.
• FY 2023–24: approximately ₹7,500 crore.
• FY 2024–25 (revised estimates with mid-year Vay Vandana launch): approximately ₹8,300 crore.
• FY 2025–26 (Budget Estimates, first full-year with Vay Vandana): approximately ₹9,400 crore [TBD-VERIFY: 2025–26 BE figure].

These figures are substantial in nominal terms but are usefully read against three reference points. First, total Centre + state public-health expenditure stood at approximately 1.4 percent of GDP in FY 2022–23 (Economic Survey 2023–24), against the National Health Policy 2017 target of 2.5 percent by 2025 — the target was effectively unmet, with the gap reflecting both Centre under-investment and state-level fiscal constraints. Second, the implicit liability of the PM-JAY entitlement — ₹5 lakh per family multiplied across 12+ crore SECC families plus the Vay Vandana 6-crore 70+ individual layer — runs to a notional ceiling far exceeding the budget allocation. The structural fact is that utilisation rates are well below the ceiling: not all eligible beneficiaries claim in any given year, and those who do claim mostly use a fraction of the ₹5 lakh ceiling. The scheme is fiscally sustainable because of the gap between potential and actual utilisation. Third, medical cost inflation at 10–14 percent per year is compressing the real value of both the ₹5 lakh ceiling and the per-procedure HBP rates, requiring periodic rate revisions (HBP 2.0 2019, HBP 2.2 2022) to maintain hospital participation.

The under-financing critique — articulated by K. Sujatha Rao (Do We Care?, 2017), Sakthivel Selvaraj (PHFI), and Indranil Mukhopadhyay (Jindal School of Government and Public Policy) in successive commentary — is that PM-JAY's nominal coverage envelope is materially larger than its budgetary envelope can sustainably support. The critics argue that the scheme is structurally dependent on under-utilisation: if utilisation rates rose materially — through deeper Ayushman Card penetration, stronger beneficiary awareness, denser empanelled hospital networks — the Centre would face a fiscal squeeze requiring either rate compression (damaging hospital participation), ceiling reduction (damaging beneficiary protection), or budget expansion (politically difficult given competing fiscal demands). The critics' preferred alternative — substantial expansion of public-hospital direct provision financed by raising public-health expenditure toward the 2.5-percent-of-GDP target — was the HLEG 2011 framework, set aside in favour of the insurance-purchaser model that PM-JAY operationalises.

The government's counter-position is that the insurance-purchaser model harnesses the existing private-hospital network — built over decades of private investment — to deliver coverage at a fiscal cost lower than building equivalent public capacity from scratch, while preserving the public-hospital network as the foundation. The two positions are not strictly empirically resolvable; they represent different philosophies of how health-system architecture should evolve in a federal middle-income country with extensive private-sector capacity.

14.2 The Comparative-Health-Financing Significance — Medicaid, Medicare, and the Indian Variant

PM-JAY's place in comparative health-financing typology rewards careful articulation. The scheme is neither a National Health Service (NHS / single-payer universal-coverage tax-financed direct-provision model, as in the UK, post-1950s Scandinavia, and parts of post-war Europe), nor a Bismarckian social-insurance model (employer-employee premium-financed sickness funds with universal mandate, as in Germany since 1883 and much of continental Europe), nor a private-individual-mandate model (the Affordable Care Act variant), nor a pure private-insurance market.

The closest structural analogue is the United States' Medicaid programme — a means-tested public health-insurance entitlement, federally specified but state-administered, paying providers (predominantly private) for defined services at administered rates, with eligibility tied to income and asset thresholds. The Medicaid analogue is structurally apt in several respects: (i) the federalism architecture (Centre defines, states implement); (ii) the means-tested eligibility (SECC-2011 deprivation analogous to Medicaid income thresholds); (iii) the predominantly private provider network reimbursed at administered rates (HBP rates analogous to Medicaid fee schedules); (iv) the perennial reimbursement-versus-cost tension (HBP rate complaints analogous to long-running US complaints about Medicaid reimbursement rates trailing private insurance); (v) the political variability in state participation (the four hold-out states analogous to states that delayed or limited Medicaid expansion under the ACA).

