Himachal Pradesh ministers have flagged a Rs 112 crore shortfall in central Ayushman Bharat funding for 2021-2026. The state alleges the delay has stalled key health projects and forced it to spend Rs 203 crore from its own budget. This dispute highlights ongoing fiscal stress and unresolved regulatory concerns related to the scheme's local implementation.
Himachal Pradesh Health Minister Dhani Ram Shandil and Industries Minister Harshwardhan Chauhan have publicly raised a dispute regarding Rs 112 crore in unpaid dues under the Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY). The state government claims this funding gap, accumulated between 2021 and 2026, has created significant operational challenges for public health services across the state.
Under the federal funding structure for this scheme, costs are shared in a 90:10 ratio, with the Centre responsible for the majority of expenses. State officials contend that the lack of timely central grants has hampered the construction of essential medical infrastructure. Among the affected projects are nine Critical Care Blocks and 12 district-level public health laboratories, which were intended to expand healthcare access in urban and rural regions.
The state administration reports that it has already diverted over Rs 203 crore from its own treasury to maintain uninterrupted treatment for nearly 2.85 lakh patients since 2023. This expenditure is substantially higher than the state's mandatory 10% contribution, placing additional pressure on the state's fiscal position. By stepping in to cover these costs, the government has had to manage liquidity and budget allocation challenges that could otherwise have been directed toward other development initiatives.
This funding row also arrives against a backdrop of previous regulatory scrutiny. In 2024, the Enforcement Directorate conducted investigations into the implementation of the Ayushman Bharat scheme in the state, probing allegations of financial mismatches and missing documentation. These historical concerns regarding governance and financial oversight within the scheme may complicate the current efforts to unlock the pending central payments.
For state finances, the situation remains a critical monitorable. While the immediate focus is on restoring the flow of funds to complete stalled infrastructure, the broader risk involves how such prolonged fiscal disputes might affect the delivery of social welfare programs. Investors and observers will now watch for further communication between the state government and central authorities, as well as any updates on the status of the ongoing infrastructure projects. The resolution of this issue may provide clarity on whether the state can recover these costs or if it will need to continue bearing the burden on its own exchequer.