14 Chapter 7

Chapter 7
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Collected data has been analyzed and interpretated in this chapter. Different statistical
tools like factor analysis, Mann- Whitney U Test, Kruskal Wallis Test, multiple linear
regression analysis and correlation analysis is used for non-policy holders, policy
holders and company executives.
(I) NON-POLICY HOLDERS

7.1) DATA ANALYSIS
7.1.1) Normality Test: Non-Policy Holders
A lot of statistical tests (e.g., t-test) require that our data are normally distributed and
therefore normality is checked to see if this assumption is violated.
(Table-7.1) Test of Normality
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-
Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Age .454 200 .000 .553 200 .000
Gender .385 200 .000 .626 200 .000
Educational Qualification .377 200 .000 .748 200 .000
Occupation .272 200 .000 .800 200 .000
Locality .463 200 .000 .547 200 .000
Marital Status .426 200 .000 .596 200 .000
Type of Family .361 200 .000 .634 200 .000
Health Status (High or low Blood Pressure, Thyroid, .426 200 .000 .626 200 .000
Diabetes, Respiratory Diseases, Heart diseases)
Number for dependents in the family .364 200 .000 .633 200 .000
Have you taken any health insurance cover during . 200 . . 200 .
Covid -19 pandemic?
Monthly Income (in Rs.) .219 200 .000 .907 200 .000
Annual Medical Expenses of the Family (in Rs.) .348 200 .000 .685 200 .000
Do you have any Health Insurance Policy? . 200 . . 200 .
Are you aware of the Health Insurance? .482 200 .000 .520 200 .000
Low salary /Non-availability of funds .243 200 .000 .869 200 .000
Not required .235 200 .000 .891 200 .000
Other investment options .229 200 .000 .840 200 .000
Unaware about it .227 200 .000 .849 200 .000
Difficult claim settlement .254 200 .000 .874 200 .000
High Premium .237 200 .000 .839 200 .000
Non-flexibility of the insurance policy .270 200 .000 .861 200 .000
Non-accessibility of linked hospitals .246 200 .000 .841 200 .000
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals .263 200 .000 .830 200 .000
Hidden costs .161 200 .000 .909 200 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Data Source: Primary Data collected through questionnaire
78
Interpretation
The test statistics are shown in the above table. Here two tests for normality are run.
For dataset small than 2000 elements, we use the Shapiro-Wilk test, otherwise, the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is used. In our case, since we have only 200 elements, the
Shapiro-Wilk test is used. The p-value is significant. We can conclude that the data
comes from a non-normal distribution.
7.1.2) Descriptive Statistics of all the Variables:
Non-Policy Holders
(Table-7.2): Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Mean Deviation Variance
Age 200 1.35 .699 .488
Gender 200 1.41 .494 .244
Educational Qualification 200 2.17 .608 .370
Occupation 200 4.13 1.943 3.776
Locality 200 1.26 .440 .193
Marital Status 200 1.34 .473 .224
Type of Family 200 1.46 .500 .250
Health Status (High or low Blood Pressure, 200 2.64 .585 .342
Thyroid, Diabetes, Respiratory Diseases, Heart
diseases)
Number of dependents in the family 200 1.46 .499 .249
Have you taken any health insurance cover 200 .00 .000 .000
during Covid -19 pandemic?
Monthly Income (in Rs.) 200 1.67 1.099 1.207
Annual Medical Expenses of the Family (in Rs.) 200 1.70 1.018 1.037
Do you have any Health Insurance Policy? 200 .00 .000 .000
Are you aware of the Health Insurance? 200 1.15 .398 .158
Low salary /Non-availability of funds 200 3.15 1.403 1.967
Not required 200 2.61 1.074 1.153
Other investment options 200 2.32 1.333 1.776
Unaware about it 200 2.79 1.423 2.026
Difficult claim settlement 200 3.25 1.325 1.756
High Premium 200 3.54 1.421 2.018
Non-flexibility of the insurance policy 200 3.17 1.221 1.492
Non-accessibility of linked hospitals 200 3.41 1.467 2.153
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals 200 3.53 1.424 2.029
Hidden costs 200 3.06 1.267 1.604
Valid N (listwise) 200
Data Source: Primary data collected through questionnaire.
79
7.1.3) Demographic Profile of the Respondents: Non-Policy Holders
(Table 7.3) Age: Non-Policy Holders
Age
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 21 years to 30 years 153 76.5 76.5 76.5
31 years to 40 years 29 14.5 14.5 91.0
41 years to 50 years 14 7.0 7.0 98.0
51 years to 60 years 4 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Data Source: Primary Data collected through questionnaire.
Interpretation and Findings: From the above frequency table, it can be seen that out
of total 200 respondents, 76.5% respondents were between 21 to 30 years of age,
14.5% respondents were between 31 to 40 years, 7.0% respondents were between 41
to 50 years and 2.0% respondents were between 51 to 60 years of age.
(Histogram- 7.1) Age: Non-Policy Holders
80
(Table 7.4) Gender: Non-Policy Holders
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 117 58.5 58.5 58.5
Female 83 41.5 41.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Interpretation: From the above table it can be seen that there was total 200
respondents out of which, 58.5% respondents were Males and 41.5% respondents
were Females.
(Histogram-7.2) Gender: Non-Policy Holders
(Table 7.5)- Educational Qualification: Non-Policy Holders
Educational Qualification
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Higher Secondary 18 9.0 9.0 9.0
Graduation/Post- 136 68.0 68.0 77.0
Graduation
PhD 41 20.5 20.5 97.5
Other 5 2.5 2.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
81
respondents out of which, 9.0% respondents had completed Higher Secondary
education, 68.0% respondents had completed Graduation/Post-Graduation, 20.5%
respondents had completed PhD and 2.5% respondents had done other courses.
(Histogram 7.3) - Educational Qualification: Non-Policy Holders
(Table 7.6) - Occupation: Non-Policy Holders
Occupation
Valid Cumulative
Valid Government 34 17.0 17.0 17.0
Employee
Business 23 11.5 11.5 28.5
Home Maker 18 9.0 9.0 37.5
Retired 5 2.5 2.5 40.0
Private Employee 47 23.5 23.5 63.5
Other 73 36.5 36.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 17.0% respondents were Government employees, 11.5%
respondents were doing Business, 9.0% respondents were Homemakers, 2.5%
respondents were retired, 23.5% respondents were Private employees and 36.5%
respondents had other occupations.
82
(Histogram 7.4) - Occupation: Non-Policy Holders
(Table 7.7) - Location: Non-Policy Holders
Locality
Valid Urban 148 74.0 74.0 74.0
Rural 52 26.0 26.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 74.0% respondents lived in Urban areas and 26.0%
respondents lived in Rural areas.
(Histogram 7.5) -Locality: Non-Policy Holders
83
(Table 7.8) - Marital Status: Non-Policy Holders
Marital Status
Valid Single 133 66.5 66.5 66.5
Married 67 33.5 33.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 66.5% respondents were Single and 33.5% respondents
were Married.
(Histogram 7.6)-Marital Status: Non-Policy Holders
(Table 7.9) - Type of Family: Non-Policy Holders
Type of Family
Valid Nuclear Family 108 54.0 54.0 54.0
Joint Family 92 46.0 46.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 54.0% respondents lived in nuclear family and 46.0%
respondents lived in Joint family.
84
(Histogram 7.7) - Type of Family: Non-Policy Holders
(Table 7.10)- Health Status: Non-Policy Holders
Health Status (High or low Blood Pressure, Thyroid, Diabetes, Respiratory

Diseases, Heart diseases)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Valid Poor (If suffering from 2 or 11 5.5 5.5 5.5
more chronic diseases)
Moderate (If suffering from 50 25.0 25.0 30.5

1 such disease)
Good (If not suffering from 139 69.5 69.5 100.0

any chronic diseases)
Total 200 100.0 100.0

respondents out of which, 5.5% respondents had poor health status, 25.0%
respondents had moderate health status and 69.5% respondents had good health
status.
85
(Histogram 7.8)- Health Status: Non-Policy Holders
(Table 7.11) - Number of dependents in the family: Non-Policy Holders
Number of dependents in the family

Valid 2 or less than 2 109 54.5 54.5 54.5
More than 2 91 45.5 45.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 54.5% respondents had 2 or less than 2 number of
dependents in the family and 45.5% respondents had more than 2 number of
dependents in the family.
(Histogram 7.9)- Number of dependents in the family: Non-Policy Holders
86
Table- Have you taken any health insurance cover during Covid -19
pandemic
Have you taken any health insurance cover during Covid -19 pandemic?
Valid No 200 100.0 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 100.0% respondents said “No” when asked “Have you
taken any health insurance cover during Covid -19 pandemic?”
(Histogram 7.10)- Have you taken any health insurance cover during Covid
-19 pandemic: Non-Policy Holders
(Table 7.12) - Monthly Income (in Rs.): Non-Policy Holders

Monthly Income (in Rs.)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Valid No Income 26 13.0 13.0 13.0
Less than Rs 20,000/- 72 36.0 36.0 49.0
Between Rs 20,001/- to Rs
56 28.0 28.0 77.0
40,000/-
36 18.0 18.0 95.0
60,000/-
8 4.0 4.0 99.0
80,000/-
2 1.0 1.0 100.0
100,000/-
Total 200 100.0 100.0
87
Interpretation: From the above table it can be seen that there were total 200
respondents out of which, 13.0% respondents had No income, 36.0% respondents had
a monthly income of less than Rs 20,000/-, 28.0% respondents had a monthly income
between Rs 20,001/- to Rs 40,000/-, 18.0% respondents had a monthly income
between Rs 40,001/- to Rs 60,000/-, 4.0% respondents had a monthly income between
Rs 60,001/- to Rs 80,000/- and 1.0% respondents had a monthly income between Rs
80,001/- to Rs 100,000/-.
(Histogram 7.11)- Monthly income: Non-Policy Holders
(Table 7.13) - Annual Medical Expenses of the Family (in Rs.): Non-Policy
Holders
Annual Medical Expenses of the Family (in Rs.)

Valid Cumulative
Valid Less than Rs 24,000/- 119 59.5 59.5 59.5
Between Rs 24,001/- to 47 23.5 23.5 83.0
Rs 48,000/-
Between Rs 72,001/- to 10 5.0 5.0 88.0
Rs 96,000/-
More than Rs 96,000/- 24 12.0 12.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
88
respondents out of which, 59.5% respondents had Annual Medical Expenses of the
Family of less than Rs 24,000/-, 23.5% respondents had Annual Medical Expenses of
the Family between Rs 24,001/- to Rs 48,000/-, 5.0% respondents had Annual
Medical Expenses of the Family between Rs 72,001/- to Rs 96,000/- and 12.0%
respondents had Annual Medical Expenses more than Rs 96,000/-.
(Histogram 7.12) - Annual medical expenses of the family: Non-Policy

Holders
(Table 7.14)- Are you aware of the Health Insurance: Non-Policy Holders
Are you aware of the Health Insurance?

Valid No 3 1.5 1.5 1.5
Yes 164 82.0 82.0 83.5
May be 33 16.5 16.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 1.5% respondents said “No”, 82.0% respondents said
“Yes”, 16.5% respondents said “Maybe” when asked “Are you aware of the Health
Insurance?”
89
(Histogram 7.13)- Are you aware of the Health Insurance: Non-Policy
Holders
7.2) NON-POLICY HOLDERS: FACTOR ANALYSIS

a) Identifying Most Important Reasons for not taking Health Insurance:
Male
Factor Analysis was performed to determine the Most Important Reasons for not
taking Insurance: Male
(Table 7.15) - KMO and Bartlett's Test
KMO and Bartlett's Testa
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .870

Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 551.257
Sphericity
Df 45
Sig. .000
a. Only cases for which Gender = Male are used in the analysis phase.
On the basis of results the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling

adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (homogeneity of Variance), adequacy of the
90
data is tested. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy is 0.870 which indicates the
present data is suitable for factor analysis. Similarly, Bartlett’s test of sphericity is
significant (p < 0.001); that explains existence of sufficient correlation between
variables to proceed with the analysis.
(Table 7.16)- Total Variance Explained
Total Variance Explained a

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
Com % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
ponent Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 4.651 46.511 46.511 4.651 46.511 46.511 3.956 39.555 39.555
2 1.303 13.034 59.545 1.303 13.034 59.545 1.516 15.159 54.714
3 1.021 10.211 69.756 1.021 10.211 69.756 1.504 15.042 69.756
4 .851 8.510 78.267
5 .625 6.247 84.514
6 .430 4.297 88.811
7 .374 3.741 92.552
8 .324 3.236 95.788
9 .257 2.565 98.354
10 .165 1.646 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. Only cases for which Gender = Male are used in the analysis phase.
Interpretation: In above table, output lists the eigen values associated with each
linear component (factor) before extraction, after extraction and after rotation. Before
extraction, Output has identified 10 linear components within the data set. After
extraction and rotation, the most important factor 1 explained 46.511% of total
variance, factor 2 explained 13.034% of total variance & factor 3 explained
10.211% of total variance that can be extracted. As evident from the above table
(Total Variations Explained) it was found that from the total 3 components (Most
Important Reasons for not taking Insurance: Male), 1st factor is most important and
can be extracted.
91
(Scree Plot- 7.14)
(Table 7.17) - Rotated Component Matrixa
Rotated Component Matrix a, b

Component
1 2 3
Non-accessibility of linked hospitals .866 .273 .052
High Premium .831 .250 .050
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals .823 .238 .160
Non-flexibility of the insurance policy .755 .216 .266
Difficult claim settlement .736 .251 .073
Low salary /Non-availability of funds .617 -.345 .013
Not required .150 .747 .289
Unaware about it .378 .725 -.169
Other investment options -.047 .022 .860
Hidden costs .420 .101 .739
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.
b. Only cases for which Gender = Male are used in the analysis phase.
92
Findings: Most Important Reasons for not taking Health Insurance: Male
In the present study Factor Analysis exhibits the rotated factor loading for the
statements (Variables) of most Important Reasons for not taking Insurance: Male.
Looking at table of Rotated Component Matrix, we find out that-
Factor -1 includes following 6 variables
1. Non-accessibility of linked hospitals
2. High Premium
3. Difficulty in availing services in hospitals
4. Non-flexibility of the insurance policy
5. Difficult claim settlement
6. Low salary /non-availability of funds
1. Not required
2. Unaware about it
1. Other investment options
2. Hidden costs
b) Identifying Most Important Reasons for not taking Health Insurance: Female
taking Insurance: Female.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .835
Sphericity
Df 45
Sig. .000
a. Only cases for which Gender = Female are used in the analysis phase.
93
The KMO measure of sampling adequacy is 0.835 which indicates the present data is
suitable for factor analysis. Similarly, Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant (p <
0.001); that explains existence of sufficient correlation between variables to proceed
with the analysis.

1 4.581 45.813 45.813 4.581 45.813 45.813 4.508 45.079 45.079
2 1.465 14.648 60.460 1.465 14.648 60.460 1.485 14.847 59.925
3 1.265 12.651 73.111 1.265 12.651 73.111 1.319 13.186 73.111
4 .724 7.242 80.354
5 .472 4.721 85.075
6 .387 3.874 88.949
7 .372 3.717 92.665
8 .293 2.935 95.600
9 .258 2.583 98.183
10 .182 1.817 100.000
a. Only cases for which Gender = Female are used in the analysis phase.
variance, factor 2 explained 14.648% of total variance & factor 3 explained
12.651% of total variance that can be extracted. As evident from the above table
(Total Variations Explained) it was found that from the total 3 components (Most
Important Reasons for not taking Insurance: Female), 1st factor is most important and
can be extracted.
94
(Scree Plot-7.15)
(Table 7.20)- Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
Non-accessibility of linked hospitals .873 -.177 .050
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals .864 .038 -.029
High Premium .783 -.176 .143
Difficult claim settlement .783 -.083 .262
Hidden costs .744 .444 -.095
Low salary /non-availability of funds .561 -.270 -.156
Other investment options .000 .906 .141
Not required -.061 .205 .902
Unaware about it .406 -.511 .597
b. Only cases for which Gender = Female are used in the analysis phase.
95
Findings: Most Important Reasons for not taking Health Insurance: Female

4. High Premium
6. Hidden costs
Factor -2 includes following 1 variable


1. Not required
2. Unaware about it
c) Identifying Most Important Reasons for not taking Health Insurance

According to the respondents that have Higher Secondary Qualification
taking Insurance According to the respondents that have Higher Secondary
Qualification.

