05 Sept 2022-Daily Answer Writing

Q1. Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana is working to improve India’s healthcare system, but it is up against several challenges. Discuss. (250 words)

Paper & Topic: GS II  Social Sector of India – Health.

• Model Answer:

• In order to lessen the financial burden placed on the poor and vulnerable groups as a result of catastrophic hospital episodes and to guarantee their access to high-quality medical treatment, the Pradhan Mantri Ayushman Bharat’s Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) was developed.

• Each household will receive annual benefit coverage worth Rs. 500,000 as a result (approx. 50 crore beneficiaries). Hospitalization and medical expenses will be paid for by PM-JAY for almost all secondary care and most tertiary care procedures.

• The programme clearly has the admirable objective of giving the less fortunate and economically weaker portions of society the best medical treatment at the lowest rates. The program’s success is hampered by a number of issues.

• Finance:

• Between 2008 and 2015, India’s public healthcare spending virtually stayed steady at 1.3% of the country’s gross domestic product. It is a mammoth challenge to put into action a scheme that might cost Rs 5 lakh per person and assist 53.7 crore of India’s 121 crore residents, or roughly about 44% of the population. Because healthcare inflation has a history of rising faster than general inflation, the problem is likely to get worse in the future.

• Doctor to Patient Ratio:

• In India, there are 8 doctors for every 10,000 people, according to the WHO. To enable this access, more than more primary and secondary healthcare facilities are needed. Fair access is necessary. Infrastructure expansion and the quantity of healthcare facilities ought to coexist.

• Populist policies by the government:

• The inclusion of Above Poverty Line (APL) individuals who work in the unorganised sector within the purview of a programme has long been debatable. A sizable number of most lower middle class and middle class households with wage earners who work in the unorganised sector would still be without insurance. Due to the high insurance costs in comparison to PMJAY, this component would not be protected.
• Differences in medical care between public and private hospitals:

• As long as public hospitals receive budgetary support, this has been a big worry. As a result, the private players would be dissuaded from actively participating in the scheme.

• Additional benefits for hospital participants who are from private sector:

• Private players may open hospitals in underserved locations if the State provides incentives. Without it, last-mile medical care would remain constrained as it is now.

• Inadequate IT infrastructure assistance:

• The initiative is being introduced quickly, even before the crucial systems and procedures have been completely established and tested for robustness. Due to continued out-of-pocket costs, this has led to many poor people staying in poverty.

• Other problems:

• Since public health is a state issue, the state government will largely determine the effectiveness of PMJAY.
• The line ministries typically imposed an excessive amount of rules and regulations, emphasising a top-down approach, according to previous centrally supported programmes.

• How to Proceed:

• The APL population need not be incorporated immediately, but rather, say, in a few years.
• For time-beng, pay attention to the penetration of health insurance by the APL.
• Budgetary assistance for public hospitals may be employed to persuade private companies to make investments in disadvantaged regions.
• The National Health Institution was founded as an autonomous authority, allowing private parties to engage, therefore less government participation should be permitted.
• A legally binding policy commitment is necessary to eliminate policy ambiguity and encourage investments in hospital infrastructure.

• Conclusion:

• PM-JAY intends to speed India’s development in these areas to meet Sustainable Development Goal – 3 and Universal Health Coverage (UHC) (SDG3).

Q2. Political parties may profit from repeated loan waivers, but farmers do not stand to gain from them in the long run. Discuss. (250 words)

Paper & Topic: GS III  Indian Agriculture.

• Model Answer:

• The act of writing off loans given to farmers who are unable to repay them owing to calamities, disasters, governmental policies, etc. is known as the practise of waiving agricultural debts.

• Since 2014, states ruled by other parties, including Telangana, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh, have also implemented similar measures. Political parties now use loan waivers as a potent political instrument, which is worsening the financial situation of Indian agriculture.

• The Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households conducted by the NSSO in 2013 found that 52% of agricultural households had debt, with rates rising to 89-92% in several States.

