The Effects of India’s COVID-19 Lockdown on Critical Non-COVID Health Care and Outcomes: Evidence from a Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Dialysis Patients

: India’s COVID-19 lockdown, one of the most severe in the world, is widely believed to have disrupted critical non-COVID health services. However, linking these disruptions to effects on health outcomes has been difficult due to the lack of reliable, up-to-date health outcomes data. We identified all dialysis patients under a statewide health insurance program in Rajasthan, India, and conducted surveys to examine the effects of the lockdown on care access, morbidity, and mortality. 63% of patients experienced a disruption to their care. Transport barriers, hospital service disruptions, and difficulty obtaining medicines were the most common causes. We compared monthly mortality in the four months after the lockdown with pre-lockdown mortality trends, as well as with mortality trends for a similar cohort in the previous year. Mortality in May 2020, after a month of exposure to the lockdown, was 1.70 percentage points or 64% (p=0.01) higher than in March 2020 and total excess mortality between April and July was estimated to be 22%. Post-lockdown morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality were strongly positively associated with lockdown-related disruptions to care, providing further evidence that the uptick in mortality was driven by the lockdown. Females, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, and patients living far from the health system faced worse outcomes. The results highlight the unintended consequences of the lockdown on critical, life-saving non-COVID health services that must be taken into account in the implementation of future policy efforts to control the spread of pandemics.

which collates monthly reports from the public health system, reported dramatic decreases in preventive and curative care (Smith et al 2020, IndiaSpend 2020. Careful measurement of the indirect morbidity and mortality effects of the lockdown is critical to understanding the full consequences of the pandemic and how to prepare health systems better for future disease outbreaks (Kiang et  However, quantifying these impacts has been difficult in the Indian context due to the unavailability of reliable and high frequency data measuring health outcomes and cause-specific mortality. Because the COVID-19 lockdown may have reduced deaths from some causes, such as road accidents, evaluating its effects requires disaggregated cause-specific mortality. The vast majority of deaths in India occur at home, rather than at health facilities, are not included in the national Civil Registration System, and have no certified cause of death (Jha et al 2005). While government health insurance programs collect real-time data on hospital services provided, they record no details on patient morbidity or mortality. The HMIS data are typically of low quality, underrepresent care in the private sector, and do not provide complete morbidity or mortality outcomes (Sharma et al 2016). The Sample Registration System, which estimates age-specific death rates through population surveys, does not provide details on cause of death and the most recent report only provides total mortality estimates through 2018 (SRS Bulletin).
Given the dearth of reliable, updated, and publicly available data on health outcomes in India, evaluating the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on non-elective health services requires the identification of patients in need of such care and the collection of primary data. We used insurance claims filed under a largescale government health insurance program to identify patients requiring dialysis, a form of non-elective chronic care, during the lockdown. We conducted phone surveys with their households to estimate the effects of the lockdown on health care access, morbidity, and mortality in the four months following its imposition. To our knowledge, we provide some of the first quantitative measures of the effects of India's lockdown on excess mortality from non-COVID health conditions.

DIALYSIS IN INDIA
We focused on dialysis, a form of life-sustaining long-term hospital care for patients with end stage chronic kidney disease (CKD). CKD is the 17 th leading cause of deaths globally and 8th in India (GBD 2015). Although access to dialysis treatment is relatively low, the expansion of government health insurance has increased its reach and a 2019 study estimated that there are approximately 175,000 CKD patients on dialysis in India (Jha et al 2019). Dialysis removes waste, salts, and excess water to prevent their build up in the body; regulates levels of potassium, sodium and bicarbonate in the blood; and controls blood pressure. The typical patient requires three-to four-hour sessions, two to four times each week for the duration of their life or until they get a kidney transplant. Disruptions to dialysis treatment result in the accumulation of fluids and toxins in the body, and can cause extreme swelling, nausea and vomiting, difficulty in breathing and urinating, and other symptoms. Missing dialysis visits or shortening their duration is associated with large increases in hospitalization and mortality (Saran et