Sphericity
Df 45
Sig. .000
a. Educational Qualification = Higher Secondary
suitable for factor analysis.
96
(Table 7.22) - Total Variance Explained

1 6.140 61.398 61.398 6.140 61.398 61.398 5.840 58.401 58.401
2 1.560 15.604 77.002 1.560 15.604 77.002 1.860 18.601 77.002
3 .969 9.695 86.697
4 .510 5.104 91.801
5 .308 3.081 94.882
6 .195 1.949 96.831
7 .154 1.541 98.372
8 .092 .921 99.293
9 .045 .448 99.741
10 .026 .259 100.000
Interpretation: After extraction and rotation, the most important factor 1 explained
61.398% of total variance and factor 2 explained 15.604% of total variance.
(Scree Plot- 7.16)
97

Component
1 2
Unaware about it .958 -.015
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals .940 .086
Non-accessibility of linked hospitals .921 .180
High Premium .912 .179
Low salary /non-availability of funds .901 -.198
Difficult claim settlement .813 .392
Non-flexibility of the insurance policy .712 .430
Other investment options -.230 .749
Not required .211 .710
Hidden costs .533 .588
b. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Findings: Most Important Reasons for not taking Health Insurance According to
the respondents that have Higher Secondary Qualification
1. Unaware about it
4. High Premium
98
2. Not required
3. Hidden costs
d) Identifying Most Important Reasons for not taking Health Insurance

According to the respondents that have done Graduation/Post-Graduation
taking Insurance According to the respondents that have done Graduation/Post-
Graduation.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .836
Adequacy.
Sphericity
Df 45
Sig. .000
a. Educational Qualification = Graduation/Post-Graduation
(Table 7.25) - Total Variance Explained
Com % Of Cumulative % Of Cumulative % of Cumulative
1 4.262 42.619 42.619 4.262 42.619 42.619 3.962 39.625 39.625
2 1.410 14.095 56.715 1.410 14.095 56.715 1.569 15.692 55.317
3 1.247 12.470 69.184 1.247 12.470 69.184 1.387 13.867 69.184
4 .842 8.421 77.605
5 .582 5.822 83.427
6 .473 4.732 88.159
7 .392 3.924 92.083
8 .317 3.168 95.252
9 .281 2.808 98.060
10 .194 1.940 100.000
99
42.619% of total variance, factor 2 explained 14.095% of total variance & factor
3 explained 12.470% of total variance.
(Scree Plot 7.17)

Component
1 2 3
Non-accessibility of linked hospitals .862 .206 -.058
High Premium .775 .350 -.120
Hidden costs .620 -.093 .594
Low salary /Non-availability of funds .502 -.133 -.075
Not required -.012 .812 .290
Unaware about it .257 .772 -.266
Other investment options -.085 .065 .905
100
the respondents that have done Graduation/Post-Graduation

4. High Premium
6. Hidden costs

1. Not required
2. Unaware about it
Factor -3 includes following 1 variable

e) Identifying Most Important Reasons for not taking Health Insurance

According to the respondents that have done PhD
taking Insurance According to the respondents that have done PhD.
Table (7.27) - KMO and Bartlett's Test

Sphericity
Df 45
Sig. .000
a. Educational Qualification = PhD
101

1 4.515 45.151 45.151 4.515 45.151 45.151 4.191 41.913 41.913
2 1.473 14.729 59.879 1.473 14.729 59.879 1.527 15.272 57.185
3 1.243 12.433 72.312 1.243 12.433 72.312 1.513 15.127 72.312
4 .862 8.624 80.936
5 .498 4.976 85.912
6 .477 4.766 90.678
7 .341 3.409 94.087
8 .221 2.208 96.295
9 .195 1.952 98.247
10 .175 1.753 100.000
45.151% of total variance, factor 2 explained 14.729% of total variance and
factor 3 explained 12.433 % of total variance.
(Scree Plot-7.18)
102
Component
1 2 3
Non-accessibility of linked hospitals .887 .009 .173
High Premium .807 .232 -.096
Low salary /Non-availability of funds .653 -.082 -.465
Other investment options -.060 .829 -.018
Hidden costs .380 .732 .211
Not required .091 .210 .805
Unaware about it .476 -.322 .610
the respondents that have done PhD

4. High Premium
2. Hidden costs
1. Not required
2. Unaware about it
103
7.3) MANN-WHITNEY U-TEST
7.3.1) Difference between the perceptions of Male & Female respondents
for ‘Reasons for not taking Health Insurance’.
(Figure 7.19)- Mann-Whitney U Test: Gender
104
Interpretation & Findings
According to the output generated by statistical software for Mann-Whitney U-test, it
was found that the value of asymptotic significance comes out to be more than 0.05 in
case of all ten variables- (Low salary /Non-availability of funds, Not required,
Other investment options, Unaware about it, Difficult claim settlement, High
Premium, Non-flexibility of the insurance policy, Non-accessibility of linked
hospitals, Difficulty in availing services in hospitals and Hidden costs), hence, it
can be seen that there is No significant difference between the two groups of Gender
(Male & Female). So, it can be concluded that all the Null Hypotheses are accepted.
7.3.2) Difference between the perceptions of Urban & Rural respondents

for ‘Reasons for not taking Health Insurance’.
(Figure 7.20) - Mann-Whitney U Test: Location
105
can be seen that there is No significant difference between the two groups of location
(Urban & Rural). So, it can be concluded that Alternate Hypothesis is rejected and
Null Hypotheses is accepted.
7.3.3) Difference between the perceptions of nuclear family & Joint family
respondents for ‘Reasons for not taking Health Insurance’.
(Figure 7.21)- Mann-Whitney U Test: Type of Family
106
According to the output generated by statistical software for Mann-Whitney U-Test, it
case of seven variables- (Low salary /non-availability of funds, Not required,
Other investment options, Difficult claim settlement, Non-accessibility of linked
hospitals), hence, it can be seen that there is No significant difference between the
two groups of Type of Family (Joint and Nuclear). So, it can be concluded that for
the variables the Null Hypotheses are accepted.
The value of asymptotic significance comes out to be less than 0.05, in case of three
variables (Unaware about it, Difficulty in availing services in hospitals and High
Premium) hence, it can be seen that there is significant difference between the three
groups of Type of Family (Joint and Nuclear). So, it can be concluded that for the
variables- “Unaware about it, Difficulty in availing services in hospitals and High
Premium” the Null Hypotheses are rejected.
7.3.4) Difference between the respondents having 2 or less than 2

dependents & the respondents having More than 2 dependents for
‘Reasons for not taking Health Insurance’.
(Figure 7.22) - Mann-Whitney U Test: Number of dependents in the family
107
According to the output generated by statistical software for Mann-Whitney U-Test, it
case of nine variables- (Low salary /Non-availability of funds, Not required,
Other investment options, Difficult claim settlement, High Premium, Non-
accessibility of linked hospitals, Difficulty in availing services in hospitals), hence,
it can be seen that there is No significant difference between the two groups of
number of dependents (2 or less than 2 and More than 2). So, it can be concluded
that for the variables- “Low salary /non-availability of funds, Not required, other
investment options, Difficult claim settlement, High Premium, Non-accessibility
of linked hospitals, Difficulty in availing services in hospitals” the Null
Hypotheses are accepted.
The value of asymptotic significance comes out to be less than 0.05, in case of one
variable (Unaware about it) hence, it can be seen that there is significant difference
between the two groups of number of dependents (2 or less than 2 and more than 2).
So, it can be concluded that for the t variable- “Unaware about it” the Null
Hypothesis is rejected.
7.4) KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST

7.4.1) Difference between the perceptions of Higher Secondary,
Graduation/Post-graduation & PhD respondents for ‘Reasons for not taking
Health Insurance’.
(Figure 7.23)- Kruskal-Wallis Test: Educational Qualification
108
According to the output generated by statistical software for Kruskal-Wallis Test, it
case of eight variables- (Low salary /Non-availability of funds, Not required,
Premium, Non-accessibility of linked hospitals, Difficulty in availing services in
three groups of educational qualification (Higher Secondary Education,
Graduation/Post-graduation & PhD). So, it can be concluded that for the
variables- “Low salary /non-availability of funds, Not required, other investment
options, Unaware about it, Difficult claim settlement, High Premium, Non-
accessibility of linked hospitals, Difficulty in availing services in hospitals” the
Null Hypotheses are accepted.
The value of asymptotic significance comes out to be less than 0.05, in case of two
variables (non-flexibility of the insurance policy and Hidden costs) hence, it can be
seen that there is significant difference between the three groups of educational
qualification (Higher Secondary Education, Graduation/Post-graduation & PhD).
So, it can be concluded that for the two variables- “non-flexibility of the insurance
policy and Hidden costs” the Null Hypotheses are rejected.
7.4.2) Difference between the perceptions of Government employees,

Private employees and Business Persons for ‘Reasons for not taking Health
Insurance’.
(Figure 7.24)- Kruskal-Wallis Test: Occupation
109
case of nine variables- (Low salary /Non-availability of funds, Not required,
Other investment options, Difficult claim settlement, High Premium, Non-

accessibility of linked hospitals, Difficulty in availing services in hospitals), hence,
it can be seen that there is No significant difference between the three groups of
occupation (Government employees, Private employees & Business Persons). So,
it can be concluded that for the variables- “Low salary /non-availability of funds,
Not required, other investment options, Difficult claim settlement, High
Premium, Non-accessibility of linked hospitals, Difficulty in availing services in

hospitals” the Null Hypotheses are accepted.
The value of asymptotic significance comes out to be less than 0.05, in case of one
variable (Unaware about it) hence, it can be seen that there is significant difference
between the three groups of occupation (Government employees, Private employees
& Business Persons). So, it can be concluded that for the variable- “Unaware about
it” the Null Hypothesis is rejected.
110
7.4.3) Difference between the perceptions of respondents with Poor,
Moderate and Good health Status for ‘Reasons for not taking Health
Insurance’.
(Figure 7.25) - Kruskal-Wallis Test: Health Status
111
can be seen that there is No significant difference between the three groups of Health
status (Poor, Moderate and Good). So, it can be concluded that all the Null
7.4.4) Difference between the perceptions of respondents across categories

of monthly income for ‘Reasons for not taking Health Insurance’.
(Figure 7.26) - Kruskal-Wallis Test: Categories of monthly income
112
can be seen that there is No significant difference between the categories of monthly
income (less than Rs 20,000/, Between Rs 20,001/- to Rs 40,000/-, Between Rs
40,001/- to Rs 60,000/-, Between Rs 60,001/- to Rs 80,000/-, Between Rs 80,001/- to
Rs 100,000/- and More than Rs 100,000/-). So, it can be concluded that all the Null
7.4.5) Difference between the perceptions of respondents across the

categories of annual medical expenses of the family for ‘Reasons for not
taking Health Insurance’.
(Figure 7. 27) - Kruskal-Wallis Test: Educational Qualification
113
case of seven variables- (Low salary /Non-availability of funds, Not required,
Other investment options, High Premium, Difficulty in availing services in
three categories of annual medical expenses of the family (less than Rs 24,000/-,
Between Rs 24,001/- to Rs 48,000/-, Between Rs 72,001/- to Rs 96,000/-,More than
Rs 96,000/-). So, it can be concluded that for the variables- “Low salary /non-
availability of funds, Not required, other investment options, High Premium,
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals” the Null Hypotheses are accepted. The
value of asymptotic significance comes out to be less than 0.05, in case of two
variables (Unaware about it, Difficult claim settlement and non-accessibility of
linked hospitals) hence, it can be seen that there is significant difference between the
three categories of annual medical expenses of the family (less than Rs 24,000/-,
Between Rs 24,001/- to Rs 48,000/-, Between Rs 72,001/- to Rs 96,000/-, More than
Rs 96,000/-). So, it can be concluded that for the variables- “Unaware about it,
Difficult claim settlement and non-accessibility of linked hospitals,” the Null
Hypotheses are rejected.
7.5) NON-POLICY HOLDERS: CROSSTAB ANALYSIS

(Table 7.30)- Crosstab: Gender * Low salary /non-availability of funds
Crosstab
Low salary /non-availability of funds
Least Not so Most
Important important Indifferent Important Important Total
Gender Male Count 22 19 20 39 17 117
% within 18.8% 16.2% 17.1% 33.3% 14.5% 100.0%
% of Total 11.0% 9.5% 10.0% 19.5% 8.5% 58.5%
Female Count 16 14 6 28 19 83
% within 19.3% 16.9% 7.2% 33.7% 22.9% 100.0%
% of Total 8.0% 7.0% 3.0% 14.0% 9.5% 41.5%
Total Count 38 33 26 67 36 200
% within 19.0% 16.5% 13.0% 33.5% 18.0% 100.0%
% of Total 19.0% 16.5% 13.0% 33.5% 18.0% 100.0%
114
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 14.5% respondents considered low salary /Non-
availability of funds as the most important factor for not taking health insurance,
33.3% respondents considered low salary /Non-availability of funds as an
important factor, 17.1% respondents were indifferent towards low salary /Non-
availability of funds, 16.2% respondents considered low salary /Non-availability
of funds as not so important factor and 18.8% respondents considered low salary
/Non-availability of funds as least important factor for taking health insurance.
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 22.9% respondents considered low salary /Non-

availability of funds as the most important factor for not taking health insurance,
33.3% respondents considered low salary /Non-availability of funds as an
important factor, 7.2% respondents were indifferent towards low salary /Non-
availability of funds, 16.9% respondents considered low salary /Non-availability
of funds as not so important factor and 19.3% respondents considered low salary
/Non-availability of funds as least important factor for taking health insurance.
(Figure 7.28) - Gender * Low salary /non-availability of funds
115
(Table 7.31) - Crosstab: Gender: Not required
Crosstab
Not required
Least Not so Most
% within 19.7% 19.7% 41.9% 12.0% 6.8% 100.0%
% of Total 11.5% 11.5% 24.5% 7.0% 4.0% 58.5%
Female Count 16 19 36 11 1 83
% within 19.3% 22.9% 43.4% 13.3% 1.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.0% 9.5% 18.0% 5.5% 0.5% 41.5%
Total Count 39 42 85 25 9 200
% within 19.5% 21.0% 42.5% 12.5% 4.5% 100.0%
% of Total 19.5% 21.0% 42.5% 12.5% 4.5% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 6.8% respondents considered non-requirement as
the most important factor for not taking health insurance, 12.0% respondents
considered non-requirement as an important factor, 41.9% respondents were
indifferent towards non-requirement, 19.7% respondents considered non-
requirement as not so important factor and 19.7% respondents considered non-
requirement as least important factor for taking health insurance.
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 1.2% respondents considered non-requirement as

