India has spent two decades expanding the visible architecture of rural healthcare. The harder task now is to make its parts work together. On July 31, in a written Lok Sabha reply, the Union health ministry detailed National Health Mission support for free medicines, diagnostics and rural staffing. A month earlier, it issued new National Ambulance Service guidelines centred on dispatch systems, referral mapping and coordination. On August 7, Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare presented a 368-recommendation report on healthcare affordability and access.
The policy problem running through these measures is simple to state and difficult to solve. Patients experience healthcare as a sequence of encounters, while governments often administer it through separate facilities, schemes and budgets. A rural health system works only when those components connect.
READ | Healthcare real estate is driving costs, access, priorities
The gap between capacity and care
Hospitals built, beds added, doctors recruited, medicines supplied and diagnostic tests offered are essential measures of capacity. They say much less about what happens during an actual episode of illness.
The July 31 reply illustrates the scale of the effort. Under the Free Drugs Service Initiative, NHM support covers 113 essential medicines at sub-health centres, rising to 381 at district hospitals. Free diagnostic services range from 14 tests at sub-centres to 134 at district hospitals. States can use hard-area allowances, negotiable salaries under arrangements such as “You Quote We Pay”, and other incentives to attract medical personnel to difficult postings.
These are useful inputs. Their value depends on whether medicines are in stock when prescribed, tests are available when required and results lead to treatment. For a patient referred onwards, the receiving facility must have the specialist, equipment or bed that prompted the referral in the first place.
That is why the National Ambulance Service 2026 guidelines matter. They treat emergency transport as part of a wider clinical network. The framework calls for integrated command and dispatch centres, GPS-based ambulance tracking, structured triage and GIS mapping of health facilities, referral centres and bed availability. It also envisages greater integration with the national emergency number 112.
An ambulance is therefore more useful when the dispatch centre knows where the patient can actually be treated. The same principle applies throughout rural healthcare. A primary health centre depends on functioning laboratories, drug supplies and referral links. A district hospital depends on information arriving with the patient. Each handover creates scope for delay or failure.
READ | Healthcare allocation rises, but structural gaps remain
Rural care depends on coordination
India’s federal structure makes this especially important. Health is a state subject. The Union government provides financial and technical support under NHM, while states and Union territories are responsible for much of the delivery system. The July 31 Lok Sabha reply itself makes that division clear.
The practical work of integration therefore falls heavily on state and district health administrations. Drug procurement, diagnostics, ambulance networks, staffing and referral hospitals have to operate according to common service requirements. Improving one component may have limited effect if another remains unreliable.
Workforce policy offers an example. Flexible salaries and hard-area incentives can help fill vacancies. Retention also depends on accommodation, working conditions, equipment, professional support and career prospects. The government already recognises some of these constraints through housing support and incentives linked to difficult-area service. The larger issue is whether rural postings offer clinicians a functioning environment in which to practise.
The same systems problem appears on the financing side. India has reduced household dependence on direct health spending, but the burden remains considerable. The National Health Accounts for 2022-23 put out-of-pocket expenditure at 43.4 per cent of total health expenditure, down from 64.2 per cent in 2013-14. Government health expenditure stood at 1.43 per cent of GDP under the earlier GDP series used in the report.
Free medicines and diagnostics matter partly because a stock-out or unavailable test can push a patient towards private expenditure. A failed public referral can do the same. Financial protection is therefore affected by the reliability of everyday service delivery.
READ | Costly healthcare: Why out-of-pocket spending remains high
Coverage must connect to care
Ayushman Bharat already contains the outline of a continuum of care. AB-PMJAY provides financial protection for secondary and tertiary hospitalisation, while Ayushman Arogya Mandirs are intended to provide comprehensive primary healthcare closer to communities.
The connection between the two deserves more attention. An insurance entitlement has less practical value when the appropriate empanelled hospital is difficult to reach or the required service is unavailable. Primary care also loses effectiveness when patients who need higher levels of treatment disappear into a poorly tracked referral system.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee’s August reports bring these issues together from different directions. Its 176th report on affordability and accessibility contains 368 recommendations spanning healthcare costs, medicines, insurance and the functioning of public and private facilities. The companion reports examine vector-borne diseases in the Northeast and chronic kidney disease. They underline the range of demands a health system must handle, from outbreaks and surveillance to years of continuing treatment.
This makes the distinction between insurance coverage and effective access important. A health scheme can finance treatment. It cannot by itself create a functioning primary-care network, ensure transport, keep medicines in stock or complete a referral. Those tasks belong to the delivery system.
Measure whether the system works
Government health statistics understandably favour indicators that are relatively easy to count. Facilities, personnel, beds and expenditure can be recorded in administrative databases. Patient journeys are harder to measure.
They are also more revealing.
A serious performance framework for rural healthcare should track how long patients wait between first contact and diagnosis, how many referrals result in completed treatment, ambulance response times across different geographies, essential drug and diagnostic stock-outs, household expenditure during an episode of illness and continuity of care for patients who require long-term treatment. Staff vacancies matter, but turnover and retention matter as well.
This approach is consistent with the World Health Organisation’s framework for integrated people-centred health services. WHO emphasises care coordinated across different levels and settings, organised around people’s needs and responsive to their preferences.
Accountability should move closer to that patient journey. A district health administration should be able to establish how long a referral took, whether the prescribed medicine was available, where the ambulance delivered the patient, what treatment followed and what the household eventually paid.
Until those questions can be answered routinely, rising facility counts will tell only part of the story.
Megha Jacob is Assistant Professor, Department of Economics at Jesus and Mary College, University of Delhi. Prof Sukanya Das is Professor, Department of Policy Studies and Dean (Research & Partnerships), TERI School of Advanced Studies, New Delhi.