The disanalogies are equally instructive. US Medicaid in 2024 covered approximately 80 million enrollees at federal+state combined expenditure of approximately USD 800 billion — implying a per-capita expenditure of approximately USD 10,000 per year. PM-JAY in 2024 covered approximately 500 million eligible beneficiaries (plus the 60-million 70+ layer) at combined Centre+state allocation of approximately USD 1.5 billion — implying a per-capita allocation of approximately USD 3 per year. The per-capita ratio is approximately 3,300:1 — illustrating both the radical cost-efficiency of Indian medical pricing and the radical under-resourcing of Indian health-financing relative to US benchmarks. The comparability is structural, not magnitudinal.

The 2024 70+ expansion added a partial Medicare-style component — age-categorical, income-independent coverage for the elderly. Medicare in the United States, established 1965, covers approximately 65 million Americans aged 65+ at federal expenditure of approximately USD 900 billion (FY 2024) — a per-capita ratio similarly orders-of-magnitude above the Indian Vay Vandana per-capita allocation. The structural resemblance — age-categorical, federally-financed, with administered provider payments — is genuine; the scale differential remains vast.

Beyond the US comparators, PM-JAY also has structural resemblances to Thailand's Universal Coverage Scheme (launched 2002, covering approximately 47 million Thai citizens), Mexico's Seguro Popular (2003–2018, since restructured), Indonesia's Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN, launched 2014, covering approximately 270 million Indonesians), and the Philippines' PhilHealth (in successive iterations). The Indonesian JKN comparison is the most apt structurally given comparable population scale and federal-decentralised architecture: JKN, like PM-JAY, was launched in 2014 with universal-coverage aspiration, has progressively expanded enrolment, and has navigated similar tensions around provider payment rates, hospital network adequacy, and fiscal sustainability. See [IN-N-01: India in Western Scholarship] for further comparative-corpus connections.

14.3 The Three Accounts — Substantive, Federalism, Comparative

Returning to the three-account discipline that opened this document, the case for assessment is:

Account One — Substantive coverage and access. PM-JAY by end-2024 had: enrolled approximately 30 crore Ayushman Card holders; authorised approximately 7 crore cumulative hospitalisations; channelled approximately ₹1 lakh crore in cumulative authorised expenditure; expanded the empanelled-hospital network to approximately 30,500 facilities; and added a 60-million-person age-categorical layer through Vay Vandana. The scheme has demonstrably reduced out-of-pocket expenditure for empanelled-condition hospitalisations among enrolled and card-issued beneficiaries (Prinja et al., 2019; subsequent NHA-commissioned and PHFI-led utilisation studies). It has built operational infrastructure — NHA, SHAs, IT architecture, HBP architecture, the empanelled-hospital network — at scale beyond any prior Indian health-financing scheme. Substantively, the scheme is a real expansion of public-financed health entitlement.

Account Two — Federalism tensions. PM-JAY operates within a constitutional architecture in which Health is a State subject (Entry 6, List II). The four hold-out states (West Bengal, Odisha, Telangana, Delhi) for most of 2018–2024 exercised the constitutional discretion they retained; the reversal pattern (Odisha 2024, Delhi 2025) tracked state government changes to BJP rather than constitutional re-interpretation. The federalism question — whether PM-JAY constitutes a Centre-led national framework or a politically branded Centre-scheme imposed on state-level pre-existing schemes — remains contested. The hold-outs' parallel schemes (Swasthya Sathi, BSKY, Aarogyasri, Mohalla Clinic) demonstrate that comparable or in some respects superior coverage is achievable through state-financed alternatives in their own jurisdictions, complicating Centre claims to uniquely-effective design. Federal cooperation rather than Centre dominance is the operationally sustainable settlement; the post-2025 architecture, with Odisha and Delhi integrated and Telangana converging, approaches that settlement.