considered non-requirement as an important factor, 43.4% respondents were
indifferent towards non-requirement, 22.9% respondents considered non-
requirement as not so important factor and 19.3% respondents considered non-
requirement as least important factor for taking health insurance.
(Figure 7.29) - Gender: Not required
116
(Table 7.32)- Gender * Other investment options
Crosstab
Other investment options
Least Not so Most
% within 41.0% 16.2% 17.9% 17.9% 6.8% 100.0%
% of Total 24.0% 9.5% 10.5% 10.5% 4.0% 58.5%
Female Count 30 23 12 11 7 83
% within 36.1% 27.7% 14.5% 13.3% 8.4% 100.0%
% of Total 15.0% 11.5% 6.0% 5.5% 3.5% 41.5%
Total Count 78 42 33 32 15 200
% within 39.0% 21.0% 16.5% 16.0% 7.5% 100.0%
% of Total 39.0% 21.0% 16.5% 16.0% 7.5% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 6.8% respondents considered other investment
options as the most important factor for not taking health insurance, 17.9%
respondents considered other investment options as an important factor, 17.9%
respondents were indifferent towards other investment options, 16.2% respondents
considered other investment options as not so important factor and 41.0%
respondents considered other investment options as least important factor for
taking health insurance.
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 8.4% respondents considered other investment

options as the most important factor for not taking health insurance, 13.3%
respondents considered other investment options as an important factor, 14.5%
respondents were indifferent towards other investment options, 27.7% respondents
considered other investment options as not so important factor and 36.1%
respondents considered other investment options as least important factor for
taking health insurance.
(Figure 7.30) - Gender * Other investment options
117
(Table 7.33)- Gender * Unaware about it
Crosstab
Unaware about it
Least Not so Most
% within 25.6% 17.1% 13.7% 29.9% 13.7% 100.0%
% of Total 15.0% 10.0% 8.0% 17.5% 8.0% 58.5%
Female Count 30 7 12 30 4 83
% within 36.1% 8.4% 14.5% 36.1% 4.8% 100.0%
% of Total 15.0% 3.5% 6.0% 15.0% 2.0% 41.5%
Total Count 60 27 28 65 20 200
% within 30.0% 13.5% 14.0% 32.5% 10.0% 100.0%
% of Total 30.0% 13.5% 14.0% 32.5% 10.0% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 13.7% respondents considered Unawareness as the
most important factor for not taking health insurance, 29.9% respondents
considered Unawareness as an important factor, 13.7% respondents were
indifferent towards Unawareness, 17.1% respondents considered Unawareness as
not so important factor and 25.6% respondents considered Unawareness as least
important factor for taking health insurance.
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 4.8% respondents considered Unawareness as the

most important factor for not taking health insurance, 36.1% respondents
considered Unawareness as an important factor, 14.5% respondents were
indifferent towards Unawareness, 8.4% respondents considered Unawareness as
not so important factor and 36.1% respondents considered Unawareness as least
(Figure 7.31) - Gender * Unaware about it
118
(Table 7.34) - Gender * Difficult claim settlement
Crosstab
Difficult claim settlement
Least Not so Most
% within 15.4% 17.1% 15.4% 29.9% 22.2% 100.0%
% of Total 9.0% 10.0% 9.0% 17.5% 13.0% 58.5%
Female Count 12 12 12 39 8 83
% within 14.5% 14.5% 14.5% 47.0% 9.6% 100.0%
% of Total 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 19.5% 4.0% 41.5%
Total Count 30 32 30 74 34 200
% within 15.0% 16.0% 15.0% 37.0% 17.0% 100.0%
% of Total 15.0% 16.0% 15.0% 37.0% 17.0% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 22.2% respondents considered Difficult claim
settlement as the most important factor for not taking health insurance, 29.9%
respondents considered Difficult claim settlement as an important factor, 15.4%
respondents were indifferent towards Difficult claim settlement, 17.1%
respondents considered Difficult claim settlement as not so important factor and
15.4% respondents considered Difficult claim settlement as least important factor
for taking health insurance.
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 9.6% respondents considered Difficult claim
settlement as the most important factor for not taking health insurance, 47.0%
respondents considered Difficult claim settlement as an important factor, 14.5%
respondents were indifferent towards Difficult claim settlement, 14.5%
respondents considered Difficult claim settlement as not so important factor and
14.5% respondents considered Difficult claim settlement as least important factor
for taking health insurance.
(Figure 7.32) - Gender * Difficult claim settlement
119
(Table 7.35) - Gender * High Premium
Crosstab
High Premium
Least Not so Most
% within 15.4% 15.4% 10.3% 26.5% 32.5% 100.0%
% of Total 9.0% 9.0% 6.0% 15.5% 19.0% 58.5%
Female Count 8 12 10 23 30 83
% within 9.6% 14.5% 12.0% 27.7% 36.1% 100.0%
% of Total 4.0% 6.0% 5.0% 11.5% 15.0% 41.5%
Total Count 26 30 22 54 68 200
% within 13.0% 15.0% 11.0% 27.0% 34.0% 100.0%
% of Total 13.0% 15.0% 11.0% 27.0% 34.0% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 32.5% respondents considered High Premium as
considered High Premium as an important factor, 10.3% respondents were
indifferent towards High Premium, 15.4% respondents considered High Premium
as not so important factor and 15.4% respondents considered High Premium as
least important factor for taking health insurance.
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 36.1% respondents considered High Premium as

considered High Premium as an important factor, 12.0% respondents were
indifferent towards High Premium, 14.5% respondents considered High Premium
as not so important factor and 9.6% respondents considered High Premium as
(Figure 7.33) - Gender * High Premium
120
(Table 7. 36)- Gender * Non-flexibility of the insurance policy
Crosstab
Non-flexibility of the insurance policy
Least Not so Most
% within 16.2% 13.7% 21.4% 39.3% 9.4% 100.0%
% of Total 9.5% 8.0% 12.5% 23.0% 5.5% 58.5%
Female Count 10 13 13 40 7 83
% within 12.0% 15.7% 15.7% 48.2% 8.4% 100.0%
% of Total 5.0% 6.5% 6.5% 20.0% 3.5% 41.5%
Total Count 29 29 38 86 18 200
% within 14.5% 14.5% 19.0% 43.0% 9.0% 100.0%
% of Total 14.5% 14.5% 19.0% 43.0% 9.0% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 9.4% respondents considered Non-flexibility of the
insurance policy as the most important factor for not taking health insurance,
39.3% respondents considered Non-flexibility of the insurance policy as an
important factor, 21.4% respondents were indifferent towards Non-flexibility of
the insurance policy, 13.7% respondents considered Non-flexibility of the
insurance policy as not so important factor and 16.2% respondents considered
Non-flexibility of the insurance policy as least important factor for taking health
insurance.
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 8.4% respondents considered Non-flexibility of

the insurance policy as the most important factor for not taking health insurance,
48.2% respondents considered Non-flexibility of the insurance policy as an
important factor, 15.7% respondents were indifferent towards Non-flexibility of
the insurance policy, 15.7% respondents considered Non-flexibility of the
insurance policy as not so important factor and 12.0% respondents considered
Non-flexibility of the insurance policy as least important factor for taking health
insurance.
121
(Figure 7.34) - Gender * Non-flexibility of the insurance policy
(Table 7.37)- Gender * Non-accessibility of linked hospitals

Crosstab
Non-accessibility of linked hospitals
Least Not so Most
% within 20.5% 12.8% 10.3% 27.4% 29.1% 100.0%
% of Total 12.0% 7.5% 6.0% 16.0% 17.0% 58.5%
Female Count 10 13 8 26 26 83
% within 12.0% 15.7% 9.6% 31.3% 31.3% 100.0%
% of Total 5.0% 6.5% 4.0% 13.0% 13.0% 41.5%
Total Count 34 28 20 58 60 200
% within 17.0% 14.0% 10.0% 29.0% 30.0% 100.0%
% of Total 17.0% 14.0% 10.0% 29.0% 30.0% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 29.1% respondents considered Non-accessibility
of linked hospitals as the most important factor for not taking health insurance,
27.4% respondents considered Non-accessibility of linked hospitals as an
important factor, 10.3% respondents were indifferent towards Non-accessibility of
linked hospitals, 12.8% respondents considered Non-accessibility of linked
hospitals as not so important factor and 20.5% respondents considered Non-
accessibility of linked hospitals as least important factor for taking health
insurance.
122
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 31.3% respondents considered Non-accessibility
of linked hospitals as the most important factor for not taking health insurance,
31.3% respondents considered Non-accessibility of linked hospitals as an
important factor, 9.6% respondents were indifferent towards Non-accessibility of
linked hospitals, 15.7% respondents considered Non-accessibility of linked
hospitals as not so important factor and 12.0% respondents considered Non-
accessibility of linked hospitals as least important factor for taking health
insurance.
(Figure 7.35) - Gender * Non-accessibility of linked hospitals
(Table 7.38) - Gender * Difficulty in availing services in hospitals
Crosstab
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals
Least Not so Most
% within 17.1% 12.8% 9.4% 30.8% 29.9% 100.0%
% of Total 10.0% 7.5% 5.5% 18.0% 17.5% 58.5%
Female Count 9 11 7 27 29 83
% within 10.8% 13.3% 8.4% 32.5% 34.9% 100.0%
% of Total 4.5% 5.5% 3.5% 13.5% 14.5% 41.5%
Total Count 29 26 18 63 64 200
% within 14.5% 13.0% 9.0% 31.5% 32.0% 100.0%
% of Total 14.5% 13.0% 9.0% 31.5% 32.0% 100.0%
123
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 29.9% respondents considered Difficulty in

availing services in hospitals as the most important factor for not taking health
insurance, 30.8% respondents considered Difficulty in availing services in
hospitals as an important factor, 9.4% respondents were indifferent towards
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals, 12.8% respondents considered
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals as not so important factor and 17.1%
respondents considered Difficulty in availing services in hospitals as least
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 34.9% respondents considered Difficulty in

availing services in hospitals as the most important factor for not taking health
insurance, 32.5% respondents considered Difficulty in availing services in
hospitals as an important factor, 8.4% respondents were indifferent towards
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals, 13.3% respondents considered
Difficulty in availing services in hospitals as not so important factor and 10.8%
respondents considered Difficulty in availing services in hospitals as least
(Figure 7.36) - Gender * Difficulty in availing services in hospitals
124
(Table 7.39) - Gender * Hidden costs
Crosstab
Hidden costs
Least Not so Most
% 17.9% 17.1% 24.8% 19.7% 20.5% 100.0%
within
% of 10.5% 10.0% 14.5% 11.5% 12.0% 58.5%
Total
Female Count 9 14 31 23 6 83
% 10.8% 16.9% 37.3% 27.7% 7.2% 100.0%
within
% of 4.5% 7.0% 15.5% 11.5% 3.0% 41.5%
Total
Total Count 30 34 60 46 30 200
% 15.0% 17.0% 30.0% 23.0% 15.0% 100.0%
within
% of 15.0% 17.0% 30.0% 23.0% 15.0% 100.0%
Total
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 117 respondents, 20.5% respondents considered Hidden costs as
considered Hidden costs as an important factor, 24.8% respondents were
indifferent towards Hidden costs, 17.1% respondents considered Hidden costs
as not so important factor and 17.9% respondents considered Hidden costs as
Female: Out of 83 respondents, 7.2% respondents considered Hidden costs as

considered Hidden costs as an important factor, 37.3% respondents were
indifferent towards Hidden costs, 16.9% respondents considered Hidden costs
as not so important factor and 10.8% respondents considered Hidden costs as
125
(Figure 7.37) - Gender * Hidden costs
(II) POLICY HOLDERS

7.6) Data Analysis
7.6.1) Normalcy Analysis
(Table 7.40) - Tests of Normality
Tests of Normality: Policy Holders
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Network Coverage of Hospital. .166 200 .000 .894 200 .000
Coverage of Diseases. .201 200 .000 .887 200 .000
Number of claims allowed per year. .157 200 .000 .915 200 .000
Number of Health specialists/doctors. .215 200 .000 .889 200 .000
Number of Diagnostic Centre. .216 200 .000 .891 200 .000
Customer Service and follow ups. .191 200 .000 .907 200 .000
Claim Refund Process. .166 200 .000 .902 200 .000
Grievance Handling System. .205 200 .000 .900 200 .000
Flexibility of the insurance policy. .196 200 .000 .903 200 .000
Premium .253 200 .000 .860 200 .000
Coverage Amount .195 200 .000 .892 200 .000
Hidden costs .173 200 .000 .901 200 .000
Price of Cashless Health Insurance Policies .153 200 .000 .905 200 .000
Documentation process. .161 200 .000 .901 200 .000
Claim settlement process. .153 200 .000 .913 200 .000
Employees educate consumers about health .254 200 .000 .878 200 .000
insurance services
Employees make consumers to understand the rules, .219 200 .000 .887 200 .000
regulations & policies of the company.
126
Interpretation
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is used. In our case, since we have only 200 elements, the
Shapiro-Wilk test is used. The p-value is significant. We can conclude that the
data comes from a non-normal distribution.
(Table 7.41) -Descriptive Statistics: Policy Holders
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Age 200 1 4 2.74 1.096
Gender 200 1 2 1.44 .498
Educational Qualification 200 1 4 2.34 .778
Occupation 200 1 4 2.44 .944
Locality 200 1 2 1.08 .280
Marital Status 200 1 3 1.92 .474
Type of Family 200 1 2 1.66 .477
Number of dependents in family 200 1 2 1.69 .464
Monthly income 200 2 6 4.32 1.417
Annual medical expenses of the family 200 1 4 2.19 1.143
What type of health insurance cover do you have 200 1 4 2.14 1.052
Health insurance coverage in India 200 1 5 2.38 1.286
Consumers covered by current Health Insurance Policy 200 1 5 2.91 1.239
Health Status 200 1 3 1.88 .706
I took health insurance under Government Scheme: 200 1 2 1.38 .487
insurance provider 200 1 3 1.77 .819
Network Coverage of Hospital. 200 1 5 3.25 1.324
Coverage of Diseases. 200 1 5 3.10 1.389
Number of claims allowed per year. 200 1 5 3.03 1.209
Number of Health specialists/doctors. 200 1 5 3.32 1.305
Number of Diagnostic Centre. 200 1 5 3.16 1.332
Customer Service and follow ups. 200 1 5 3.34 1.162
Claim Refund Process. 200 1 5 3.25 1.286
Grievance Handling System. 200 1 5 3.13 1.283
Flexibility of the insurance policy. 200 1 5 3.13 1.260
Premium 200 1 5 3.19 1.359
Coverage Amount 200 1 5 3.08 1.331
Hidden costs 200 1 5 2.94 1.334
Price of Cashless Health Insurance Policies 200 1 5 3.03 1.316
Documentation process. 200 1 5 2.97 1.311
Claim settlement process. 200 1 5 3.04 1.235
Employees educate consumers about health insurance 200 1 5 3.24 1.312
services
Employees make consumers to understand the rules, 200 1 5 3.01 1.324
regulations & policies of the company.
127
7.6.3) Demographic Profile of the Respondents: Policy Holders
(Table 7.42) - Age: Policy Holders
Age
Cumulative
31 years to 40 years 42 21.0 21.0 39.5
41 years to 50 years 58 29.0 29.0 68.5
51 years to 60 years 63 31.5 31.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
(Bar Chart 7.38) -Age: Policy Holders
128
(Table 7.43) -Gender: Policy Holders
Gender
Valid Male 112 56.0 56.0 56.0
Female 88 44.0 44.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

respondents out of which, 56.0% respondents were Males and 44.0% respondents
were Females.
(Bar Chart 7.39) - Gender: Policy Holders
129
(Table 7.44)- Educational Qualification: Policy Holders
Educational Qualification
Cumulative
Valid Higher Secondary 17 8.5 8.5 8.5
Graduation/Post- 120 60.0 60.0 68.5

