Back

Creating Equity? A Process Evaluation of Jamkesus Disabilitas, A Disability-Focused Health Financing Scheme in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Azizatunnisa', L.; Kuper, H.; Probandari, A.; Banks, L. M.

2026-07-01 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.06.29.26356885 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background This study aims to explore the initiation and implementation of Jamkesus Disabilitas, a health financing scheme for people with disabilities in Yogyakarta Province, using the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Process Evaluation for Complex Intervention. Methods We interviewed 19 people with disabilities with different types of impairment as beneficiaries, 3 people from Organisations for People with Disabilities (OPDs), 4 government officials, and 4 health providers, either in person, online, or by phone. Interviews were conducted by LA, and took place in Yogyakarta Province in July-September 2024. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach using NVivo 15 software. Findings Jamkesus Disabilitas has improved access to assistive technology (AT) and demonstrated inclusive care through its one-stop service. It also highlights the importance of consistent leadership in disability-inclusive health systems. However, challenges persist, including uneven AT quality, low coverage, limited availability, and inadequate data for evaluation and planning persisted. Moreover, the absence of inclusive features in the regular service means the scheme has not fully closed the equity gap in healthcare access for people with disabilities. Conclusion Jamkesus Disabilitas has expanded access to AT overlooked by the national health insurance (JKN). However, implementation should prioritise AT quality standards, financial and operational sustainability, and stronger data systems. Broader systemic reforms are also needed to embed disability inclusive practices in regular healthcare service delivery. Keywords Health equity, inclusive health system, social protection, health insurance, health financing

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 6%
26.8%
2
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 1%
12.0%
3
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
Health Policy
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.9%
6
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
7
Global Health Action
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.3%
8
Journal of Public Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
9
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
10
JMIRx Med
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.4%
11
Archives of Public Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
12
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
13
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
14
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
Health Expectations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
16
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
17
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
18
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
19
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
20
Pan African Medical Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
21
BMJ Public Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
22
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
23
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
24
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
25
Disability and Rehabilitation
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%