Healthcare allocation rises in Budget: The Union Budget for 2026–27 raises the allocation for the ministry of health and family welfare to ₹1,06,530.42 crore, close to a 10 per cent nominal increase over the previous year. The figure is unambiguous. The harder question is whether this increase is adequate for a health system confronting rising non-communicable disease burden, persistent household exposure to health shocks, and uneven state capacity.
The budget’s health narrative is selective rather than comprehensive. It prioritises cancer care, allied health professionals, mental health, and medical tourism. This reflects a deliberate choice to concentrate resources where disease burden and political salience intersect. It also signals that the government continues to favour targeted interventions over a broad expansion of public provisioning.
READ | Budget 2026 bets on industrial policy amid constraints
Public health spending remains capacity-constrained
A near-10 per cent nominal increase does not materially alter India’s public health trajectory. According to the latest National Health Accounts, out-of-pocket expenditure still accounts for nearly half of total health spending, highlightingthe limited risk protection offered by the system. Incremental budget growth has reduced this share only gradually.
Once population growth and sector-specific inflation are accounted for, the additional allocation largely sustains existing programmes rather than enabling capacity expansion. Health sector inflation has consistently outpaced headline CPI, and per-capita public health spending sees only a marginal improvement. This explains why the structural pressures faced by state health systems remain largely unchanged.
The increase in National Health Mission funding continues this pattern. While allocations rise, they do not provide states with fiscal headroom to decisively strengthen primary care, diagnostics, or public health staffing. New initiatives still rely on delivery systems that remain uneven across districts.
READ | Budget 2026–27 signals slow return to fiscal discipline
Cancer care shows strategic clarity, limited system spill-over
The clearest strategic signal in the budget lies in oncology. Customs duty exemptions on select cancer drugs and support for domestic biopharma capacity represent a shift from episodic affordability measures toward supply-side capability building. The logic is economic and public-health oriented: reduce long-term treatment costs by strengthening domestic manufacturing rather than relying on price controls or imports.
Cancer is no longer confined to metropolitan centres or higher-income groups. It has become a nationwide public health challenge with severe financial consequences for households. Lowering the cost of advanced therapies through domestic production can expand access over time.
Yet the effectiveness of this approach depends on complementary investments. Drug affordability alone does not address gaps in early diagnosis, oncology infrastructure, or trained personnel outside major urban centres. On these system enablers, the budget remains cautious.
Mental health and allied care gain recognition, not scale
Mental health allocations rise modestly. The acknowledgement matters. Demand for mental health services has increased in recent years, while the supply of trained professionals remains constrained. However, the scale of funding does not match the size of the access gap, particularly in public facilities.
The emphasis on allied health professionals and caregivers responds to a real workforce deficit, especially in geriatric and long-term care. Training capacity is set to expand. The unresolved question is absorption. Without parallel strengthening of public health delivery and state hiring capacity, many of these workers are likely to be drawn into private or export-oriented segments, limiting system-wide impact.
Medical tourism ambitions outpace domestic balancing
The proposal to establish regional medical hubs through public-private partnerships signals a renewed push for medical tourism. India’s comparative advantage in tertiary care and cost efficiency is well established. The concern is sequencing rather than intent.
High-end medical infrastructure tends to attract capital, talent, and managerial attention. Without simultaneous investment in public hospitals and district-level systems, such initiatives risk reinforcing internal inequities. The budget assumes positive spillovers. Evidence for such spillovers remains mixed.
READ | Budget 2026: The hidden costs of India’s fiscal consolidation
Digital health and research funding stay incremental
Allocations for digital health and health research rise modestly, sufficient to sustain ongoing programmes but insufficient for rapid scale-up. Areas such as health data security, antimicrobial resistance surveillance, and supply-chain integrity receive acknowledgement without commensurate funding.
India’s exposure to antimicrobial resistance is well documented. Addressing it requires sustained investment in surveillance, diagnostics, and stewardship across states. The budget stops short of making this a fiscal priority.
Healthcare allocation: Adequate for intent, insufficient for transformation
The 2026–27 health allocation reflects policy intent rather than systemic transformation. It aligns spending with selected disease priorities and industrial strategy, particularly in biopharma. What it does not do is materially strengthen public provisioning or decisively reduce household health risk.
For a country seeking to translate economic growth into social resilience, this remains a cautious budget. It is fiscally defensible. It is not yet commensurate with the scale of India’s health challenge.