Graduation
PhD 42 21.0 21.0 89.5
Other 21 10.5 10.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

respondents out of which, 8.5% respondents had completed Higher Secondary
education, 60.0% respondents had completed Graduation/Post-Graduation, 21.0%
respondents had completed PhD and 10.5% respondents had done other courses.
(Bar Chart 7.40) - Educational Qualification: Policy Holders
130
(Table 7.45)- Occupation: Policy Holders
Occupation
Valid Government Employee 41 20.5 20.5 20.5
Business 54 27.0 27.0 47.5
Home Maker 82 41.0 41.0 88.5
Private Employee 23 11.5 11.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

respondents out of which, 20.5% respondents were Government employees, 27.0%
respondents were doing Business, 11.5% respondents were Homemakers and 11.5 %
respondents were Private employees.
(Bar Chart 7.41) - Occupation: Policy Holders
131
(Table 7.46)-Locality: Policy Holders
Locality
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent
Valid Urban 183 91.5 91.5 91.5
Rural 17 8.5 8.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 91.5% respondents lived in Urban areas and 8.5%
respondents lived in Rural areas.
(Bar Chart 7.42) -Locality: Policy Holders
132
(Table 7.47)- Marital Status: Policy Holders
Marital Status
Valid Single 31 15.5 15.5 15.5
Married 154 77.0 77.0 92.5
Other 15 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

respondents out of which, 15.5% respondents were Single, 77.0% respondents were
Married and 7.5% were of other category.
(Bar Chart 7.43) -Marital Status: Policy Holders
133
(Table 7.48)- Type of Family: Policy Holders
Type of Family
Valid Nuclear Family 69 34.5 34.5 34.5
Joint Family 131 65.5 65.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 34.5% respondents lived in nuclear family and 65.5%
respondents lived in Joint family.
(Bar Chart 7.44) - Type of Family: Policy Holders
134
(Table 7.49)- Number of dependents in family: Policy Holders
Number of dependents in family
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid 2 or less than 2 62 31.0 31.0 31.0
More than 2 138 69.0 69.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

respondents out of which, 31.0% respondents had 2 or less than 2 number of
dependents in the family and 69.0% respondents had more than 2 number of
dependents in the family.
(Bar Chart 7.45) - Number of dependents in family: Policy Holders
135
(Table 7.50)- Monthly income: Policy Holders
Monthly income
Valid Cumulative
Valid Between Rs 20,001/- to Rs 9 4.5 4.5 4.5
40,000/-
Between Rs 40,001/- to Rs 79 39.5 39.5 44.0
60,000/-
Between Rs 60,001/- to Rs 23 11.5 11.5 55.5
80,000/-
Between Rs 80,001/- to Rs 17 8.5 8.5 64.0
100,000/-
More than Rs 100,000/- 72 36.0 36.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 4.5% respondents had a monthly income between Rs
20,001/- to Rs 40,000/-, 39.5% respondents had a monthly income between Rs
40,001/- to Rs 60,000/-, 11.5% respondents had a monthly income between Rs
60,001/- to Rs 80,000/, 8.5% respondents had a monthly income between Rs 80,001/-
to Rs 100, 000/-.and 36.0% respondents had a monthly income of more than Rs
100,000/-
(Bar Chart 7.46) - Monthly income: Policy Holders
136
(Table 7.51)- Annual medical expenses of the family: Policy Holders
Annual medical expenses of the family

Valid Cumulative
Valid Less than Rs 24,000/- 74 37.0 37.0 37.0
Between Rs 24,001/- to Rs 56 28.0 28.0 65.0
48,000/-
Between Rs 72,001/- to Rs 29 14.5 14.5 79.5
96,000/-
More than Rs 96,000/- 41 20.5 20.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 37.0% respondents had Annual Medical Expenses of the
Family of less than Rs 24,000/-, 28.05% respondents had Annual Medical Expenses
of the Family between Rs 24,001/- to Rs 48,000/-, 14.5% respondents had Annual
Medical Expenses of the Family between Rs 72,001/- to Rs 96,000/- and 20.5%
respondents had Annual Medical Expenses more than Rs 96,000/-.
(Bar Chart 7.47) - Annual medical expenses of the family: Policy Holders
137
(Table 7.52) -Type of health insurance cover: Policy Holders
What type of health insurance cover do you have

Valid Cumulative
Valid Individual Health Insurance Plans 67 33.5 33.5 33.5
Family Health Insurance Plans 69 34.5 34.5 68.0
Group Health Insurance Plans 33 16.5 16.5 84.5
Critical Illness Insurance Plans 31 15.5 15.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 33.5% respondents had Individual Health Insurance Plans,
34.5% respondents had Family Health Insurance Plans, 16.5% respondents had Group
Health Insurance Plans and 15.5% respondents had Critical Illness Insurance Plans
(Bar Chart 7.48) - Type of health insurance cover: Policy Holders
138
(Table 7.53)- Health insurance coverage in India: Policy Holders
Health insurance coverage in India

Valid Very Low 67 33.5 33.5 33.5
Low 50 25.0 25.0 58.5
Moderate 39 19.5 19.5 78.0
High 29 14.5 14.5 92.5
Very High 15 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

respondents out of which, 33.5% respondents said that Health insurance coverage in
India is very low, 25.0% respondents said that Health insurance coverage in India is
low, 19.5% respondents said that Health insurance coverage in India is moderate,
14.5% respondents said that Health insurance coverage in India is high and 7.5%
respondents that Health insurance coverage in India is very high
(Bar Chart 7.49) - Health insurance coverage in India: Policy Holders
139
(Table 7.54) – Policy Holders covered by current Health Insurance Policy:
Policy Holders
Policy holders covered by current Health Insurance Policy are

Valid Very well-covered 27 13.5 13.5 13.5
Well-covered 54 27.0 27.0 40.5
Moderately Covered 55 27.5 27.5 68.0
Poorly covered 37 18.5 18.5 86.5
Very Poorly Covered 27 13.5 13.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Interpretation: From the above table it can be seen that there were total 200
respondents out of which, 13.5% respondents said that Consumers covered by current
Health Insurance are very well-covered, 27.0% respondents said that Consumers
covered by current Health Insurance are well-covered, 27.5% respondents said that
Consumers covered by current Health Insurance are moderately covered, 18.5%
respondents said that Consumers covered by current Health Insurance are poorly
covered and 13.5% respondents that Consumers covered by current Health Insurance
are very poorly covered.
(Bar Chart 7.50) – Policy Holders covered by current Health Insurance

Policy: Policy Holders
140
(Table 7.55)- Health Status: Policy Holders
Health Status
Valid Cumulative
Valid Poor (If suffering from 2 or more 63 31.5 31.5 31.5
chronic diseases)
Moderate (If suffering from 1 such 98 49.0 49.0 80.5

disease)
Good (If not suffering from any 39 19.5 19.5 100.0

chronic diseases)
Total 200 100.0 100.0

respondents out of which, 31.5% respondents had poor health status, 49.0%
respondents had moderate health status and 19.5% respondents had good health
status.
(Bar Chart 7.51)- Health Status: Policy Holders
141
(Table 7.56)- I took health insurance under Government Scheme: Policy
Holders
I took health insurance under Government Scheme:
Valid Yes 124 62.0 62.0 62.0
No 76 38.0 38.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
respondents out of which, 62.0% respondents said yes that they took health insurance
under Government Scheme and 38.0% respondents said no that they didn’t took
health insurance under Government Scheme.
(Bar Chart 7.52)- I took health insurance under Government Scheme:

Policy Holders
142
(Table 7.57)- Insurance provider: Policy Holders
Insurance Provider
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Government Company 95 47.5 47.5 47.5
Private Company 56 28.0 28.0 75.5
Both 49 24.5 24.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0

respondents out of which, 47.5% respondents said that their insurance provider is a
government company and 28.0% respondents said that their insurance provider is a
government company.
(Bar Chart 7.53)- Insurance provider: Policy Holders
143
7.7) POLICY HOLDERS: FACTOR ANALYSIS
a) Identifying the Most Important Factors of Satisfaction of Service Quality
of Health Insurance Services: Policy Holders
Factor Analysis was performed to determine the Most Important Factors of
Satisfaction of Service Quality of Health Insurance Services: Policy Holders
(Table 7.58)- KMO and Bartlett's Test
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 292.589
Df 136
Sig. .000
suitable for factor analysis. Similarly, Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant (p <
0.001); that explains existence of sufficient correlation between variables to proceed
with the analysis.

Total Variance Explained
Comp % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
onent Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 2.378 13.985 13.985 2.378 13.985 13.985 1.723 10.137 10.137
2 1.607 9.450 23.436 1.607 9.450 23.436 1.543 9.078 19.215
3 1.379 8.113 31.549 1.379 8.113 31.549 1.417 8.335 27.549
4 1.293 7.608 39.158 1.293 7.608 39.158 1.384 8.142 35.691
5 1.155 6.795 45.953 1.155 6.795 45.953 1.358 7.988 43.679
6 1.109 6.523 52.476 1.109 6.523 52.476 1.267 7.454 51.133
7 1.039 6.111 58.587 1.039 6.111 58.587 1.267 7.453 58.587
8 .941 5.535 64.122
9 .887 5.215 69.337
10 .806 4.742 74.078
11 .779 4.583 78.661
12 .716 4.209 82.870
13 .686 4.034 86.905
14 .645 3.791 90.696
15 .577 3.397 94.092
16 .509 2.997 97.089
17 .495 2.911 100.000
144
variance, factor 2 explained 9.450% of total variance, factor 3 explained 8.113%
of total variance, factor 4 explained 7.608% of total variance, factor 5 explained
6.795% of total variance, factor 6 explained 6.523% of total variance and factor
7 explained 6.111% of total variance that can be extracted. As evident from the
above table (Total Variations Explained) it was found that from the total 7
components (Most Important Factors of Satisfaction of Service Quality of Health
Insurance Services: Policy Holders), 1st factor is most important and can be extracted.
(Scree Plot 7.54)
145
(Table 7.60)- Rotated Component Matrixa
Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Coverage of Diseases. .690 -.026 -.060 -.016 -.036 .021 .139
Premium .675 .033 .194 -.079 .248 .017 .064
Flexibility of the insurance policy. .438 .389 -.040 .045 .223 .259 -.151
Grievance Handling System. .434 .349 .296 .074 -.294 .018 -.355
Price of Cashless Health Insurance -.046 .772 -.018 -.014 -.061 .096 -.065
Policies
Number of Diagnostic Centre. .255 .570 .045 .093 .172 -.166 .305
Coverage Amount .045 -.068 .659 .399 .091 .086 -.117
Number of claims allowed per year. .246 -.056 .574 -.099 .124 .053 .198
Network Coverage of Hospital. -.151 .386 .475 .042 -.296 .058 .175
Documentation process. .240 -.157 -.472 .288 -.394 .196 .090
Employees educate consumers about -.039 -.122 .145 .759 -.067 .132 .018
health insurance services
Employees make consumers to -.022 .239 -.097 .683 .136 -.115 .069
understand the rules, regulations &
policies of the company.
Number of Health specialists/doctors. .197 -.002 .135 .116 .766 .019 -.066
Claim settlement process. .153 -.141 .117 .039 -.267 .749 .081
Hidden costs -.069 .263 -.025 .010 .290 .703 .098
Claim Refund Process. .055 .025 .090 -.001 -.031 .154 .805
Customer Service and follow ups. .360 .065 .025 .222 -.304 -.031 .483
Findings: Most Important Factors of Satisfaction of Service Quality of Health

Insurance Services: Policy Holders
statements (Variables) of Most Important Factors of Satisfaction of Service Quality of
Health Insurance Services: Policy Holders
146
1. Coverage of Diseases.
2. Premium
3. Flexibility of the insurance policy.
4. Grievance Handling System.
1. Price of Cashless Health Insurance Policies
2. Number of Diagnostic Centre.
1. Coverage Amount
2. Number of claims allowed per year.
3. Network Coverage of Hospital.
4. Documentation process.
1. Employees educate consumers about health insurance services
2. Employees make consumers to understand the rules, regulations & policies of

the company.
Factor -5 includes only 1 variable
1. Number of Health specialists/doctors.
1. Claim settlement process.
2. Hidden costs.
1. Claim Refund Process.
2. Customer Service and follow ups.
147
7.8) CONSUMERS/ POLICY HOLDERS: SATISFACTION INDEX
1. A Total Satisfaction Index for Consumers / Policy Holders of health insurance
services has been developed. Total 17 variables related to three dimensions
Product; Price & Service Delivery of service quality of health insurance
services are studied for this index development.
2. Product (9 variables)
3. Price (4 variables)
4. Service Delivery (4 variables)
5. Satisfaction (Total 17 variables)
7.8.1) Process of Developing Index/Scale: Level of Problems: Z score-based

analysis
7.8.1.1 Administration & Scoring

The final version consists of items where a respondent has to make his/her agreement
with each item on 5-point scale. All the 17 variables / items were given score from 5
to 1. There were 5 choices namely-
Highly Satisfied (5),
Satisfied (4),
Undecided (neither agree nor disagree) (3),
Dissatisfied (2),
Highly Dissatisfied (1)’.
In order to measure the level of satisfaction level, calculation of these variables is

done-
All the scores were converted into Z scores for all the 17 variables.
Total score of all the 17 variables of Problems for all the 200 respondents
(consumers).
Then 5 categories were decided on the basis of Z score division.
148
(Table 7.61)- Statistics: Administration & Scoring
Statistics
Service Satisfaction
Product Price Delivery
N Valid 200 200 200 200
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
Mid-Point .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
Range 21.18 9.76 10.35 32.97
Minimum -10.03 -4.70 -4.94 -14.36

Maximum 11.15 5.06 5.41 18.61
Categorical Variable Conversion for Ssatisfaction
TZ: Total Z Score
Class Interval 4.6 2 2.2 5.8
Approximately
Categorisation & Values of Each Level
Coding
Very Low-1 From From From From
-6.85 -3.01 -3.32 -8.71
To To To To
-11.50 -5.10 -5.50 -14.50
Low-2 From From From From
-2.24 -1.01 -1.11 -2.91
To To To To
-6.84 -3.0 -3.31 -8.70
Moderate-3 From -2.23 From -1.0 From -1.10 From -2.90
To To To To
2.23 1.0 1.10 2.90
High-4 From From From From

2.24 -1.01 1.11 2.91
To To To To
6.84 -3.0 3.31 8.70
Very High-5 From From From From
6.85 -3.01 3.32 -8.71
To To To To
11.50 -5.10 5.50 -14.50
Problem Level: Hence, satisfaction level is divided into following 5 categories on
the basis of Z scores; and converted sting variable into categorical variable again.
149
7.8.2) Consumers/Policy Holders: Descriptive Analysis:
Descriptive statistics are used to describe and discuss characteristics of a data. It has
significant amount of quantitative or qualitative data. Mean is to measure central
tendency which is the average value of a data set whereas standard deviation is to
measure dispersion of the studied sample in which it is the average difference between
observed values and the mean.
(Table 7.62)- Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Satisfaction Level 2.9487 1.03915 195
Product 3.0154 .84632 195
Price 3.0051 1.08170 195
Service Delivery 3.0154 1.04771 195
7.8.3) Consumers/ Policy Holders: Correlation analysis