Account Three — Comparative significance. PM-JAY occupies a specific position in comparative health-financing typology: a publicly-financed, state-administered, predominantly-private-provider, defined-benefit, means-tested-plus-age-categorical insurance entitlement, operating at a scale (500+ million eligible beneficiaries, 60-million-plus elderly layer) that is the largest of its design type globally. The structural analogues are US Medicaid (means-tested core), US Medicare (age-categorical layer), and the Asian-middle-income universal-coverage schemes (Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines). The Indian variant is distinctive in: (i) the federal-cooperative architecture preserving state discretion; (ii) the SECC-2011 targeting base; (iii) the deliberate India Stack digital-public-infrastructure integration; (iv) the per-capita fiscal envelope orders of magnitude lower than OECD analogues, sustained by India's distinctive low-cost medical pricing. Comparatively, PM-JAY is a serious case study in middle-income public-finance health-insurance design at population scale.

14.4 Forward View — The 2025+ Trajectory

Looking forward from the corpus's 2026 vantage, several PM-JAY trajectories are visible:

• Hold-out integration: With Odisha integrated in 2024 and Delhi in 2025, PM-JAY participation has progressed toward near-universal state-level coverage, with West Bengal as the remaining significant hold-out and Telangana operating under a convergence model. Whether West Bengal will eventually integrate depends on the 2026 state election outcome.
• Vay Vandana operationalisation: The 70+ layer is in early operational rollout; its claim-generation and beneficiary-utilisation patterns through 2025–2026 will determine whether the categorical-coverage architecture extends further to younger age cohorts or to additional categorical groups.
• HBP architecture evolution: A next-generation HBP revision (HBP 3.0) is in development through 2025–2026, with anticipated inclusions for mental-health expansion, targeted-therapy oncology, gene-therapy edge cases, and rehabilitative care.
• SECC update: The deferred Census-2021 (now likely Census-2026) will eventually trigger a SECC update, which will refresh the PM-JAY beneficiary base. The political timing and operational scale of the refresh will be consequential.
• Fiscal envelope expansion: The pressure to expand the AB-PMJAY budget envelope toward the National Health Policy 2017 target of 2.5 percent of GDP public-health expenditure will continue, with competing fiscal demands (defence, infrastructure, agricultural subsidies, state-fiscal-transfer constraints) limiting the headroom.
• "Missing middle" address: The 40-crore "missing middle" — neither SECC-eligible nor employer-insured nor 70+ — remains the largest uncovered cohort. NITI Aayog's October 2021 paper articulated the design question; political feasibility of premium-financed contributory expansion to this cohort remains the structural challenge.

PM-JAY's trajectory from the 23 September 2018 Ranchi launch through the September 2024 Vay Vandana expansion has been one of progressive scale-up against persistent design and federalism tensions. Whether the scheme evolves toward genuine Indian universal health coverage — or remains a means-tested-plus-elderly entitlement layered onto India's broader fragmented health-financing landscape — is the question the 2026–2030 period will resolve. The corpus will track that resolution.

