Background: Launched in September 2018, the ABPMJAY is the world’, s largest publicly funded health insurance (PFHI) program with population coverage of 500 million. A systematic review was conducted. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The literature search was conducted with the search terms: “, Ayushman Bharat OR ABPMJAY OR modicare AND RSBY. ”,The search was set to title and abstract. Gray literature and government websites were also searched for relevant documents. A total of 881 documents were identified (PubMed: 53, Web of Science: 46, Scopus: 97, Google Scholar: 681, government websites: two, and gray literature: two). Fifty‑, two duplicates were identified. After the elimination of the duplicates, 829 unique documents were identified. These 829 unique citations were then subjected to a review of title and abstract independently by 2 reviewers. Six‑, hundred and ninety‑, two articles were rejected after review of title and abstract. One‑, hundred and thirty‑, seven articles were screened for full text independently by two reviewers. Sixty‑, six articles were rejected after review of the full text. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Seventy‑, one unique articles were included in the final review. To attain the objective of the study, which is to critically analyze and provide an overview of Ayushman Bharat, a narrative synthesis was performed. Results: Seven themes were identified from the review: (1) health and wellness centers (HWCs),(2) out‑, of‑, pocket health expenditure (OOPHE),(3) fraud,(4) upcoding and provision of unnecessary medical care,(5) moving focus away from primary care,(6) coverage,and (7) lop‑, sided access, exclusion at the periphery, and brain drain. There is very little impact evidence of the ABPMJAY available. Conclusions: The government could plan impact evaluation studies in every state that the ABPMJAY is functional in. Any high‑, quality feedback generated might enable the National Health Authority, the government body leading and coordinating the ABPMJAY, to take necessary steps operationally and advice the government on strategy. Another concern is that the ABPMJAY PFHI might negatively impact the ongoing process of continuous strengthening and development of the government health‑, care system at all levels—, primary, secondary, and tertiary. Continual recalibration and course corrections on the basis of high‑, quality feedback might enable ABPMJAY reduce catastrophic OOPHE for 500 million Indians. This is more than 6% of humanity: the largest block of people served by a single PFHI in history.

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess whether the outcomes from IVF-preimplantation genetic testing (IVF-PGT) cycles for single gene defects (SGD) (PGT-M) differ between a privately funded period (PRP) and publicly funded period (PUP). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a North-American single tertiary center. The PRP (March 1998 to July 2010) comprised 56 PGT-M cycles from 58 IVF cycles in 38 couples, and the PUP (August 2010 to May 2015) comprised 59 PGT-M cycles from 87 IVF cycles in 38 couples. One PGT-M cycle is defined as one biopsy procedure from one or serial IVF cycles. A p-value of 0. 05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) per PGT-M cycle were 30. 4% and 52. 5% in each period, respectively (p=0. 021). The live birth rates (LBR) per PGT-M cycle were 21. 5% versus 40. 9% in each period, respectively (p=0. 037). A sub-analysis within the PUP comparing 39 PGT-M cycles from 39 IVF cycles with 20 PGTM cycles from 49 IVF cycles yielded CPRs per PGT-M cycle of 64. 1% and 30. 0% and LBRs per PGT-M cycle of 53. 8% and 15. 0%, in each group, respectively (p< 0. 05 for both). Conclusion: The transition from private to public funding and a single embryo transfer (ET) guideline has little impact on embryological and clinical outcomes of PGT-M cycles, and results in lower rates of multiple pregnancies. However, these two systems may serve different populations.