Correlation analysis has been performed to study the correlation between independent
variables- Service Delivery, Price, Product and the dependent variable- Satisfaction
Level
(Table 7.63) Correlations Matrix
Correlations
Satisfaction Service
Level Product Price Delivery
Pearson Satisfaction Level 1.000 .763 .601 .451
Correlation Product .763 1.000 .383 .069
Price .601 .383 1.000 .055
Service Delivery .451 .069 .055 1.000
Sig. (1- Satisfaction Level . .000 .000 .000
tailed) Product .000 . .000 .167
Price .000 .000 . .225
Service Delivery .000 .167 .225 .
N Satisfaction Level 195 195 195 195
Product 195 195 195 195
Price 195 195 195 195
Service Delivery 195 195 195 195
150
Interpretation
The correlations matrix presented in above table shows that-
There is a positive (0.763) and significant correlation at the 0.000 level, which
is lower than the 0.05 confidence level for the study, between independent
variable- Product and Satisfaction Level
variable- Price and Satisfaction Level.
There is a positive (0.451) and significant correlation at the 0.000 level between
independent variable- Service Delivery and Satisfaction Level.
7.8.4) Policy Holders: Multiple Linear Regression Analysis: Impact of

Service Delivery, Price, Product (Independent Variables) on Dependent
Variable: Satisfaction Level
Alternate Hypothesis-1 (H1): There is positive and significant impact of Product

on the Satisfaction Level.
Null Hypothesis-1 (H0): There is no positive and significant impact of Product

on the Satisfaction Level.
Alternate Hypothesis-2 (H1): There is positive and significant impact of Price on

the Satisfaction Level.
Null Hypothesis-2 (H0): There is no positive and significant impact of Price on

the Satisfaction Level.
Alternate Hypothesis-3 (H1): There is positive and significant impact of Service

Delivery on the Satisfaction Level.
Null Hypothesis-3 (H0): There is no positive and significant impact of Service

Delivery on the Satisfaction Level
Multiple linear regressions provide equation of best fit, in the least square sense,
between a dependent variable and two or more independent variables. The value of
multiple correlation coefficients (R) lies between 0 and 1. The higher is the value of
multiple correlation coefficients (R) the better is the fit of regression equation. It
shows a substantial correlation between dependent variable and the independent
variables.
151
R SQUARE: The Square of multiple correlation coefficients is termed as coefficient
of multiple determinations (R2) which describes the percentage of variation in the
dependent variable explained by the independent variables.
(Table 7.64): Model Summary
Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Std.
Adjusted Error of R
R R the Square F Sig. F Durbin-
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change Watson
1 .919 a .845 .842 .41267 .845346.381 3 191 .000 1.884
a. Predictors: (Constant), Service Delivery, Price, Product
b. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction Level
Findings: In model, the proportion of explained variance as measured by R-

SQUARE was (R2=.845) which indicates that about 84.5% of the variance in
Satisfaction Level is explained by the - Service Delivery, Price and Product
(independent variables). Based on the results, it seems model for impact of
independent variables has worked realistically well in explaining the variation in
Satisfaction Level
(Table 7.65): Coefficients
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations Statistics
Std. Zero-
Model B Error Beta t Sig. order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -1.454 .141 - .000
10.289
Product .739 .038 .60219.482 .000 .763 .816 .555 .851 1.175
Price .336 .030 .34911.311 .000 .601 .633 .323 .853 1.173
Service .386 .028 .39013.626 .000 .451 .702 .389 .994 1.006
Delivery
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfaction Level
152
Findings: Regression coefficients values
• Product: From the above table we can see that in case of Product, the value of
standardised (Beta) coefficients is .602, it means that one-unit positive change in
it, while holding other variables constant, would result in the increase of
dependent variable ‘Satisfaction Level’ by .602 units. Hence, it can be concluded
that as the value of coefficient is significant, thus, Product has positive and
significant relationship with dependent variable So, we can say that Alternate
Hypothesis (H1) -1 is accepted and Null Hypothesis (H0) -1 is rejected.
• Price: From the above table we can see that in case of Price, the value of
standardised (Beta) coefficients is .349, it means that one-unit positive change in
it, while holding other variables constant, would result in the increase of
dependent variable ‘Satisfaction Level’ by .349 units. Hence, it can be concluded
that as the value of coefficient is significant, thus, Price has positive and
significant relationship with dependent variable So, we can say that Alternate
Hypothesis (H1) -2 is accepted and Null Hypothesis (H0) -2 is rejected.
• Service Delivery: From the above table we can see that in case of Service
Delivery, the value of standardised (Beta) is .390, it means that one-unit positive
change in it, while holding other variables constant, would result in the increase
of dependent variable ‘Satisfaction Level’ by .390 units. Hence, it can be
concluded that as the value of coefficient is significant, thus, Service Delivery has
positive and significant relationship with dependent variable So, we can say that
Alternate Hypothesis (H1) -3 is accepted and Null Hypothesis (H0) -3 is
rejected.
Conclusion:
Hence, it can be concluded that, Product has the highest positive and significant
impact on Satisfaction Level; Service Delivery has the second highest followed by
Price, have positive and significant impact on Satisfaction Level.
7.8.5) Policy Holders: Chi-Square Analysis

Null Hypothesis-1: There is no association between Age and variable- * Satisfaction
Level
153
(Table 7.66) - Crosstab: Age * Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
Low Low Moderate High High Total
Age 21 years to 30 Count 3 14 10 9 1 37
years
% within 8.1% 37.8% 27.0% 24.3% 2.7% 100.0%
% Of Total 1.5% 7.2% 5.1% 4.6% 0.5% 19.0%
31 years to 40 Count 6 8 16 8 1 39
years
% within 15.4% 20.5% 41.0% 20.5% 2.6% 100.0%
% of Total 3.1% 4.1% 8.2% 4.1% 0.5% 20.0%
41 years to 50 Count 3 14 21 14 5 57
years
% within 5.3% 24.6% 36.8% 24.6% 8.8% 100.0%
% of Total 1.5% 7.2% 10.8% 7.2% 2.6% 29.2%
51 years to 60 Count 4 14 22 17 5 62
years
% within 6.5% 22.6% 35.5% 27.4% 8.1% 100.0%
% of Total 2.1% 7.2% 11.3% 8.7% 2.6% 31.8%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
Interpretation:
21 years to 30 years: Out of 37 respondents, 2.7% respondents reported very
high level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services, 24.3%
respondents reported high level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health
Insurance Services, 27.0% respondents reported moderate level satisfaction with
Service Quality of Health Insurance Services, 37.8% respondents reported low
level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services and 8.1%
respondents reported very low level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health
Insurance Services.

154
Insurance Services.

Insurance Services.

Insurance Services.
(Table 7.67) - Chi-Square Tests
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Value Df Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.200a 12 .598
Likelihood Ratio 9.936 12 .622
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.628 1 .057
N of Valid Cases 195
a. 7 cells (35.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
2.28.
Interpretation & Findings: From the table it was found that asymptotic significance
for Pearson Chi Square comes out to be more than 0.05, so we accept null hypothesis
155
at 5% level of significance. Hence it can be concluded that two variables are not
associated.
(Bar Chart 7.55): Chi Square Test- Age
Null Hypothesis-2: There is no association between Gender and variable- *

Satisfaction Level
(Table 7.68) - Crosstab: Gender * Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
% within 8.3% 26.6% 34.9% 24.8% 5.5% 100.0%
% of Total 4.6% 14.9% 19.5% 13.8% 3.1% 55.9%
Female Count 7 21 31 21 6 86
% within 8.1% 24.4% 36.0% 24.4% 7.0% 100.0%
% of Total 3.6% 10.8% 15.9% 10.8% 3.1% 44.1%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
156
Interpretation:
Male: Out of 109 respondents, 5.5% respondents reported very high level
satisfaction with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services, 24.8%
Insurance Services.
Female: Out of 86 respondents, 7.0% respondents reported very high level

Insurance Services.
(Table 7.69)- Chi-Square Tests
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Value df Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .281a 4 .991
Likelihood Ratio .280 4 .991
Linear-by-Linear Association .112 1 .738
5.29.
associated.
157
(Bar Chart 7.56)
Null Hypothesis-3: There is no association between Educational Qualification and

variable- * Satisfaction Level
(Table 7.70) - Crosstab: Educational Qualification * Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
Educational Higher Count 1 3 4 6 1 15
Qualification Secondary
% within 6.7% 20.0% 26.7% 40.0% 6.7% 100.0%
% of Total 0.5% 1.5% 2.1% 3.1% 0.5% 7.7%
Graduation/Post- Count 9 33 43 27 5 117
Graduation
% within 7.7% 28.2% 36.8% 23.1% 4.3% 100.0%
% of Total 4.6% 16.9% 22.1% 13.8% 2.6% 60.0%
PhD Count 4 10 13 10 5 42
% within 9.5% 23.8% 31.0% 23.8% 11.9% 100.0%
% of Total 2.1% 5.1% 6.7% 5.1% 2.6% 21.5%
Other Count 2 4 9 5 1 21
% within 9.5% 19.0% 42.9% 23.8% 4.8% 100.0%
% of Total 1.0% 2.1% 4.6% 2.6% 0.5% 10.8%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
158
Interpretation:
Higher Secondary: Out of 15 respondents, 6.7% respondents reported very high
level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services, 40.0%
Insurance Services.
Graduation/Post-Graduation: Out of 117 respondents, 4.3% respondents

reported very high level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health Insurance
Services, 23.1% respondents reported high level satisfaction with Service
Quality of Health Insurance Services, 36.8% respondents reported moderate
respondents reported low level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health
Insurance Services and 7.7% respondents reported very low level satisfaction
with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services.
PhD: Out of 42 respondents, 11.9% respondents reported very high level

Insurance Services.
Other: Out of 37 respondents, 4.8% respondents reported very high level

Insurance Services.
159
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
.92.
associated.
(Bar Chart 7.57)
Null Hypothesis-4: There is no association between Occupation and variable- *

Satisfaction Level
160
(Table 7.72) - Crosstab: Occupation * Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
Occupation Government Count 0 10 11 15 5 41
Employee
% within 0.0% 24.4% 26.8% 36.6% 12.2% 100.0%
% of Total 0.0% 5.1% 5.6% 7.7% 2.6% 21.0%
Business Count 6 13 19 14 2 54
% within 11.1% 24.1% 35.2% 25.9% 3.7% 100.0%
% of Total 3.1% 6.7% 9.7% 7.2% 1.0% 27.7%
Home Count 8 22 30 14 4 78
Maker
% within 10.3% 28.2% 38.5% 17.9% 5.1% 100.0%
% of Total 4.1% 11.3% 15.4% 7.2% 2.1% 40.0%
Private Count 2 5 9 5 1 22
Employee
% within 9.1% 22.7% 40.9% 22.7% 4.5% 100.0%
% of Total 1.0% 2.6% 4.6% 2.6% 0.5% 11.3%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Government Employee: Out of 41 respondents, 12.2% respondents reported
very high level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services,
26.8% respondents reported high level satisfaction with Service Quality of
Health Insurance Services, 26.7% respondents reported moderate level
Business: Out of 54 respondents, 3.7% respondents reported very high level

161
Insurance Services.
Home Maker: Out of 78 respondents, 5.1% respondents reported very high level
Insurance Services.
Private Employee: Out of 22 respondents, 4.5% respondents reported very high

Insurance Services.
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
1.35.
162
associated.
(Bar Chart 7.58)
Null Hypothesis-5: There is no association between Locality and variable- *

Satisfaction Level.
(Table 7.74)- Crosstab: Locality * Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Total
Locality Urban Count 14 46 64 43 11 178
% within 7.9% 25.8% 36.0% 24.2% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 7.2% 23.6% 32.8% 22.1% 5.6% 91.3%
Rural Count 2 4 5 5 1 17
% within 11.8% 23.5% 29.4% 29.4% 5.9% 100.0%
% of Total 1.0% 2.1% 2.6% 2.6% 0.5% 8.7%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%

163
Interpretation:
Urban: Out of 178 respondents, 6.2% respondents reported very high level
Insurance Services.
Rural: Out of 17 respondents, 5.9% respondents reported very high level

Insurance Services.
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
1.05.
associated.
164
(Bar Chart- 7.59)
Null Hypothesis-6: There is no association between Marital Status and variable- *

Satisfaction Level
(Table 7.76)- Crosstab: Marital Status * Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
Marital Single Count 1 13 7 9 1 31
Status
% within 3.2% 41.9% 22.6% 29.0% 3.2% 100.0%
% of Total 0.5% 6.7% 3.6% 4.6% 0.5% 15.9%
Married Count 13 32 58 36 10 149
% within 8.7% 21.5% 38.9% 24.2% 6.7% 100.0%
% of Total 6.7% 16.4% 29.7% 18.5% 5.1% 76.4%
Other Count 2 5 4 3 1 15
% within 13.3% 33.3% 26.7% 20.0% 6.7% 100.0%
% of Total 1.0% 2.6% 2.1% 1.5% 0.5% 7.7%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
165
Interpretation:
Single: Out of 31 respondents, 3.2% respondents reported very high level
Insurance Services.
Married: Out of 149 respondents, 6.7% respondents reported very high level
Insurance Services.
Other: Out of 15 respondents, 6.7% respondents reported very high level

Insurance Services.
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Pearson Chi-Square 9.219 a 8 .324
.92.
166
associated.
(Bar Chart: 7.60)
Null Hypothesis-7: There is no association between Type of Family and variable- *

Satisfaction Level
(Table 7.78)- Crosstab: Type of Family * Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
Type of Nuclear Count 5 24 13 22 5 69
Family Family
% within 7.2% 34.8% 18.8% 31.9% 7.2% 100.0%
% of Total 2.6% 12.3% 6.7% 11.3% 2.6% 35.4%
Joint Count 11 26 56 26 7 126
Family
% within 8.7% 20.6% 44.4% 20.6% 5.6% 100.0%
% of Total 5.6% 13.3% 28.7% 13.3% 3.6% 64.6%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
167
Interpretation:
Nuclear Family: Out of 7.2% respondents, 3.2% respondents reported very high
Insurance Services.
Joint Family: Out of 126 respondents, 5.6% respondents reported very high
Insurance Services.
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
a. 1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.25.
associated.
168
(Bar Chart 7.61)
Null Hypothesis-8: There is no association between Number of dependents in

family and variable- * Satisfaction Level.
(Table 7.80) - Crosstab: Number of dependents in family * Satisfaction

Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
Number of 2 or less Count 5 13 23 16 4 61
dependents than 2
% within 8.2% 21.3% 37.7% 26.2% 6.6% 100.0%
in family
% of Total 2.6% 6.7% 11.8% 8.2% 2.1% 31.3%
More than Count 11 37 46 32 8 134
2
% within 8.2% 27.6% 34.3% 23.9% 6.0% 100.0%
% of Total 5.6% 19.0% 23.6% 16.4% 4.1% 68.7%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
169
Interpretation:
2 or less than 2: Out of 61 respondents, 6.6% respondents reported very high
Insurance Services.
More than 2: Out of 134 respondents, 6.0% respondents reported very high level
Insurance Services.
Chi-Square Tests
3.75.
associated.
170
(Bar Chart 7.62)
Null Hypothesis-9: There is no association between Monthly income and variable- *

Satisfaction Level.
(Table 7.82) - Crosstab: Monthly income * Satisfaction Level

Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very
Very Low Low Moderate High High Total
Monthly Between Rs Count 3 5 0 0 0 8
income 20,001/- to Rs % within 37.5% 62.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
40,000/-
% of Total 1.5% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1%
Between Rs Count 10 28 32 9 0 79
40,001/- to Rs % within 12.7% 35.4% 40.5% 11.4% 0.0% 100.0%
60,000/-
% of Total 5.1% 14.4% 16.4% 4.6% 0.0% 40.5%
60,001/- to Rs % within 8.7% 13.0% 56.5% 21.7% 0.0% 100.0%
80,000/-
% of Total 1.0% 1.5% 6.7% 2.6% 0.0% 11.8%
80,001/- to Rs % within 5.9% 11.8% 47.1% 35.3% 0.0% 100.0%
100,000/-
% of Total 0.5% 1.0% 4.1% 3.1% 0.0% 8.7%
More than Rs Count 0 12 16 28 12 68
100,000/- % within 0.0% 17.6% 23.5% 41.2% 17.6% 100.0%
% of Total 0.0% 6.2% 8.2% 14.4% 6.2% 34.9%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
171
Interpretation:
Between Rs 20,001/- to Rs 40,000/-: Out of 8 respondents, 0.0% respondents
Services, 0.0% respondents reported high level satisfaction with Service Quality
of Health Insurance Services, 0.0% respondents reported moderate level
Between Rs 40,001/- to Rs 60,000/-: Out of 79 respondents, 0.0% respondents