• Agricultural debt exemptions are necessary for farmers’ welfare:

• Numerous issues, such as dispersed land ownership, deteriorating soil quality, dropping water table levels, growing input costs, and low productivity, have been plaguing India’s agriculture. Add the whims of the monsoon to this.
• It’s possible that the output cost is not profitable. Loans are commonly needed by farmers to pay their bills. In addition, a lot of small farmers who are not eligible for bank financing borrow money from unreasonably high-interest sources.
• The unexpected monsoons and crop failures caused by nature force farmers who are drowning in debt to make difficult choices. Debt is one of the key reasons why so many farmers commit suicide each year in this country.

• Political parties have more to gain from loan forgiveness than farmers’ welfare:

• Loan exemptions are frequently announced by political parties to increase their chances of winning elections. The entire waiving process has to be reconsidered because the very justification for waiving is flawed.
• Due to the evolution of farm loan exemptions into political campaign tools for parties, small business owners and dealers are forced to take on the burden of high-interest loans from banks.
• Farm loan waivers do not help the vast majority of small and marginal farmers who lack access to institutional finance and owe money to local money lenders. Tenant farmers in Telangana account for 75% of farmer suicides and have the least or no access to official credit, according to a RythuSwarajyaVedika study released in June 2018.
• Farm loan waivers are, at best, a temporary solution and a moral hazard because even those who can afford to pay may decide not to in expectation of a waiver.
• Such steps might make banks less likely to lend to farmers in the future by lowering credit requirements. The government’s finances, which support the write-off, are also significantly harmed. Former RBI officials Urjit Patel and Raghuram Rajan have similarly expressed similar views on “Moral Hazard.”
• Furthermore, 48% of agricultural households worldwide do not receive a loan from any source, according to a recent survey by the International Food Policy Research Institute. 36 percent of the borrowing households use unreliable credit.
• Because there is a negative relationship between the size of the farm and per capita consumption expenditure (a proxy for income), which further emphasises the significance of formal credit in assisting marginal and poor farm households in reducing poverty, farm loan waivers do not improve the welfare of farmers.

• What needs to be done?

• What is intended by “credit, finance, and insurance” is an operational institutional credit system that is accessible to and accountable to all cultivators.
• All farmers are included in this, including landowners, tenants, adivasi and female farmers, sharecroppers, and farmers who raise livestock.
• To account for the different crops and rainfall patterns in each location, agriculture credit products must be specifically created. Regional offices of commercial banks should take part in this effort. distributing Kisan cards and enrolling all growers.
• The period of the crop loan should be extendable to four years because the spatial distribution of rain patterns in India is erratic on average every second or third year.
• The viability of agriculture depends even more on lower prices for seeds, fertiliser, and other inputs.
• Expendable Costs: It is imperative to broaden the minimum support price’s current use, which is limited to a few crops and a small geographic area.
• Setting up futures and trade markets and collaborating with private businesses for procurement should be taken into consideration as alternatives to distressed sales.
• Agro-Produce Marketing and Processing: Warehouses and the agro-processing industry must expand if agricultural items are to be kept in stock when prices drop.
• promoting the use of functioning farmer cooperatives as a “collective voice of marginal and small farmers.”
• The Agricultural Produce and Livestock Marketing (Promotion and Facilitating) Act, a new model law developed by NITI Aayog, shall be adopted as the basis for all state legislation (APLM).
• Technology: The employment of equipment to assist farmers, such as drip and sprinkler irrigation.
• Precision farming and GM crops should be promoted in drought-prone areas.
• The “Eyes and Ears” of the farmers should be mobile technology and space technology.
• At the federal and state levels, create commissions for distressed farmers and disaster relief, modelled after Kerala’s Farmers’ Debt Relief Commission.

• Conclusion:

• Loans should only be forgone in the most exceptional circumstances. Political parties and governments fail to offer the institutional solutions that farmers demand, in contrast to temporary measures like loan exemptions.

Share: