UCSF

BACKGROUND: There are few rigorous studies comparing quality of tuberculosis (TB) care in public versus private sectors. METHODS: We used standardised patients (SPs) to measure technical quality and patient experience in a sample of private and public facilities in Mumbai. RESULTS: SPs presented a classic, suspected TB scenario and a recurrence or drug-resistance scenario. In the private sector, SPs completed 643 interactions. In the public sector, 164 interactions. Outcomes included indicators of correct management, medication use and client experience. Public providers used microbiological testing (typically, microscopy) more frequently, in 123 of 164 (75%; 95% CI 68% to 81%) vs 223 of 644 interactions (35%; 95% CI 31% to 38%) in the private sector. Private providers were more likely to order chest X-rays, in 556 of 639 interactions (86%; 95% CI 84% to 89%). According to national TB guidelines, we found higher proportions of correct management in the public sector (75% vs 35%; (adjusted) difference 35 percentage points (pp); 95% CI 25 to 46). If X-rays were considered acceptable for the first case but drug-susceptibility testing was required for the second case, the private sector correctly managed a slightly higher proportion of interactions (67% vs 51%; adjusted difference 16 pp; 95% CI 7 to 25). Broad-spectrum antibiotics were used in 76% (95% CI 66% to 84%) of the interactions in public hospitals, and 61% (95% CI 58% to 65%) in private facilities. Costs in the private clinics averaged rupees INR 512 (95% CI 485 to 539); public facilities charged INR 10. Private providers spent more time with patients (4.4 min vs 2.4 min; adjusted difference 2.0 min; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.9) and asked a greater share of relevant questions (29% vs 43%; adjusted difference 13.7 pp; 95% CI 8.2 to 19.3). CONCLUSIONS: While the public providers did a better job of adhering to national TB guidelines (especially microbiological testing) and offered less expensive care, private sector providers did better on client experience.