Between Rs 60,001/- to Rs 80,000/--: Out of 23 respondents, 0.0% respondents


172
More than Rs 100,000/---: Out of 68 respondents, 17.6% respondents reported

Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square a
75.679 16 .000
Linear-by-Linear 51.557 1 .000
Association
.49.
for Pearson Chi Square comes out to be less than 0.05, so we reject null hypothesis
at 5% level of significance. Hence it can be concluded that two variables are
associated.
(Bar Chart 7.63)
173
Null Hypothesis-10: There is no association between Annual medical expenses of
the family and variable- * Satisfaction Level.
(Table 7.84) - Crosstab: Annual medical expenses of the family *

Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very
Annual Less than Rs Count 7 14 30 19 2 72
medical 24,000/-
% within 9.7% 19.4% 41.7% 26.4% 2.8% 100.0%
expenses
of the % of Total 3.6% 7.2% 15.4% 9.7% 1.0% 36.9%
family
24,001/- to
% within 7.4% 25.9% 31.5% 31.5% 3.7% 100.0%
Rs 48,000/-
% of Total 2.1% 7.2% 8.7% 8.7% 1.0% 27.7%
72,001/- to
% within 6.9% 24.1% 34.5% 20.7% 13.8% 100.0%
Rs 96,000/-
% of Total 1.0% 3.6% 5.1% 3.1% 2.1% 14.9%
More than Count 3 15 12 6 4 40
Rs 96,000/-
% within 7.5% 37.5% 30.0% 15.0% 10.0% 100.0%
% of Total 1.5% 7.7% 6.2% 3.1% 2.1% 20.5%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Less than Rs 24,000/--: Out of 72 respondents, 2.8% respondents reported very
Insurance Services.
174

More than Rs 96,000/--: Out of 40 respondents, 10.0% respondents reported

Chi-Square Tests
1.78.
175
associated.
(Bar Chart: 7.64)
Null Hypothesis-11: There is no association between Type of health insurance

cover and variable- * Satisfaction Level.
(Table 7.86) - Crosstab: Type of health insurance cover *Satisfaction Level

Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very
What Individual Health Count 1 16 28 16 5 66
type of Insurance Plans % within 1.5% 24.2% 42.4% 24.2% 7.6% 100.0%
health % of Total 0.5% 8.2% 14.4% 8.2% 2.6% 33.8%
insurance
Family Health Count 10 16 19 20 3 68
cover do
Insurance Plans % within 14.7% 23.5% 27.9% 29.4% 4.4% 100.0%
you have
% of Total 5.1% 8.2% 9.7% 10.3% 1.5% 34.9%
Group Health Count 0 11 12 6 2 31
% of Total 0.0% 5.6% 6.2% 3.1% 1.0% 15.9%
Critical Illness Count 5 7 10 6 2 30
% of Total 2.6% 3.6% 5.1% 3.1% 1.0% 15.4%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
176
Interpretation:
Individual Health Insurance Plans: Out of 66 respondents, 7.6% respondents
Family Health Insurance Plans: Out of 68 respondents, 4.4% respondents

Group Health Insurance Plans: Out of 31 respondents, 6.5% respondents

Critical Illness Insurance Plans: Out of 30 respondents, 6.7% respondents

177
Chi-Square Tests
a. 6 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.85.
associated.
(Bar Chart: 7.65)
Null Hypothesis-12: There is no association between Health Status and variable- *

Satisfaction Level.
178
(Table 7.88) - Crosstab: Health Status *Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
Health Poor (If suffering Count 6 16 25 12 3 62
Status from 2 or more
% within 9.7% 25.8% 40.3% 19.4% 4.8% 100.0%
chronic diseases)
% of Total 3.1% 8.2% 12.8% 6.2% 1.5% 31.8%
Moderate (If suffering Count 8 25 29 27 5 94
from 1 such disease)
% within 8.5% 26.6% 30.9% 28.7% 5.3% 100.0%
% of Total 4.1% 12.8% 14.9% 13.8% 2.6% 48.2%
Good (If not suffering Count 2 9 15 9 4 39
from any chronic
% within 5.1% 23.1% 38.5% 23.1% 10.3% 100.0%
diseases)
% of Total 1.0% 4.6% 7.7% 4.6% 2.1% 20.0%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Poor (If suffering from 2 or more chronic diseases): Out of 62 respondents,
4.8% respondents reported very high level satisfaction with Service Quality of
Health Insurance Services, 19.4% respondents reported high level satisfaction
with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services, 40.3% respondents reported
moderate level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services,
25.8% respondents reported low level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health
Moderate (If suffering from 1 such disease): Out of 94 respondents, 5.3%

respondents reported very high level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health
Insurance Services, 28.7% respondents reported high level satisfaction with
Service Quality of Health Insurance Services, 30.9% respondents reported
179
Good (If not suffering from any chronic diseases): Out of 39 respondents,
10.3% respondents reported very high level satisfaction with Service Quality of
Health Insurance Services, 23.1% respondents reported high level satisfaction
with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services, 38.5% respondents reported
Chi-Square Tests
Linear-by-Linear 1.549 1 .213
Association
2.40.
associated.
(Bar Chart: 7.66)
180
Null Hypothesis-13: There is no association between I took health insurance under
Government Scheme and variable- * Satisfaction Level.
(Table 7.90) - Crosstab: I took health insurance under Government Scheme:

* Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
I took health Yes Count 14 32 41 28 7 122
insurance under
% within 11.5% 26.2% 33.6% 23.0% 5.7% 100.0%
Government
Scheme: % of Total 7.2% 16.4% 21.0% 14.4% 3.6% 62.6%
No Count 2 18 28 20 5 73
% within 2.7% 24.7% 38.4% 27.4% 6.8% 100.0%
% of Total 1.0% 9.2% 14.4% 10.3% 2.6% 37.4%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Yes (I took health insurance under Government Scheme: Out of 122
respondents, 5.7% respondents reported very high level satisfaction with Service
Quality of Health Insurance Services, 23.0% respondents reported high level
respondents reported moderate level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health
Insurance Services, 26.2% respondents reported low level satisfaction with
Service Quality of Health Insurance Services and 11.5% respondents reported
very low level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services.
No (I took health insurance under Government Scheme): Out of 73

respondents, 6.8% respondents reported very high level satisfaction with Service
Quality of Health Insurance Services, 27.4% respondents reported high level
respondents reported moderate level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health
Insurance Services, 24.7% respondents reported low level satisfaction with
181
Service Quality of Health Insurance Services and 2.7% respondents reported very
low level satisfaction with Service Quality of Health Insurance Services.
Chi-Square Tests
4.49.
associated.
(Bar Chart: 7.67)
Null Hypothesis-14: There is no association between Insurance provider and

variable- * Satisfaction Level.
182
(Table 7.92)- Crosstab: Insurance provider * Satisfaction Level
Crosstab
Satisfaction Level
Very Very
Insurance Government Count 11 28 32 19 3 93
provider Company % within 11.8% 30.1% 34.4% 20.4% 3.2% 100.0%
% of Total 5.6% 14.4% 16.4% 9.7% 1.5% 47.7%
Private Count 2 13 22 12 4 53
Company % within 3.8% 24.5% 41.5% 22.6% 7.5% 100.0%
% of Total 1.0% 6.7% 11.3% 6.2% 2.1% 27.2%
Both Count 3 9 15 17 5 49
% within 6.1% 18.4% 30.6% 34.7% 10.2% 100.0%
% of Total 1.5% 4.6% 7.7% 8.7% 2.6% 25.1%
Total Count 16 50 69 48 12 195
% within 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
% of Total 8.2% 25.6% 35.4% 24.6% 6.2% 100.0%
Interpretation:
Insurance provider Government Company): Out of 93 respondents, 3.2%
Insurance provider (Private Company): Out of 53 respondents, 7.5%

183
Insurance provider (Both): Out of 49 respondents, 10.2% respondents reported
Chi-Square Tests
3.02.
associated.
(Bar Chart: 7.68)
184
(III) INSURANCE SERVICE PROVIDERS
7.9) Data Analysis
7.9.1) Normalcy Analysis
(Table 7.94)- Tests of Normality
Tests of Normality: Company Executive

Kolmogorov-
Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Age .236 100 .000 .819 100 .000
Designation .279 100 .000 .780 100 .000
Type of Company .491 100 .000 .490 100 .000
Name of the Companies .134 100 .000 .885 100 .000
Individual Health Insurance Plans . 100 . . 100 .
Family Health Insurance Plans . 100 . . 100 .
Group Health Insurance Plans . 100 . . 100 .
Critical Illness Insurance Plans . 100 . . 100 .
Maternity Health Insurance Plans .376 100 .000 .629 100 .000
Senior Citizen Health Insurance Plans .361 100 .000 .634 100 .000
Coronavirus Health Insurance Plans .345 100 .000 .636 100 .000
Unit Linked Health Insurance Plans .486 100 .000 .500 100 .000
Consumers covered by current Health Insurance .199 100 .000 .907 100 .000
Policy are
Health Insurance Coverage in India is .225 100 .000 .870 100 .000
Unawareness of Health Insurance Services .278 100 .000 .794 100 .000
Unawareness of Health Insurance Services in .345 100 .000 .636 100 .000
Rural areas
Consumers feel Health Insurance is not required .201 100 .000 .883 100 .000
Inadequate Network Coverage of Hospital .322 100 .000 .744 100 .000
Inadequate Coverage of Diseases .255 100 .000 .779 100 .000
Inadequate number of claims allowed per year .211 100 .000 .884 100 .000
Inadequate number of Health specialists/doctors .204 100 .000 .869 100 .000
Inadequate number of Diagnostic Centre .207 100 .000 .856 100 .000
185
Poor Customer Service and follow ups .254 100 .000 .840 100 .000
Complicated Claim Refund Process .236 100 .000 .881 100 .000
Ineffective Complain Addressable System .232 100 .000 .870 100 .000
Non-flexibility of the insurance policy .194 100 .000 .879 100 .000
High Premium .151 100 .000 .908 100 .000
Coverage Amount is less .278 100 .000 .794 100 .000
Hidden costs are there .241 100 .000 .858 100 .000
Low salary /non-availability of funds on the part .223 100 .000 .807 100 .000
of consumers
Health Insurance Services do not have value for .265 100 .000 .845 100 .000
money
Cashless Health Insurance Policies are costlier .268 100 .000 .787 100 .000
Complex and hectic Documentation process .224 100 .000 .871 100 .000
Difficult claim settlement process .271 100 .000 .860 100 .000
Employees educate consumers about health .154 100 .000 .893 100 .000
insurance services
Employees make consumers to understand the .274 100 .000 .823 100 .000
rules, regulations & policies of the company
Print media .318 100 .000 .742 100 .000
Electronic Media .232 100 .000 .808 100 .000
Social Media .318 100 .000 .742 100 .000
Agents .216 100 .000 .808 100 .000
Online Marketing etc. .412 100 .000 .607 100 .000
Adding Modern Channels of distribution .222 100 .000 .897 100 .000
Expansion of Market in the Rural Areas .282 100 .000 .849 100 .000
Pool of professionals and consumers .254 100 .000 .884 100 .000
Value addition to the services .252 100 .000 .856 100 .000
Rashtriya Swasthiya Bima Yojana (RSBY) .295 100 .000 .770 100 .000
Employment State Insurance Scheme (ESIS) .226 100 .000 .876 100 .000
Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) .214 100 .000 .872 100 .000
Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana (AABY) .345 100 .000 .719 100 .000
Janashree Bima Yojana (JBY) .208 100 .000 .873 100 .000
Universal Health Insurance Scheme (UHIS) .258 100 .000 .855 100 .000
186
Interpretation
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is used. In our case, since we have only 100 elements,
the Shapiro-Wilk test is used. The p-value is significant. We can conclude that
the data comes from a non-normal distribution.
7.9.2) Descriptive Statistics: Insurance Company Executive
(Table 7.95)-Descriptive Statistics: Insurance Company Executive

Descriptive Statistics: Insurance Company Executive
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Variance
Age 100 1 4 1.92 .939 .882
Designation 100 1 3 2.27 .737 .543
Type of Company 100 1 2 1.80 .402 .162
Name of the Companies 100 1 10 5.52 3.344 11.181
Individual Health Insurance Plans 100 1 1 1.00 .000 .000
Family Health Insurance Plans 100 1 1 1.00 .000 .000
Group Health Insurance Plans 100 1 1 1.00 .000 .000
Critical Illness Insurance Plans 100 1 1 1.00 .000 .000
Maternity Health Insurance Plans 100 0 1 .43 .498 .248
Senior Citizen Health Insurance Plans 100 0 1 .54 .501 .251
Coronavirus Health Insurance Plans 100 0 1 .51 .502 .252
Unit Linked Health Insurance Plans 100 0 1 .21 .409 .168
Consumers covered by current Health 100 1 5 2.77 1.205 1.452
Insurance Policy are
Health Insurance Coverage in India is 100 1 4 2.59 1.026 1.052
Unawareness of Health Insurance 100 3 5 4.15 .672 .452
Services
Unawareness of Health Insurance 100 4 5 4.51 .502 .252
Services in Rural areas
Consumers feel Health Insurance is not 100 1 5 3.27 1.384 1.916
required
Inadequate Network Coverage of 100 3 5 4.42 .654 .428
Hospital
Inadequate Coverage of Diseases 100 3 5 3.93 .844 .712
Inadequate number of claims allowed per 100 1 5 3.48 1.251 1.565
year
Inadequate number of Health 100 2 5 3.59 1.045 1.093
specialists/doctors
Inadequate number of Diagnostic Centre 100 2 5 3.75 1.029 1.058
187
Poor Customer Service and follow ups 100 1 5 2.62 1.462 2.137
Complicated Claim Refund Process 100 1 5 2.82 1.298 1.684
Ineffective Complain Addressable 100 1 5 2.59 1.326 1.759
System
Non-flexibility of the insurance policy 100 1 5 3.43 1.343 1.803
High Premium 100 1 5 3.06 1.286 1.653
Coverage Amount is less 100 3 5 4.15 .672 .452
Hidden costs are there 100 1 5 2.35 1.242 1.543
Low salary /non-availability of funds on 100 3 5 3.92 .748 .559
the part of consumers
Health Insurance Services do not have 100 1 5 2.11 .973 .947
value for money
Cashless Health Insurance Policies are 100 3 5 4.22 .760 .577
costlier
Complex and hectic Documentation 100 1 5 3.47 1.337 1.787
process
Difficult claim settlement process 100 1 5 3.73 .874 .765
Employees educate consumers about 100 1 5 2.71 1.328 1.764
health insurance services
Employees make consumers to 100 1 5 2.06 1.003 1.006
understand the rules, regulations &
policies of the company
Print media 100 3 5 4.34 .590 .348
Electronic Media 100 3 5 4.06 .736 .542
Social Media 100 3 5 4.34 .590 .348
Agents 100 3 5 4.05 .757 .573
Online Marketing etc. 100 4 5 4.36 .482 .233
Adding Modern Channels of distribution 100 1 5 2.89 1.145 1.311
Expansion of Market in the Rural Areas 100 1 4 2.13 .837 .700
Pool of professionals and consumers 100 1 5 3.58 .934 .872
Value addition to the services 100 2 5 3.60 .804 .646
Rashtriya Swasthiya Bima Yojana 100 3 5 4.27 .633 .401
(RSBY)
Employment State Insurance Scheme 100 2 5 3.57 .902 .813
(ESIS)
Central Government Health Scheme 100 2 5 3.74 .895 .800
(CGHS)
Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana (AABY) 100 3 5 4.35 .557 .311
Janashree Bima Yojana (JBY) 100 2 5 3.70 .916 .838
Universal Health Insurance Scheme 100 2 5 3.88 .820 .672
(UHIS)
188
7.9.3) Demographic Profile of the Respondents: Insurance Company
Executives
(Table 7.96)-Age: Insurance Company Executives
Age
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent
31 years to 40 years 36 36.0 36.0 76.0
41 years to 50 years 16 16.0 16.0 92.0
51 years to 60 years 8 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
(Histogram 7.69)- Age
(Table 7.97)-Designation: Insurance Company Executives
Designation
Valid Cumulative
Valid Higher Level Executive 17 17.0 17.0 17.0
Middle Level Executive 39 39.0 39.0 56.0
Lower-Level Executive 44 44.0 44.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
189
of total 100 respondents, 17.0% respondents were high level executive, 39.0%
respondents were middle level executive and 44.0% respondents were low level
executive.
(Histogram 7.70)- Designation
(Table 7.98) -Type of company: Insurance Company Executives
Type of Company
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Government Company 20 20.0 20.0 20.0
Private Company 80 80.0 80.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

of total 100 respondents, 20.0% respondents were from government company and
80.0% respondents were from private company.
190
(Histogram 7.71)
(Table 7.99)-Name of the Companies: Insurance Company Executives
Name of the Companies

