Content

• Government Launches “PM RAHAT” – Cashless Treatment of Road Accident Victims
• Cabinet approves Rs. One Lakh Crore Urban Challenge Fund to Drive Market-Led Urban Transformation

Government Launches “PM RAHAT” – Cashless Treatment of Road Accident Victims

Why in News ?

• PM RAHAT launched as a nationwide cashless trauma-care scheme, targeting India’s persistently high road fatalities and institutionalizing Golden Hour treatment, long recommended by road safety and public health experts.
• Announcement aligns with India’s commitment to UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2021–2030, where India pledged to reduce road deaths by 50% by 2030, requiring systemic emergency-care reforms.

Relevance

GS II (Polity & Governance)

• Article 21 → Right to life includes timely emergency medical care (Paschim Banga case).
• Centre–State coordination in health + transport.
• Digital governance in claims and grievance redressal.

GS III (Economy / Infrastructure / Disaster Management)

• Economic loss of road crashes (3–5% of GDP – World Bank).
• Road safety as part of infrastructure governance.
• Data-driven identification of black spots.

Practice Question

• Road accidents in India are as much a governance failure as a public health crisis. Examine how schemes like PM RAHAT can address systemic gaps while highlighting their limitations.(250 Words)

Background & Rationale

Road Safety Burden

• India recorded 4.61 lakh road accidents and 1.68 lakh deaths in 2022 (MoRTH), averaging ~460 deaths daily, making road crashes the leading cause of death among people aged 18–45 years.
• World Bank (2021) estimates road crashes cost India 3–5% of GDP annually, reflecting lost productivity, medical expenses, and long-term disability burdens on households and public health systems.

Preventable Mortality

• Indian Journal of Surgery studies indicate 40–50% trauma deaths occur before hospital arrival, mainly due to delayed evacuation and refusal of admission over payment uncertainty and medico-legal concerns.
• WHO trauma-care guidelines show survival chances rise by over 30% when definitive care is provided within the first hour, validating Golden Hour–focused policy interventions.

Key Features

Coverage Design

• Scheme guarantees cashless treatment up to ₹1.5 lakh for 7 days, directly addressing upfront payment barriers that previously forced families to arrange deposits before trauma care in private hospitals.
• 24-hour (non-critical) and 48-hour (critical) stabilization windows ensure immediate lifesaving care while allowing parallel police verification, preventing treatment denial due to paperwork delays.

Universal Applicability

• Coverage applies to all road categories—national highways, state roads, and rural roads, significant since over 53% deaths occur on rural and non-urban roads (MoRTH) with weak trauma infrastructure.

Emergency Access

• Integration with ERSS 112 strengthens single-number emergency access; states like Telangana and Himachal Pradesh earlier showed faster response times after ERSS integration, reducing pre-hospital mortality.

Digital Integration

• Linking eDAR and TMS 2.0 creates an end-to-end digital chain from accident recording to hospital payment, reducing claim disputes and enabling national-level accident analytics for targeted interventions.

Financial Architecture

• MVAF-based reimbursement reduces hospital reluctance; earlier pilot cashless schemes failed where payment delays exceeded 6–8 months, discouraging private hospital participation.
• Insurance-funded payments in insured cases internalize accident costs within the risk-pooling system, consistent with “polluter pays” and actuarial principles in motor insurance regulation.

District Accountability

• Placing grievance redressal under District Magistrate-led Road Safety Committees leverages existing statutory bodies, improving enforceability compared to standalone complaint mechanisms lacking administrative authority.

Dimensions

Constitutional / Legal

• Directly advances Article 21 as interpreted in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity case (1996), where Supreme Court held government must ensure timely emergency medical treatment.
• Supports Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019 provisions on cashless treatment and victim compensation, operationalizing legislative intent through a structured national implementation mechanism.

Governance / Administrative

• Embodies whole-of-government approach, integrating MoRTH, NHA, state police, insurers, and health departments, reducing siloed functioning that earlier weakened trauma response systems.
• Time-bound 24–48 hour police authentication creates measurable accountability; digital timestamps reduce discretion and potential harassment, improving hospital and victim trust.

Economic

• Reducing mortality among working-age adults preserves demographic dividend; even 10% fatality reduction can save billions in productivity, given victims are predominantly economically active males.
• Cashless trauma care prevents families from falling into poverty traps; NSSO health data shows hospitalization is a major cause of rural indebtedness.

Social / Ethical

• Aligns with welfare-state ethics where life-saving care is a public good, not a market commodity, strengthening trust in state capacity among vulnerable road users.
• Strengthens Good Samaritan ecosystem; earlier Supreme Court guidelines (2016) reduced legal fear, but financial and hospital-admission barriers still discouraged bystander intervention.

Technology / Data Governance

• National accident-treatment database enables evidence-based policy, supporting identification of accident black spots, which already guide targeted engineering corrections under MoRTH programs.
• Digital claims reduce corruption opportunities seen in manual reimbursement schemes, aligning with Digital India and minimum government–maximum governance principles.

Challenges

• India has fewer than 1 trauma bed per 100,000 population (various health studies), far below WHO suggestions, limiting scheme impact without parallel infrastructure expansion.
• Risk of inflated billing or staged accidents exists; similar fraud patterns observed globally in motor insurance, requiring AI-based anomaly detection and audit systems.
• Fiscal sustainability concerns may arise if accident volumes remain high; without strong prevention, compensation-heavy models can strain public finances.

Way Forward

• Combine PM RAHAT with black-spot rectification, stricter enforcement, and safer vehicle standards, since emergency care reduces severity but not accident incidence.
• Expand Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) training for district hospitals and paramedics, ensuring quality care beyond mere financial coverage.
• Publish annual PM RAHAT performance reports with metrics on response time, survival rates, and claims, improving transparency and parliamentary oversight.