METHODS Study Population and Data
We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis to study care-seeking and health outcomes before and after the COVID-19 lockdown. The study population was all dialysis patients enrolled in a government health insurance program that covers the poorest two-thirds of Rajasthan's population. The Ayushman Bharat Mahatma Gandhi Rajasthan Swasthya Bima Yojana (AB-MGRSBY), is a statewide government health insurance program in Rajasthan, India. It entitles approximately 50 million low-income individuals to free secondary and tertiary care at over 1200 empaneled hospitals. Household eligibility is based on state poverty lists. All members are automatically enrolled and face no premium, deductible, or copay. Hospitals file claims in realtime for every patient visit through the government's electronic filing system. These claims data, which include patient name, phone number, address, hospital visited, and services received, provide one of the only ways of directly identifying patients utilizing hospital care in Rajasthan.
We obtained access to all administrative claims data filed under the program from its launch through October 2019. Using the last 3 months of these data, we identified all patients on dialysis under insurance between August and October 2019. Because dialysis is long-term and nonelective care, patients on dialysis in late 2019 would continue to require it through the COVID-19 lockdown if still alive. Therefore, these patients provide an ideal group to study the effects of the lockdown on critical chronic care.
To collect data on health care access and outcomes through the lockdown period, we conducted phone surveys using patient contact numbers in the administrative records. The survey was conducted with the patient or the person in the household most knowledgeable of their care if the patient was unwell or dead, and collected data on dialysis visits in the month prior to the lockdown, disruptions to care due to the lockdown, morbidity, hospitalization, the date and cause of death, and basic demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. We also embedded openended questions into the surveys to collect qualitative descriptions from patients about care disruptions faced. We completed the first round of surveys between late May 2020 and mid-June 2020, and follow-up surveys in July and August with all patients alive at the time of the first survey to track complete mortality through July. To help put survey results into context, we also conducted structured interviews with 15 hospitals from 10 of Rajasthan's 33 districts.

Outcomes and Measures
We measured disruptions to dialysis care by asking whether patients faced each of the following problems during the lockdown: their dialysis hospital was closed; it was open but refused to provide them services; they could not travel to their hospital due to lack of transport or curfews; they had to switch to a different hospital from their primary dialysis hospital; their hospital increased charges over the typical payment; they had difficulties obtaining their dialysis medicines. Reported dialysis visits were used to create an indicator for any decrease in visits between the month before and after the lockdown. We created an individual care disruptions . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint index using the first component of a principal-components analysis (PCA) of all of these indicators, and standardized it over the study sample for ease of interpretation.
To track changes in monthly mortality over the months before and after the lockdown, we created a mortality time series between December 2019 and July 2020. We determined the month of death for all dead patients by cross-checking two measures -the exact month of death and the number of months that had lapsed since the death at the time of survey -as well as the cause and location of death to ensure it was not unrelated to dialysis. Monthly mortality, or the likelihood of death, was calculated as the number of deaths each month as a share of people alive at the beginning of that month.
Morbidity and hospitalization were reported for the four weeks prior to the survey, in each round of the survey. A morbidity index was constructed from a PCA of indicators for whether the patient experienced the following symptoms that are known to follow disruptions to dialysis care and can be reported by patients: swelling of the face, hands, legs, or body; vomiting or nausea; extreme tiredness or weakness; difficulty breathing; difficulty urinating; and muscle cramps. The index was standardized over the sample. Hospitalization was an indicator for any in-patient hospital visit.
To examine heterogeneity in outcomes by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, we created binary classifications for female, age under 45 years, lower caste group (scheduled caste or tribe), and low assets. Patients were classified as low asset if they had a below median score on an asset index created from a PCA of a list of assets they own, such as a motorcycle, television, or air-conditioner. Additionally, we geocoded all dialysis hospitals in the AB-MGRSBY program as well as the residence locations for 88% of surveyed patients using addresses in the administrative data that were verified by survey. We calculated the distance from patient residence to the district administrative headquarters, the largest city in the district, as a proxy for remoteness, and to the closest dialysis hospital as a proxy for distance from the health system. For heterogeneity analysis, we created binary classifications for above and below the median distance in the study sample, which was 45km for distance to the city and 35km for distance to a dialysis hospital.