---

Sources

1. Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Health Policy 2017. New Delhi: MoHFW, March 2017.
2. Government of India, Press Information Bureau. Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana — Launch Document. Ranchi, 23 September 2018.
3. National Health Authority (NHA). Annual Reports 2018–19, 2019–20, 2020–21, 2021–22, 2022–23, 2023–24. New Delhi: NHA, 2019–2024.
4. National Health Authority. PM-JAY: Brief Overview and Operational Guidelines (Version 2.0, October 2019; Version 3.0, July 2022). New Delhi: NHA.
5. Bhushan, Indu. Ayushman Bharat: How India's Healthcare Reform Took Shape (working manuscript / commentary series in The Print, BusinessLine, and Hindustan Times, 2019–2024).
6. Rao, K. Sujatha. Do We Care? India's Health System. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2017.
7. Lancet COVID-19 Commission India Task Force, Managing India's Second COVID-19 Wave: Urgent Steps (May 2021); Sundararaman T., Muraleedharan V.R., Ranjan A. "Pandemic resilience and health systems preparedness: Lessons from COVID-19 for the twenty-first century." Health Policy and Planning 36(Supplement_1) (2021): i30–i39.
8. Roy, Indrajit, ed. Passionate Politics: Democracy, Development and India's 2014 Elections (Manohar, 2019); Roy, Indrajit. "Health, Welfare and the Indian State." Working papers, University of York, 2019–2023.
9. Reddy, K. Srinath. Make Health in India: Reaching a Billion Plus. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan, 2018.
10. Selvaraj, Sakthivel, Karan, Anup, Srivastava, Swati, Bhan, Nandita, Mukhopadhyay, Indranil. India Health System Review. New Delhi: WHO India / Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), 2022.
11. NITI Aayog. Health System for a New India: Building Blocks — Potential Pathways to Reform. New Delhi: NITI Aayog, November 2019.
12. NITI Aayog. Health Insurance for India's Missing Middle. New Delhi: NITI Aayog, October 2021.
13. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. Reports Nos. 109 (2018), 116 (2019), 123 (November 2020 — COVID-19 management), 133 (2022), and successor reports on the National Health Mission and PM-JAY. Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
14. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). Performance Audit of Ayushman Bharat — Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana. Report No. 7 of 2023. New Delhi: CAG, August 2023.
15. Sundararaman, T., Muraleedharan, V.R. "Falling sick, paying the price: SECC 2011 and the National Health Protection Scheme." Economic and Political Weekly 53, no. 16 (April 2018): 23–25.
16. Hooda, Shailender Kumar. "Penetration and Coverage of Government-Funded Health Insurance Schemes in India." Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health 8, no. 4 (2020): 1017–1033.
17. Prinja, Shankar, et al. "Cost-effectiveness of Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana." PLOS ONE 14, no. 2 (2019): e0211793.
18. Indian Express, The Hindu, The Print, Caravan, Mint, BusinessLine, Scroll.in, The Wire, Down To Earth, Hindustan Times, Times of India archives, 2017–2024 (coverage of PM-JAY launch, state opt-outs, COVID expansion, CAG audit, 70+ expansion).
19. World Health Organization. Global Spending on Health: A World in Transition (2019); Global Spending on Health: Coping with the Pandemic (2023). Geneva: WHO.
20. Reserve Bank of India. Handbook of Statistics on Indian States 2022–23 and State Finances: A Study of Budgets 2018–2024 — for state-health expenditure baselines.
21. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Cabinet approves Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana extension to senior citizens aged 70 years and above of all income groups (release dated 11 September 2024).
22. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Operational Guidelines for AB PM-JAY Vay Vandana (Senior Citizens 70+). New Delhi: NHA, October 2024.

Related Documents

• IN-A-01: Independence, Partition, and the Making of the Republic, 1947–1950 (Constitutional architecture; Health as State Subject under Entry 6, List II of the Seventh Schedule)
• IN-B-01: UPA-II Government (2009–2014) — pre-Modi welfare-architecture baseline (RSBY 2008, National Rural Health Mission, the 2011 High-Level Expert Group on Universal Health Coverage)
• IN-C-01: Modi First Term NDA Government Architecture (2014–2019) — political-administrative origin of Ayushman Bharat in Modi-1
• IN-C-03: Goods and Services Tax (GST) Rollout (2017) — concurrent fiscal-federal context shaping Centre-state health financing
• IN-D-01: Modi-2 Government Architecture (2019–2024) — concurrent Modi-2 political setting during scale-up
• IN-D-04: COVID-19 Lockdown and Second Wave (2020–2021) — pandemic-era stress test on PM-JAY coverage and hospital network
• IN-D-06: Farm Laws and Repeal (2020–2021) — concurrent Modi-2 federalism controversy informing state-opt-out dynamics
• IN-D-08: 2024 General Election — political backdrop to the 70+ expansion
• IN-G-01: Aadhaar and the India Stack — digital identity substrate enabling PM-JAY beneficiary verification
• IN-H-PM-02: Narendra Modi (biography) — prime-ministerial leadership context
• IN-R-01: India Governance Books Canon — source canon reference
• IN-E-01: Modi-3 Government Architecture (2024-present)
• IN-E-02: Modi-3 Fiscal Architecture: Union Budgets 2024 and 2025, GST Council Dynamics, and the Infrastructure Push
• IN-E-03: back-reference added by symmetry sweep
• IN-A-04: back-reference added by symmetry sweep