Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680db9aed29a1-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680db9aed29a1-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680db9aed29a1-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 767,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 25 December, 2009, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rich-states-corner-health-funds/articleshow/5375305.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 839,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 767,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 767,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 25 December, 2009, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rich-states-corner-health-funds/articleshow/5375305.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 839,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 767
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;
$metaKeywords = null
$metaDesc = &#039;
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <p align="justify"><font >Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government's most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The government's official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. <br /></font></p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680db9aed29a1-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680db9aed29a1-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680db9aed29a1-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 767,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 25 December, 2009, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rich-states-corner-health-funds/articleshow/5375305.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 839,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 767,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 767,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 25 December, 2009, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rich-states-corner-health-funds/articleshow/5375305.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 839,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 767
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;
$metaKeywords = null
$metaDesc = &#039;
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <p align="justify"><font >Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government's most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The government's official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. <br /></font></p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr680db9aed29a1-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr680db9aed29a1-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr680db9aed29a1-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr680db9aed29a1-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 767,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 25 December, 2009, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rich-states-corner-health-funds/articleshow/5375305.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 839,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 767,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 767,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;font face=&quot;arial,helvetica,sans-serif&quot; size=&quot;3&quot;&gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 25 December, 2009, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rich-states-corner-health-funds/articleshow/5375305.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 839,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 767
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur&#039;
$metaKeywords = null
$metaDesc = &#039;
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government&#039;s most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The government&#039;s official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;font &gt;It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <p align="justify"><font >Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government's most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The government's official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. <br /></font></p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 767,
		'title' => 'Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government's most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The government's official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. <br />
</font>
</p>
',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 25 December, 2009, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rich-states-corner-health-funds/articleshow/5375305.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 839,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 767,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur',
	'metaKeywords' => null,
	'metaDesc' => '
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the...',
	'disp' => '<p align="justify"><font >Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government's most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The government's official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. <br /></font></p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 767,
	'title' => 'Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government's most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The government's official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. </font>
</p>
<p align="justify">
<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3">It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. <br />
</font>
</p>
',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 25 December, 2009, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rich-states-corner-health-funds/articleshow/5375305.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'rich-states-corner-health-funds-by-pradeep-thakur-839',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 839,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 767
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur'
$metaKeywords = null
$metaDesc = '
Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the...'
$disp = '<p align="justify"><font >Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government's most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The government's official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. </font></p><p align="justify"><font >It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed. <br /></font></p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Rich states corner health funds by Pradeep Thakur

Some of the poor states in the country that were the focus of the big-ticket National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) have actually ended up being discriminated against in the Central allocation as compared to funds released to some of the rich and efficient states that were already high on the basic health parameters. This has been found in a review of NRHM, the UPA government's most ambitious welfare scheme after the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The NRHM aims to bring the underprivileged under the universal health programme, particularly designed to cater to the rural population. A performance audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has found that some of the poor states, in fact, got as much as 10% to 30% less. Bihar and Assam, where the health infrastructure was believed to be in a shambles, got the least. While Bihar was allocated nearly Rs 540 crore less in the three years between 2005 and 2008 for which audit was conducted, Assam got Rs 332 crore less than what it should have been allocated, according to the CAG findings. The loss to poor states was at the cost of their rich and efficient counterparts who spent most of their allocated money within the stipulated timeframe and managed to get more funding from the share of the poor states. Andhra Pradesh was given Rs 154 crore more than its share of the allocation while Gujarat got Rs 237 crore extra, the audit observed. Tamil Nadu and Kerala too got more funds than they deserved -- Rs 157 crore and Rs 61 crore, respectively. While implementing NRHM, grants were to be allocated to states according to norms developed on the basis of a composite index incorporating population, disease burden, health indicators, state of public health infrastructure, etc. On these parameters, states like Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand, UP, Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura should have got more funds than other states. However, the Centre continued to allocate grants among various states mainly on the population-based state factor. The existing formula was not applied equitably across the board during 2005-06 to 2007-08, the CAG observed. In fact, the Centre failed to even formulate a composite index for allocation of grants among the states which was mandatory under the mission. The government's official auditor said this defeated the goal of the mission as the respective state weightages in accordance with which funds were allocated were based on total population and not on rural population. The Union health ministry, however, justified the fund allocation saying lesser grants to some high focus states was due to presence of substantial unspent balances with them. On the other hand, after assessing utilisation of funds in states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Tamil Nadu larger grants were released to them, the ministry said. This indicated that the high focus states were trapped in a vicious cycle wherein institutional deficiencies resulted in low absorptive capacity for utilisation of funds leading to lesser release of grants to them. The report also says that as much as Rs 3,200 crore in the three-year period remained unspent for which no utilization certificates were provided to the auditors. Utilisation certificates were pending for Rs 3,228 crore under Mission-Flexi-Pool, one of the programmes under NRHM, from 33 states and UTs and more than Rs 840 crore were pending in 24 states and UTs under RCH Flexi-Pool as of October 2009, the audit said. It would thus appear that funds were released by the ministry without considering the absorptive capacity of the state health departments. and ensuring utilisation of funds released earlier, the audit observed.