Comparison Cohort
Because the COVID-19 lockdown was implemented across all of India at the same time, there are no comparable "untreated" populations in 2020. Therefore, our analysis primarily focused on changes in mortality trends within our study cohort over the four months before and after the lockdown was imposed. In addition, we constructed a historical comparison cohort to allow us to account for potential seasonal trends or monthly fluctuations in mortality and to examine whether 2020 mortality follows historical trends. Using the same administrative insurance claims data, we identified all patients on dialysis under insurance between August and October 2018. Because phone surveys with these patients would likely suffer from attrition and recall bias, we instead used the share of patients that permanently dropped out from dialysis care each month to proxy for the share of people that died in that month. We have previously validated this measure of mortality through surveys and confirmed that 80% of patients that dropped out of claims had died and the remaining 20% had dropped out for reasons besides death (exiting the insurance program, out of state migration, kidney transplant, or discontinuation of treatment for financial . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint reasons). Monthly mortality in the historical cohort was, therefore, calculated as the 80% of the share of all patients on dialysis each month that dropped out of treatment in that month.

Statistical Analysis
To examine changes in monthly mortality before and after the lockdown, we estimated a nonparametric discrete-time logistic model with the probability of death as the outcome and binary indicators for each month from December 2019 to July 2020. We excluded October and November 2019 from the analysis because survey dropout was likely to be highest in these months and could bias mortality estimates, but complete death counts for the full period are provided in the supplement. Adjusted models included indicators for age above 45 years, female sex, low caste group, and high assets, and continuous measures of months on dialysis and total dialysis visits at baseline. To examine historical mortality trends, we ran the same unadjusted model on the comparison cohort with indicators for each month from December 2018 to July 2019, as well as a model adjusted for age above 45 years and total dialysis visits prior to enrollment. Standard errors were clustered at the patient level in all models to account for autocorrelation.
To analyze the association between care disruptions and post-lockdown health outcomes, we restricted the sample to patients alive at the end of April and exposed to at least one month of the lockdown, and ran linear OLS regressions, with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors, of post-lockdown morbidity, hospitalization, and death on the care disruptions index. Adjusted models included indicators for age above 45 years, female sex, low caste group, and low assets, as well as continuous measures of months on dialysis and total dialysis visits at baseline. Sensitivity to using logistic regression models was also assessed.
We also examined whether the lockdown had differential effects on care-seeking by sex, age (above 45 years), low caste, and low assets, we estimated bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions of an indicator for having experienced any disruption on binary indicators for each subgroup characteristic. To study heterogeneity in effects on mortality, we calculated the percentage point change in monthly mortality between March and May for each subgroup from logistic regressions controlling for all other subgroup characteristics and dialysis history. Lastly, we examined the association between care disruptions and post-lockdown health outcomes by running separate OLS regressions with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for each subgroup of post-lockdown morbidity, hospitalization, and death on the care disruptions index.

RESULTS
We identified 3,183 patients on dialysis under insurance between August and October 2019 across Rajasthan. Of these, 2,234 (70.2%) had a reachable phone number and confirmed having an eligible dialysis patient, and 94% of them consented to participating, resulting in a study sample of 2,110 patients (supplementary table S1). Attrition may be due to numbers being entered incorrectly in the insurance data, households changing numbers, or unused numbers being deactivated and reassigned to new households. Of the 1,392 patients alive at the time of the first survey, 1,177 (85%) completed a follow-up survey. Successfully surveyed patients were disproportionately male (69%), had a mean age of 46 years, and had been on dialysis for a year, with 5 visits per month on average, when they were enrolled into the study (Table 1). Surveyed . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint patients were almost identical in these characteristics to patients not reached, but had been on dialysis for slightly longer, increasing our confidence that attrition did not meaningfully bias our sample (supplement table S2). On average, patients lived 25km from the nearest hospital providing dialysis care. The vast majority of patients (83%) were visiting a private hospital for their dialysis treatments.

Disruptions to Dialysis Care
Over 62% of patients reported a disruption in access to dialysis care during the lockdown ( Figure  1). 42% of patients reported being unable to reach their hospital due to travel barriers. Openended interviews indicated that travel barriers were largely due to difficulties finding transport and obtaining official exemptions from district administrative and health authorities to travel to the hospital visits. 15% of patients found the hospital was closed or refused to provide care, 11% faced increased hospital charges, and 23% had to switch to a different hospital from the one they typically visit. Interviews suggest supply chains disruptions reduced medicine availability and increased prices. As a result, 17% of patients could not obtain their necessary medicines. Patients faced a 172% increase in payments per visit, driven largely by increased charges at private hospitals, and a 6% average decline in monthly visits between March and April. Hospital interviews confirmed patient reports, but also suggested that hospitals faced their own constraints. Seven of the 15 hospitals reported having to during the lockdown due to staffing and supply shortages. Those that continued operating reported a substantial drop in patient visits, which they credited to transportation barriers, and larger hospitals reported receiving patients displaced from nearby hospitals that had closed.