Cabinet approves Rs. One Lakh Crore Urban Challenge Fund to Drive Market-Led Urban Transformation

Why in News ?

• Union Cabinet approved Urban Challenge Fund  with ₹1 lakh crore Central Assistance, shifting India’s urban policy from grant-driven to market-linked, reform-based financing, targeting large-scale private capital mobilisation.
• Operational for FY 2025–26 to 2030–31 (extendable to 2033–34), UCF operationalises Budget 2025–26 vision of cities as growth hubs and engines of India’s next development phase.

Relevance

GS I (Urbanisation)

• Urbanisation as driver of structural transformation.
• Issues of congestion, sprawl, and redevelopment.

GS II (Governance & Polity)

• Fiscal empowerment of ULBs.
• Reform-linked transfers and competitive federalism.
• Digital monitoring and accountability.

Practice Question

• Critically analyse the shift from grant-based to market-linked urban financing in India. Can Urban Challenge Fund strengthen genuine urban decentralisation?(250 Words)

Background & Rationale

Urbanisation Context

• India’s urban population is ~35% (Census-based estimates) but contributes over 60% of GDP (World Bank), expected to reach ~40% by 2030, necessitating massive urban infrastructure investment.
• World Bank (2018) estimated India needs $840 billion by 2036 for urban infrastructure; fiscal resources alone are insufficient, justifying market-linked financing frameworks like UCF.

Municipal Finance Gap

• Indian ULB revenues are barely 1% of GDP, compared to 6–7% in OECD countries, reflecting weak fiscal autonomy and low capacity to finance capital-intensive infrastructure.
• Fewer than 50 ULBs have accessed municipal bond markets till recently, indicating limited creditworthiness and investor confidence.

Core Design of UCF

Financing Structure

• 25% Central Assistance cap, with minimum 50% market borrowing from bonds, banks, or PPPs; balance from states/ULBs, ensuring fiscal discipline and leveraging private capital.
• Expected to crowd-in ₹4 lakh crore investment over five years, using limited public funds to unlock larger market finance through blended-finance logic.

Creditworthiness Support

• Dedicated ₹5,000 crore corpus to enhance credit profiles of 4,200+ cities, especially Tier-II/III cities lacking prior market access.
• Credit Repayment Guarantee Scheme offers up to 70% guarantee (₹7 crore cap) for first-time loans, reducing lender risk and improving borrowing terms.

Challenge-Based Selection

• Competitive selection ensures funding for high-impact, reform-committed cities, discouraging entitlement-based transfers and rewarding performance.
• Fund release linked to milestones, KPIs, and third-party verification, strengthening outcome accountability and reducing misuse.

Project Verticals

Cities as Growth Hubs

• Focus on economic nodes, transit-oriented development, and corridor-based planning, aligning with global evidence that integrated land-transport planning raises urban productivity.
• Supports urban mobility and logistics, critical since Indian cities lose ~₹1.5 lakh crore annually to congestion (MoHUA estimates).

Creative Redevelopment

• Targets CBD renewal, brownfield regeneration, and heritage core revitalisation, improving land-use efficiency in already built-up cities where horizontal expansion is unsustainable.
• Emphasis on climate resilience and disaster mitigation aligns with rising urban climate risks like floods and heatwaves.

Water & Sanitation

• Strengthens water supply, sewerage, stormwater, and solid waste systems, complementing AMRUT and SBM-U, where service gaps still persist in many cities.

Dimensions

Constitutional / Legal Dimensions

• Advances 74th Constitutional Amendment vision of empowered ULBs by strengthening fiscal capacity and functional autonomy through market-based resource mobilisation.
• Supports Article 243W mandate for devolution of urban functions, linking funds with governance and planning reforms.

Governance / Administrative Dimensions

• Reform-linked financing pushes cities toward digital governance, better accounting, and user-charge rationalisation, addressing chronic inefficiencies in service delivery.
• Single digital portal for paperless monitoring aligns with Digital India and reduces discretion in fund allocation.

Economic Dimensions

• Urban infrastructure has high multiplier effects; RBI and global studies show infrastructure investment can yield 2–3x economic returns through jobs and productivity gains.
• Positioning ULBs as a bankable asset class deepens India’s municipal bond market, diversifying domestic capital markets beyond sovereign and corporate borrowing.

Social / Inclusion Dimensions

• Outcome metrics include inclusiveness, service equity, and cleanliness, encouraging cities to invest in universal access rather than elite infrastructure enclaves.
• Improved urban services disproportionately benefit migrants and informal workers reliant on public infrastructure.

Environmental / Climate Dimensions

• Climate-responsive projects support green infrastructure, TOD, and compact growth, reducing emissions and urban sprawl consistent with India’s climate commitments.
• Urban areas generate over 70% of global CO₂ emissions (UN estimates); greener cities are central to climate mitigation.

Challenges / Criticisms

• Smaller ULBs may struggle with technical capacity for complex financial structuring, risking unequal access despite guarantee support.
• Over-reliance on borrowing could stress municipal balance sheets if revenue reforms and user charges remain politically sensitive.
• PPP experience in urban sectors shows risks of renegotiations and viability gaps without robust contracts and regulatory capacity.

Way Forward

• Build municipal capacity in financial management, project structuring, and credit ratings, possibly through pooled finance and state-level support agencies.
• Ensure predictable property tax reforms and user-charge rationalisation, as stable revenues are key to debt sustainability.
• Publish annual UCF performance dashboards tracking leverage ratios, reforms achieved, and service improvements.