Valid Cumulative
Valid Bajaj Allianz Health Insurance 18 18.0 18.0 18.0
Care Health Insurance 10 10.0 10.0 28.0
(Religare)
Cholamandalam Health 7 7.0 7.0 35.0
Insurance
Edelweiss Health Insurance 6 6.0 6.0 41.0
HDFC ERGO Health 8 8.0 8.0 49.0
Insurance
Max Bupa Health Insurance 11 11.0 11.0 60.0
National Health Insurance 5 5.0 5.0 65.0
New India Assurance Health 7 7.0 7.0 72.0
Insurance
Oriental Health Insurance 8 8.0 8.0 80.0
Tata AIG Health Insurance 20 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
191
of total 100 respondents, 18.0% respondents were from Bajaj Allianz Health
Insurance company 10.0 % respondents were from Care Health Insurance (Religare)
company, 7.0 % respondents were from Cholamandalam Health Insurance company,
6.0 % respondents were from Edelweiss Health Insurance company, 8.0%
respondents were from HDFC ERGO Health Insurance company, 11.0% respondents
were from Max Bupa Health Insurance company, 5.0% respondents were from
National Health Insurance, 7.0% respondents were from New India Assurance Health
company,8.0% respondents were from Oriental Health Insurance company, and
20.0% respondents were from Tata AIG Health Insurance company.
(Histogram 7.72) - Name of the companies
(Table 7.100) - Individual Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company

Executives
Individual Health Insurance Plans

Cumulative
Valid Yes 100 100.0 100.0 100.0
of total 100 respondents, 100.0% respondents offered Individual Health Insurance
Plans.
192
(Histogram 7.73) - Individual Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company
Executives
(Table 7.101)- Family Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company

Executives
Family Health Insurance Plans

Cumulative
Valid Yes 100 100.0 100.0 100.0
of total 100 respondents, 100.0% respondents offered Family Health Insurance Plans
(Histogram 7.74) - Family Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company

Executives
193
(Table 7.102)- Group Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company Executives
Group Health Insurance Plans

Cumulative
Valid Yes 100 100.0 100.0 100.0
of total 100 respondents, 100.0% respondents offered Group Health Insurance Plans.
(Histogram 7.75) - Group Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company

Executives
(Table 7.103)- Critical Illness Insurance Plans: Insurance Company

Executives
Critical Illness Insurance Plans

Cumulative
Valid Yes 100 100.0 100.0 100.0
of total 100 respondents, 100.0% respondents offered Critical Illness Insurance Plans.
194
(Histogram 7.76) - Critical Illness Insurance Plans: Insurance Company
Executives
(Table 7.104) - Maternity Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company

Executives
Maternity Health Insurance Plans
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent
Frequency Percent
Valid No 57 57.0 57.0 57.0
Yes 43 43.0 43.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

of total 100 respondents, 57.0% respondents said yes that they offered Maternity
Health Insurance Plans and 43.0% respondents said no that they don’t offered
Maternity Health Insurance Plans.
195
(Histogram 7.77)- Maternity Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company
Executives
(Table 7.104) - Senior Citizen Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company

Executives
Senior Citizen Health Insurance Plans
Cumulative
Valid No 46 46.0 46.0 46.0
Yes 54 54.0 54.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

of total 100 respondents, 54.0% respondents said yes that they offered Senior Citizen
Health Insurance Plans and 46.0% respondents said no that they don’t offered Senior
Citizen Health Insurance Plans.
196
(Histogram 7.78) - Senior Citizen Health Insurance Plans: Insurance
Company Executives
(Table 7.105) - Coronavirus Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company

Executives
Coronavirus Health Insurance Plans
Cumulative
Valid No 49 49.0 49.0 49.0
Yes 51 51.0 51.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

of total 100 respondents, 51.0% respondents said yes that they offered Coronavirus
Health Insurance Plans and 49.0% respondents said no that they don’t offered
Coronavirus Health Insurance Plans.
197
(Histogram 7.79) - Coronavirus Health Insurance Plans: Insurance
Company Executives
(Table 7.106) - Unit Linked Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company

Executives
Unit Linked Health Insurance Plans
Cumulative
Percent
Valid No 79 79.0 79.0 79.0
Yes 21 21.0 21.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

of total 100 respondents, 21.0% respondents said yes that they offered Unit Linked
Health Insurance Plans and 79.0% respondents said no that they don’t offered Unit
Linked Health Insurance Plans.
198
(Histogram 7.80) - Unit Linked Health Insurance Plans: Insurance Company
Executives
(Table 7.107)- Consumers covered by current Health Insurance Policy:

Insurance Company Executives
Consumers covered by current Health Insurance Policy are

Valid Cumulative
Valid Very Poorly Covered 16 16.0 16.0 16.0
Poorly covered 30 30.0 30.0 46.0
Moderately Covered 23 23.0 23.0 69.0
Well-covered 23 23.0 23.0 92.0
Very well-covered 8 8.0 8.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
of total 100 respondents, 16.0% respondents said that Consumers covered by current
Health Insurance Policy are Very Poorly Covered, 30.0% respondents said that
Consumers covered by current Health Insurance Policy are Poorly covered, 23.0%
respondents said that Consumers covered by current Health Insurance Policy are
Moderately Covered, 23.0% respondents said that Consumers covered by current
199
Health Insurance Policy are Well-covered and 8.0% respondents said that Consumers
covered by current Health Insurance Policy are Very well-covered.
(Histogram 7.81) – Policy Holders covered by current Health Insurance

Policy: Insurance Company Executives
(Table 7.108) - Health Insurance Coverage in India: Insurance Company

Executives
Health Insurance Coverage in India is

Cumulative
Valid Very Low 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
Low 24 24.0 24.0 43.0
Moderate 36 36.0 36.0 79.0
High 21 21.0 21.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
of total 100 respondents, 21.0% respondents said that Health Insurance Coverage in
India is High, 36.0% respondents said that Health Insurance Coverage in India is
moderate, 24.0% respondents said that Health Insurance Coverage in India is low and
19.0% respondents said that Health Insurance Coverage in India is very low.
200
(Histogram 7.82) - Health Insurance Coverage in India: Health Insurance
Service Providers
7.10) Factor Analysis

a) Identifying Most Important Challenges faced by Insurance Company
Executive regarding the Health Insurance Service Quality
Factor Analysis was performed to determine the Most Important Challenges faced by
Health Insurance Service Providers regarding the Health Insurance Service Quality
(Table 7.109)- KMO and Bartlett's Test
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 608.104
Df 231
Sig. .000
Adequacy of the data is tested on the basis of results the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (homogeneity of
Variance) provided in above table. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy is 0.500
which indicates the present data is suitable for factor analysis. Similarly, Bartlett’s test
of sphericity is significant (p < 0.001); that explains existence of sufficient correlation
between variables to proceed with the analysis.
201
Total Variance Explained

1 3.099 14.088 14.088 3.099 14.088 14.088 2.563 11.650 11.650
2 2.322 10.554 24.642 2.322 10.554 24.642 2.071 9.414 21.064
3 1.989 9.041 33.683 1.989 9.041 33.683 1.920 8.725 29.790
4 1.819 8.267 41.950 1.819 8.267 41.950 1.824 8.289 38.079
5 1.460 6.637 48.587 1.460 6.637 48.587 1.546 7.029 45.108
6 1.331 6.051 54.639 1.331 6.051 54.639 1.546 7.026 52.134
7 1.277 5.805 60.444 1.277 5.805 60.444 1.540 6.998 59.132
8 1.114 5.065 65.509 1.114 5.065 65.509 1.403 6.376 65.509
9 .969 4.404 69.913
10 .934 4.243 74.156
11 .846 3.845 78.001
12 .809 3.677 81.678
13 .745 3.386 85.064
14 .706 3.207 88.271
15 .569 2.586 90.857
16 .437 1.987 92.844
17 .407 1.850 94.693
18 .331 1.504 96.198
19 .275 1.252 97.450
20 .240 1.089 98.538
21 .205 .931 99.469
22 .117 .531 100.000
variance, factor 2 explained 10.554% of total variance, factor 3 explained
9.041% of total variance, factor 4 explained 8.267 % of total variance, factor 5
explained 6.637% of total variance, factor 6 explained 6.051% of total variance,
202
factor 7 explained 5.805% of total variance and factor 8 explained 5.065% of
total variance that can be extracted. As evident from the above table (Total
Variations Explained) it was found that from the total 8 components (Most Important
Challenges faced by Health Insurance Service Providers regarding the Health
Insurance Service Quality), 1st factor is most important and can be extracted.
(Scree Plot 7.83)
Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Low salary /non-availability .809 .014 -.029 .147 .147 -.070 .131 .171
of funds on the part of
consumers
Unawareness of Health .745 .108 .192 -.046 .346 .126 .271 .068
Insurance Services
Coverage Amount is less .727 .135 -.130 .060 -.238 -.087 -.128 -.184
Employees educate -.584 .239 -.074 .203 .033 -.197 .228 -.242
consumers about health
insurance services
Difficult claim settlement .021 .847 .081 .003 .038 .117 .153 -.103
process
203
Inadequate number of -.018 .760 .070 .023 .263 .102 .085 .202
claims allowed per year
Consumers feel Health -.170 -.570 .118 .237 .067 .110 .137 .284
Insurance is not required
Employees make consumers -.060 .374 .083 .202 -.254 .175 .345 .297
to understand the rules,
regulations & policies
of the company
Hidden costs are there .130 .143 .723 -.129 .101 -.072 .275 .040
Ineffective Complain -.259 -.163 .720 -.046 -.116 .329 .072 -.060
Addressable System
Inadequate Coverage of .143 .174 .566 .004 .104 .038 -.327 .304
Diseases
Complex and hectic -.045 -.043 .520 .259 .078 -.308 -.114 -.348
Documentation process
Unawareness of Health .016 -.081 .189 .854 -.019 .163 .017 -.010
Insurance Services in Rural
areas
Cashless Health Insurance .085 -.005 -.284 .801 -.039 -.046 -.165 -.107
Policies are costlier
Inadequate Network .280 .055 -.064 -.140 .721 .186 .105 .029
Coverage of Hospital
Inadequate number of -.112 .112 .122 .057 .702 -.149 -.094 -.002
Health specialists/doctors
Poor Customer Service and -.124 .071 .097 .122 -.085 .798 .031 -.039
follow ups
Inadequate number of .328 .166 -.107 -.004 .147 .545 -.129 -.130
Diagnostic Centre
Non-flexibility of the .166 .133 .052 -.081 .106 .041 .820 .094
insurance policy
Health Insurance Services .233 -.018 -.036 .143 .191 .207 -.522 .344
do not have value for
money
Complicated Claim Refund -.127 .084 -.034 .121 -.038 .159 .003 -.728
Process
High Premium -.160 .255 -.187 .350 -.270 -.337 -.052 .386
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
204
Findings: Most Important Challenges faced by Health Insurance Company
Executives regarding the Service Quality
statements (Variables) of most Important Challenges faced by Health Insurance
Service Providers regarding the Health Insurance Service Quality.

1. Low salary /non-availability of funds on the part of consumers
2. Unawareness of Health Insurance Services
3. Coverage Amount is less
4. Employees educate consumers about health insurance services

1. Difficult claim settlement process
2. Inadequate number of claims allowed per year
3. Consumers feel Health Insurance is not required
4. Employees make consumers to understand the rules, regulations &
policies of the company

1. Hidden costs
2. Ineffective Complain Addressable System
3. Inadequate Coverage of Diseases
4. Complex and hectic Documentation process
1. Unawareness of Health Insurance Services in Rural areas
2. Cashless Health Insurance Policies are costlier
1. Inadequate Network Coverage of Hospital
2. Inadequate number of Health specialists/doctors
1. Poor Customer Service and follow ups
2. Inadequate number of Diagnostic Centre
2. Health Insurance Services do not have value for money
205
1. Complicated Claim Refund Process
2. High Premium
7.11) Mann-Whitney U-Test

a) Difference between the perceptions of executives of Private and
Government Company for ‘Product related Challenges faced by Health
Insurance Service Providers regarding the Health Insurance Company
Executives.
(Figure 7. 84) - Mann-Whitney U Test: Type of Company
206
case of 9 variables- (Unawareness of health insurance services in rural areas,
Inadequate network coverage of hospital, Inadequate coverage of diseases, Inadequate
number of claims allowed per year, Inadequate number of health specialists/doctors,
Inadequate number of diagnostic center, Poor customer service and follow ups,
Complicated claim refund process, Non-flexibility of insurance policy) hence, it can
be seen that there is No significant difference between the two groups of Company
(Government & Private). So, it can be concluded that these 9 Null Hypotheses are
accepted. As it was found that the value of asymptotic significance comes out to be
less than 0.05 in case of 3 variables (Unawareness of health insurance services,
Consumers feel health insurance is not required, Ineffective complain addressable
system). So, it can be concluded that these 3 Null Hypotheses are rejected.
b) Difference between the perceptions of executives of Private and

Government Company for ‘Pricing & Cost Effectiveness related Challenges
faced by Health Insurance Service Providers regarding the Health
Insurance Service Quality’.
(Figure 7.85) - Mann-Whitney U Test: Type of Company
207
case of 4 variables- (High premium, Hidden costs, Health insurance services do not
have value for money, Cashless health insurance policies are costlier) hence, it can be
seen that there is No significant difference between the two groups of Company
(Government & Private). So, it can be concluded that these 4 Null Hypotheses
are accepted. As it was found that the value of asymptotic significance comes out to
be less than 0.05 in case of 2 variables (Coverage amount is less, Low salary/non-
availability of funds on the part of consumers). So, it can be concluded that these 2
Null Hypotheses are rejected.
c) Difference between the perceptions of executives of Private and

Government Company for ‘Service Delivery Process Related Challenges
faced by Health Insurance Company Executives regarding the Health
Insurance Service Quality’.
208
case of 2 variables- (Employees educate consumers about health insurance services,
Employees make consumers to understand the rules, regulations & amp; policies of
the company) hence, it can be seen that there is No significant difference between the
two groups of Company (Government & Private). So, it can be concluded that these
2 Null Hypotheses are accepted. As it was found that the value of asymptotic
significance comes out to be less than 0.05 in case of 2 variables (Complex and hectic
documentation process, difficult claim settlement process). So, it can be concluded
that these 2 Null Hypotheses are rejected.
d) Difference between the perceptions of executives of Private and

Government Company for ‘Advertising Challenges of faced by Health
Insurance Company Executives regarding the Health Insurance Service
Quality’.
209
According to the output generated by Statistical software for Mann-Whitney U-test, it
case of 4 variables- (Print media, electronic media, social media, Online marketing
etc.) hence, it can be seen that there is No significant difference between the two
groups of Company (Government & Private). So, it can be concluded that these 4
Null Hypotheses are accepted. As it was found that the value of asymptotic
significance comes out to be less than 0.05 in case of 1 variable (Agents). So, it can be
concluded that this one Null Hypothesis is rejected.
e) Difference between the perceptions of executives of Private and

Government Company for ‘Strategic Challenges faced by Health Insurance
Company Executive regarding the Health Insurance Service Quality’.