Changes in Mortality Trends
Monthly mortality declined steadily from December to March in the 2019-2020 cohort ( Figure  2), due to higher early mortality among the most vulnerable patients, such as the elderly and lower caste (supplement Figure S1). Mortality in May 2020, after a full month of exposure to the lockdown, increased sharply to 4.37%, a 1.70pp or 63.60% (p=0.01) increase relative to 2.67% mortality in March, prior to the lockdown. Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and dialysis history increased this difference (supplement FigS2). Mortality declined in June and July 2020, but never dropped below March levels, indicating that deaths in May were not simply a displacement of mortality from the subsequent two months. Because we did not reach all households in the follow-up survey, true mortality in this period may be higher than measured. Mortality in the comparison cohort from the previous year followed a statistically similar trend between December and April, but exhibited no increase in May or the subsequent months. Comparison of the two trends suggests that the sharp increase in May 2020 is not explained by seasonal fluctuations and that, absent the lockdown, monthly mortality would have remained similar to or slightly below March levels. Only four patients who died in June and July were reported testing positive for COVID-19. Excluding them reduces mortality to 3.16% in June and 2.69% in July.
To estimate total excess mortality in the four months following the COVID-19 lockdown, we calculated the difference between observed mortality between April and July 2020 and what mortality would have been if the March 2020 mortality probability of 2.67% had applied each . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint month. Out of 1,532 patients alive at the end of March, 192 had died by the end of July (12.54% mortality), whereas 157 would have died had the March rate (10.25% mortality), resulting in 22.3% total estimated excess mortality in the four months following the lockdown (supplement  table S4). This is likely to be a conservative estimate, as both pre-lockdown trends and the historical comparison suggest that mortality would have continued to decline in the absence of the lockdown rather than remain at March levels.

Association Between Care Disruptions and Post-lockdown Outcomes
Among patients alive at the end of April and exposed to at least one month of the lockdown, a 1SD increase in the care disruptions index was associated with a 0.17SD increase in the morbidity index (p=0.000), 3.1pp increase in the probability of hospitalization (p=0.002), and 2.1pp increase in the probability of death (p=0.013) in the period from May to July (Table 2). These effects are sizeable relative to an overall 14.2% hospitalization and 10.8% mortality hazard over those months. Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and dialysis history did not change these relationships. They also remain robust to using logistic instead OLS regression models for the binary hospitalization and death outcomes (supplemental table S5).

Subgroup Heterogeneity in Lockdown Effects
Although the lockdown was universal, its effects on care-seeking were worse for vulnerable and remote households. Being lower caste, poorer, and living further away from a city or a dialysis hospital had large and significant positive associations with the likelihood of facing any disruption (Table 3). Poverty had the strongest relationship and remained significant in multivariate regressions controlling for other socioeconomic characteristics and dialysis history. Figure 3 presents the change in mortality in May relative to March by subgroup. Underlying data are presented in supplemental table S6. The increase in mortality was largest and significant for females (3.56pp, p=0.022), patients 45 years or younger (2.94pp, p=0.006), poorer patients (2.81pp, p=0.020), those living further from the city (3.51pp, p=0.013) and those living further from a dialysis hospital (5.64pp, p=0.031). The association between the care disruptions index and post-lockdown morbidity, hospitalization, and death were also stronger for these subgroups (supplement figure S3). The greater disruptions to care faced by poorer and remote patients noted above could partly explain their worse outcomes. However, we find no evidence that females experienced greater disruptions. One explanation for high female mortality may be lower care-seeking by households, consistent with prior literature on gender bias in health care in India (Anonymous 2021, Kapoor et al 2019, Shaikh et al 2018). Females had fewer monthly dialysis visits at baseline (4.8 visits) relative to males (5.1 visits, p=0.062), which could contribute to worse health prior to the lockdown. Additionally, care disruptions were associated with increased morbidity for both males and females, but with increased hospitalization only for males, and larger increases in mortality for females, suggesting that households may have been less likely to seek hospital care for females that faced complications (supplement figure S3).

