Local self governance in health - a study of it’s functioning in Odisha, India

Table 3 Opinion, perception and practices related to financial management

Items	District classification						p
	Priority		Non-priority		Total
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
The amount of funds allocated under NHM to the RKS?
More than enough	0	0	2	3.6	2	1.9	p = 0.100
Sufficient	12	23.1	7	12.5	19	17.6
Manageable	25	48.1	30	53.6	55	50.9
Insufficient	15	28.8	13	23.2	28	25.9
Grossly insufficient	0	0	4	7.1	4	3.7
Total	52	100	56	100	108	100
Is user-fees being imposed in the institution (health unit)?
Yes	45	88.2	53	94.6	98	91.6	p = 0.233
No	6	11.8	3	5.4	9	8.4
Total	51	100	56	100	107	100
What happens to your request for additional requirements/needs, at state level?
No feedback received	11	27.5	8	15.7	19	20.9	p < 0.001**
Got approved as it was	6	15	31	60.8	37	40.7
Got approved with reduction of budget	7	17.5	4	7.8	11	12.1
Never gets approved	5	12.5	2	3.9	7	7.7
Others	11	27.5	6	11.8	17	18.7
Total	40	100	51	100	91	100
What is the frequency of financial audit?
Quarterly	46	92	34	63	80	76.9	p < 0.001**
Half yearly	1	2	5	9.3	6	5.8
Yearly	2	4	0	0	2	1.9
Don’t know	0	0	1	1.9	1	1
Others	1	2	14	25.9	15	14.4
Total	50	100	54	100	104	100
Any additional funds requested last year?
Yes	26	54.2	25	46.3	51	50	p = 0.427
No	22	45.8	29	53.7	51	50
Total	48	100	54	100	102	100
If ‘yes’, for what purpose?
Drugs	8	34.8	11	44	19	39.6	p = 0.036*
Equipment	5	21.7	2	8	7	14.6
Personnel	6	26.1	1	4	7	14.6
Other purposes	4	17.4	11	44	15	31.3
Total	23	100	25	100	49	100

ISSN: 1472-6963