210
case of 1 variable- (Adding modern channel of distribution) hence, it can be seen that
there is No significant difference between the two groups of Company (Government
& Private). So, it can be concluded that this 1 Null Hypothesis is accepted. As it
was found that the value of asymptotic significance comes out to be less than 0.05 in
case of 3 variables (Expansion of market in the rural areas, Pool of professionals and
consumers, Value addition). So, it can be concluded that these 3 Null Hypotheses are
rejected.
f) Difference between the perceptions of executives of Private and

Government Company for ‘Government Initiatives for National Health
Insurance regarding the Health Insurance Service Quality’.
Figure 7.89- Mann-Whitney U Test: Type of Company
211
case of 1 variable- (Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana, (AABY)) hence, it can be seen that
there is No significant difference between the two groups of Company (Government
& Private). So, it can be concluded that this 1 Null Hypothesis is accepted. As it
was found that the value of asymptotic significance comes out to be less than 0.05 in
case of 5 variables (Rashtriya Swasthiya Bima Yojana (RSBY), Employment State
Insurance Scheme (ESIS), Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), Janashree
Bima Yojana (JBY), Universal Health Insurance Scheme (UHIS)). So, it can be
concluded that these 5 Null Hypotheses are rejected.
7.12) Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

a) Impact of independent variables- Online Marketing etc., Print media,
Electronic Media, Agents, and social media on the dependent variable-
Health Insurance Coverage in India.
Alternate Hypothesis-1 (H1): There is positive and significant impact of Online

Marketing etc. on the Health Insurance Coverage in India.
Null Hypothesis-1 (H0): There is no positive and significant impact of Online
Marketing etc. on the Health Insurance Coverage in India.
Alternate Hypothesis-2 (H1): There is positive and significant impact of Print
media on the Health Insurance Coverage in India.
Null Hypothesis-2 (H0): There is no positive and significant impact of Print
Alternate Hypothesis-3 (H1): There is positive and significant impact of
Electronic Media on the Health Insurance Coverage in India.
Null Hypothesis-3 (H0): There is no positive and significant impact of Electronic
Media on the Health Insurance Coverage in India.
Alternate Hypothesis-4 (H1): There is positive and significant impact of Agents
on the Health Insurance Coverage in India.
Null Hypothesis-4 (H0): There is no positive and significant impact of Agents on
the Health Insurance Coverage in India.
Alternate Hypothesis-5 (H1): There is positive and significant impact of social
Null Hypothesis-5 (H0): There is no positive and significant impact of social
212
Model Summary
Change Statistics
Std.
Adjusted Error of R
R R the Square F Sig. F
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
1 .211a .045 -.006 1.029 .045 .880 5 94 .498
a. Predictors: (Constant), Online Marketing etc., Print media, Electronic Media,
Agents, social media

SQUARE was (R2=.045) which indicates that about 4.5 % of the variance in Health
Insurance Coverage in India is explained by the Online Marketing etc., Print media,
Electronic Media, Agents, social media has worked realistically well in explaining the
variation in Health Insurance Coverage in India.
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .883 1.245 .710 .480
Print media .242 .234 .139 1.033 .304
Electronic Media .056 .180 .040 .314 .754
Social Media .322 .386 .185 .834 .407
Agents -.013 .184 -.009 -.069 .945
Online Marketing -.210 .432 -.099 -.485 .629
etc.
a. Dependent Variable: Health Insurance Coverage in India

• Print Media: From the above table we can see that in case of Print media, the
value of unstandardized (β) coefficients is 0.242, it means that one-unit positive
change in Print media, while holding other variables constant, would result in the
213
increase of dependent variable ‘Health Insurance Coverage in India’ by 0.242
unit. Hence, it can be concluded that as the value of coefficient is insignificant,
thus, Print Media has Positive and insignificant relationship with dependent
variable. So, we can say that Alternate Hypothesis (H1) -1 is rejected and Null
Hypothesis (H0) -1 is accepted.
• Electronic Media: From the above table we can see that in case of Electronic
Media, the value of unstandardized (β) coefficients is 0.180, it means that one-
unit positive change in Electronic Media, while holding other variables constant,
would result in the increase of dependent variable ‘Health Insurance Coverage
in India’ by 0.180 unit. Hence, it can be concluded that as the value of coefficient
is insignificant, thus, Electronic Media has Positive and insignificant
relationship with dependent variable. So, we can say that Alternate Hypothesis
(H1) -2 is rejected and Null Hypothesis (H0) -2 is accepted.
• Social Media: From the above table we can see that in case of social media, the
value of unstandardized (β) coefficients is 0.386, it means that one-unit positive
change in Print media, while holding other variables constant, would result in the
increase of dependent variable ‘Health Insurance Coverage in India’ by 0.386
unit. Hence, it can be concluded that as the value of coefficient is insignificant,
thus, Print Media has Positive and insignificant relationship with dependent
variable. So, we can say that Alternate Hypothesis (H1) -3 is rejected and Null
Hypothesis (H0) -3 is accepted.
• Agents: From the above table we can see that in case of Agents, the value of
unstandardized (β) coefficients is 0.184, it means that one-unit positive change in
Agents, while holding other variables constant, would result in the increase of
dependent variable ‘Health Insurance Coverage in India’ by 0.184 unit. Hence,
it can be concluded that as the value of coefficient is insignificant, thus, Agents
have Positive and insignificant relationship with dependent variable. So, we can
say that Alternate Hypothesis (H1) -4 is rejected and Null Hypothesis (H0) -4
is accepted.
• Online Marketing etc.: From the above table we can see that in case of Online
Marketing etc., the value of unstandardized (β) coefficients is 0.432, it means that
one-unit positive change in Online Marketing etc., while holding other variables
214
constant, would result in the increase of dependent variable ‘Health Insurance
Coverage in India’ by 0.432 unit. Hence, it can be concluded that as the value of
coefficient is insignificant, thus, Online Marketing etc. has Positive and
insignificant relationship with dependent variable. So, we can say that Alternate
Hypothesis (H1) -5 is rejected and Null Hypothesis (H0) -5 is accepted.
b) Impact of independent variable- Policy Holders covered by current

Health Insurance Policy on the dependent variable-Health Insurance
Coverage in India.
Alternate Hypothesis-1 (H1): There is positive and significant impact of policy

holders covered by current Health Insurance Policy on the Health Insurance
Coverage in India.
Null Hypothesis-1 (H0): There is no positive and significant impact of policy

holders covered by current Health Insurance Policy on the Health Insurance
Coverage in India.
Model Summary
Change Statistics
Std.
Adjusted Error of R
R R the Square F Sig. F
Model R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
1 .013a .000 -.010 1.031 .000 .016 1 98 .899
a. Predictors: (Constant), Consumers covered by current Health Insurance Policy are


SQUARE was (R2=.000) which indicates that about 0.0 % of the variance in Health
Insurance Coverage in India is explained by the Consumers covered by current Health
Insurance Policy has worked realistically well in explaining the variation in Health
Insurance Coverage in India.
215
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 2.560 .260 9.861 .000
Consumers covered .011 .086 .013 .127 .899
by current Health
Insurance Policy
a. Dependent Variable: Health Insurance Coverage in India

• Policy holders covered by current Health Insurance Policy: From the above
table we can see that in case of policy holders covered by current Health Insurance
Policy, the value of unstandardized (β) coefficients is 0.011, it means that one-unit
positive change in policy holders covered by current Health Insurance Policy,
while holding other variables constant, would result in the increase of dependent
variable ‘Health Insurance Coverage in India’ by 0.011 unit. Hence, it can be
concluded that as the value of coefficient is insignificant, thus, policy holders
covered by current Health Insurance Policy has Positive and insignificant
relationship with dependent variable. So, we can say that Alternate Hypothesis
(H1) -1 is rejected and Null Hypothesis (H0) -1 is accepted.
Conclusion:
Hence, it can be concluded that the independent variable has insignificant impact on
Health Insurance Coverage in India.
7.13 Correlation analysis

variables- Rashtriya Swasthiya Bima Yojana (RSBY), Employment State
Insurance Scheme (ESIS), Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), Aam
Aadmi Bima Yojana (AABY), Janashree Bima Yojana (JBY) & Universal
Health Insurance Scheme (UHIS) and Health Insurance Coverage in India.
216
(Table 7.116) - Correlations
Correlations
Rashtriya Employment Central Aam Universal
Health Swasthiya State Government Aadmi Janashree Health
Insurance Bima Insurance Health Bima Bima Insurance
Coverage Yojana Scheme Scheme Yojana Yojana Scheme
in India (RSBY) (ESIS) (CGHS) (AABY) (JBY) (UHIS)
Health Pearson 1 .094 .211* -.051 -.206* .029 .133
Insurance Correlation
Coverage in
Sig. (2- .350 .035 .612 .040 .774 .187
India
tailed)
N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Rashtriya Pearson .094 1 .117 .232* -.185 -.260** .005
Swasthiya Correlation
Bima
Sig. (2- .350 .247 .020 .066 .009 .963
Yojana
tailed)
(RSBY)
N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
* *
Employment Pearson .211 .117 1 .248 .061 .185 .394**
State Correlation
Insurance
Sig. (2- .035 .247 .013 .545 .066 .000
Scheme
tailed)
(ESIS)
N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
* * **
Central Pearson -.051 .232 .248 1 .265 .187 .150
Government Correlation
Health
Sig. (2- .612 .020 .013 .008 .062 .137
Scheme
tailed)
(CGHS)
N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
* **
Aam Aadmi Pearson -.206 -.185 .061 .265 1 .168 .181
Bima Correlation
Yojana
Sig. (2- .040 .066 .545 .008 .094 .071
(AABY)
tailed)
N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
**
Janashree Pearson .029 -.260 .185 .187 .168 1 .517**
Bima Correlation
Yojana
Sig. (2- .774 .009 .066 .062 .094 .000
(JBY)
tailed)
N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Universal Pearson .133 .005 .394** .150 .181 .517** 1
Health Correlation
Insurance
Sig. (2- .187 .963 .000 .137 .071 .000
Scheme
tailed)
(UHIS)
N 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
217
Interpretation
The correlations matrix presented in above table shows that-
There is a positive (0.094) and insignificant correlation at the 0.350 level, which
is more than the 0.05 confidence level for the study, between independent
variable- Rashtriya Swasthiya Bima Yojana (RSBY) and Health Insurance
Coverage in India.
variable- Employment State Insurance Scheme (ESIS) and Health Insurance
Coverage in India.
There is a negative (-0.051) and insignificant correlation at the 0.612 level,

which is more than the 0.05 confidence level for the study, between independent
variable- Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) and Health Insurance
Coverage in India.
There is a negative (-0.206) and significant correlation at the 0.040 level, which
is less than the 0.05 confidence level for the study, between independent variable-
Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana (JBY) and Health Insurance Coverage in India.
There is a positive (0.133) and insignificant correlation at the 0.187 level, which
is more than the 0.05 confidence level for the study, between independent
variable- Universal Health Insurance Scheme (UHIS) and Health Insurance
Coverage in India.
Correlation analysis
variable- Policy Holders covered by current Health Insurance Policy and Health
Insurance Coverage in India.
218
(Table 7.117) - Correlations
Correlations
Health Insurance Policy Holders covered
Coverage in by current Health
India Insurance Policy
Health Insurance Pearson 1 .013
Coverage in India is Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .899
N 100 100
Consumers covered by Pearson .013 1
current Health Insurance Correlation
Policy are
Sig. (2-tailed) .899
N 100 100
Interpretation: The correlations matrix presented in above table shows that-
There is insignificant correlation at the 0.899 level, which is more than the 0.05
confidence level for the study, between independent variable- Policy Holders
covered by current Health Insurance Policy and Health Insurance Coverage in
India.
***
219

14 Chapter 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

14 Chapter 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Chapter 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 7

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

(I) NON-POLICY HOLDERS

7.1.2) Descriptive Statistics of all the Variables:

(Table 7.3) Age: Non-Policy Holders

(Histogram- 7.1) Age: Non-Policy Holders

(Table 7.5)- Educational Qualification: Non-Policy Holders

(Histogram 7.3) - Educational Qualification: Non-Policy Holders

(Table 7.6) - Occupation: Non-Policy Holders

(Table 7.7) - Location: Non-Policy Holders

(Histogram 7.6)-Marital Status: Non-Policy Holders

(Table 7.9) - Type of Family: Non-Policy Holders

(Table 7.10)- Health Status: Non-Policy Holders

Health Status (High or low Blood Pressure, Thyroid, Diabetes, Respiratory

Moderate (If suffering from 50 25.0 25.0 30.5

Good (If not suffering from 139 69.5 69.5 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

(Table 7.11) - Number of dependents in the family: Non-Policy Holders

Number of dependents in the family

(Table 7.12) - Monthly Income (in Rs.): Non-Policy Holders

(Histogram 7.11)- Monthly income: Non-Policy Holders

Annual Medical Expenses of the Family (in Rs.)

(Histogram 7.12) - Annual medical expenses of the family: Non-Policy

Are you aware of the Health Insurance?

7.2) NON-POLICY HOLDERS: FACTOR ANALYSIS

(Table 7.15) - KMO and Bartlett's Test

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling .870

On the basis of results the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling

(Table 7.16)- Total Variance Explained

Total Variance Explained a

2 1.303 13.034 59.545 1.303 13.034 59.545 1.516 15.159 54.714

3 1.021 10.211 69.756 1.021 10.211 69.756 1.504 15.042 69.756

4 .851 8.510 78.267

5 .625 6.247 84.514

6 .430 4.297 88.811

7 .374 3.741 92.552

8 .324 3.236 95.788

9 .257 2.565 98.354

10 .165 1.646 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

(Table 7.17) - Rotated Component Matrixa

Rotated Component Matrix a, b

Looking at table of Rotated Component Matrix, we find out that-

Factor -1 includes following 6 variables

1. Non-accessibility of linked hospitals

3. Difficulty in availing services in hospitals

4. Non-flexibility of the insurance policy

5. Difficult claim settlement

6. Low salary /non-availability of funds

Factor -2 includes following 2 variables

Factor -3 includes following 2 variables

1. Other investment options

(Table 7.18) - KMO and Bartlett's Test

KMO and Bartlett's Testa

(Table 7.19)- Total Variance Explained

Total Variance Explained a

(Table 7.20)- Rotated Component Matrixa