DISCUSSION
We studied the indirect effects of India's COVID-19 lockdown on critical, chronic, non-COVID care and outcomes among a large cohort of low-income dialysis patients. Dialysis patients faced substantial disruptions to their care during the lockdown. Travel barriers, due to the closure of . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint public transport and administrative hurdles in obtaining exemptions for medical travel, were the most common cause. Hospital closures, service refusals, and increased charges forced patients to switch hospitals and miss or delay treatment.
Mortality in May 2020, after a month of exposure to the lockdown, increased sharply. The timing and size of the increase in mortality relative to pre-lockdown trends in 2020, as well as to trends in estimated mortality for a similar cohort in the previous year, strongly suggests that the observed increase was due to the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. Lockdown-related disruptions to dialysis care were strongly positively associated with post-lockdown morbidity and mortality, providing additional support for a causal interpretation. Estimated overall excess mortality in the four months after imposition of the lockdown was 22%.
This excess mortality is unlikely to be due to COVID-19 infections. Although patients on dialysis are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and complications (Gansevoort and Hilbrands 2020), if this were driving mortality, we would expect deaths to increase over time as the virus spread and to affect older patients more. However, the increase in mortality was largest in May, soon after the lockdown and before the virus had spread widely, and was greater among patients under age 45 than among older patients who have higher COVID-19 mortality risk. Therefore, we believe our estimates are capturing the indirect effects of the pandemic through lockdown related disruptions to care. Nevertheless, given that COVID-19 testing rates in India were relatively low at the time of the study, we cannot rule out the possibility that it contributed to the deaths we measured.
Importantly, we find that the effects of the lockdown on care-seeking and mortality were more severe among females, patients of low socioeconomic status, and those in remote locations underserved by the health system. These results indicate that a universal lockdown policy is likely to have larger adverse effects on already vulnerable subpopulations, consistent with the literature on the unequal distribution of both direct and indirect effects of the pandemic (Bambra et al 2020, Marmot and Allen 2020, Cash and Patel 2020). It is critical that future pandemic control efforts take these distributional consequences into account and put in place extra protections for populations that have limited financial and geographic access to health services.
While our analysis is restricted to one type of critical chronic care in one state, our findings are likely to be indicative of the serious but largely undocumented health effects of severe disruptions to a range of similar critical chronic care services in other states in India. A 2019 study estimated that there are approximately 175,000 patients on chronic dialysis across India (Jha et al 2019). Based on recent research and media reports, it is likely that a large share of these patients suffered life-threatening disruptions to their care (Ramachandran and Jha 2020, Prasad et al 2020). Furthermore, national government health insurance programs targeting lowincome households have seen a 6% reduction in dialysis care (similar to our results), a 64% decline in oncology care, and an 80% decrease in critical cardiovascular surgeries (Smith et al 2020).
A strength of this study is the use of existing administrative government health insurance data to rapidly identify and remotely survey a large sample of poor dialysis patients in need of critical care during the lockdown. However, a limitation of this approach is the substantial dropout . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint between identified patients and those reached for survey by phone due to patient phone numbers entered incorrectly in the claims data, households switching phone numbers, and unused numbers being deactivated. Surveyed patients were almost identical to those not reached, increasing confidence that attrition did not bias our study sample. Deactivation, which happens after 6 months, are most likely to affect patients that died soon after October 2019 and is unlikely to explain the increased mortality in May 2020. Another limitation is that our outcomes are based on self-reported data and not clinical measures, which were infeasible due to the pandemic. However, our primary outcome is mortality, which is likely to be reliably reported, and the recall period for all outcomes was relatively short. Finally, as we only measure mortality through July, our estimates may be a lower bound on the full health costs of the lockdown. We found that disruptions to dialysis were lower but persistent in July and August, after the lockdown was eased, suggesting that adverse health effects may continue to unfold over the coming months (supplement figure S4). In India, these costs were exacerbated by the hasty imposition of the lockdown, which gave the health system and households little time to prepare (The Lancet 2020). Our findings highlight the unintended consequences of India's lockdown on critical non-COVID health services that must be taken into account in the implementation of future policy efforts to control the spread of pandemics.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint  . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. Dialysis history is drawn from administrative claims data on all dialysis treatment received prior to enrollment in the study in October 2019. Distance to subdistrict HQ is the distance in km to administrative center of the subdistrict, a proxy for distance to the closest city. Distance to dialysis hospital is the distance to the closest hospital providing dialysis under insurance, a proxy for distance from the health system.

Table 2: Association between care disruptions and post-lockdown health outcomes
The table presents linear regressions of each health outcome on a standardized index of lockdown-related disruptions to dialysis care for the 1,489 patients alive thorough April and exposed to at least one full month of the lockdown. Morbidity is a standardized index of symptoms known to follow disruptions to dialysis. Hospital and death are binary outcomes. All three outcomes are measured over the period May through July 2020. Covariates in adjusted regressions include age, sex, caste group, month of dialysis initiation, and lifetime dialysis visits at baseline. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint Acknowledgments: We are grateful to Ambika Chopra, Mustufa Patel, and Mantasha Hussain for their excellent and dedicated research assistance and to Putul Gupta for outstanding research management. The preliminary results in this paper were presented at the Development Economics meetings of the NBER Summer Institute in July 2020, as well as in a Webinar organized by JPAL South Asia in August 2020. Funding: This research was funded by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, awarded through the J-PAL CaTCH Initiative's special COVID-19 funding window. The funder had no role in the design or execution of the research; Author contributions: R.J. and P.D. jointly conceived of and designed the research. R.J. performed the data analyses and produced the figures and tables. R.J. and P.D. wrote the paper. All authors contributed to the scientific discussions and preparation of the manuscript; Competing interests: Authors declare no competing interests; Data and materials availability: The insurance claims data is subject to a non-disclosure agreement. Replication code and deidentified survey data will be made available at the time of publication on the authors' website. The institutional review boards at IFMR and at Stanford University (protocol no. 41683) approved this research.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The Effects of India's COVID-19 Lockdown on Critical Non-COVID Health Care and Outcomes Supplementary Materials
Radhika Jain, Pascaline Dupas Correspondence to: rjain19@stanford.edu, pdupas@stanford.edu  The table presents similar regressions as in Table 2 of the paper of health outcomes on the care disruptions index for the 1,489 patients alive thorough April, but estimates logistic instead of OLS models to account for the fact that hospitalization and death are binary outcomes. Covariates in adjusted regressions include age, sex, caste group, month of dialysis initiation, and lifetime dialysis visits at baseline. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Figure S2. Covariate-adjusted monthly dialysis mortality
The figure presents mortality estimates adjusted for age, sex, caste group, month on dialysis, and lifetime dialysis visits at baseline for the 2019-2020 cohort and age, sex, months on dialysis, and lifetime dialysis visits at baseline (variables available in the claims data) for the 2018-2019 cohort.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Figure S3. Associations between disruptions and health outcomes by subgroup
The figure presents associations between the care disruptions index and post-lockdown health outcomes by subgroup for the 1,489 patients alive through the end of April and exposed to at least one month of the lockdown. Each bar is the coefficient on a indicator for the subgroup characteristic from an OLS regression with robust standard errors and controls for all other characteristics (age, sex, caste group, and asset class) and dialysis history at baseline. The outcomes are the standardized morbidity index, and indicators for hospitalization, death in May, and death between May and July.

Figure S4. Disruptions to Dialysis Care in July and August
The figure presents the share of people that reported experiencing disruptions in the four weeks prior to the survey, for all patients re-interviewed in July and August. These results suggest that disruptions to dialysis care continued well after the nationwide lockdown was released and may continue to have effects on morbidity and mortality in the coming months.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Supplementary Text Qualitative interviews with patients and hospitals
To gain a more nuanced understanding of patients' experiences, we built open-ended questions into the survey. Surveyors were instructed to provide prompts, such as "Have you experienced any other health problems or difficulties in getting dialysis care due to the coronavirus lockdown? Can you describe them to me?" and to encourage respondents to answer freely. The research team listened to voice recordings of these answers and compiled them into structured summaries. The qualitative results confirmed that the list of barriers to care-seeking we included in the survey were comprehensive and covered the key proximate causes of care disruptions: hospital closure or service refusal, increased costs of care, travel/transport barriers, having to switch from their primary hospital to a different one, and difficulty obtaining medicines. They also reveal that many patients experienced a series of different barriers that had compounded effects on their care. Excerpts from some open-ended answers:  [District B]. When the lockdown was imposed and there was a curfew, he had to find a smaller, alternative facility for dialysis. We were asked to get permissions and multiple slips from govt officials. He didn't get the care he usually received. That smaller hospital didn't do his . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. Family member of dead patient: "Due to the lockdown, the patient couldn't travel to [District B] on time and wasn't able to find a hospital in the vicinity, so he died on the way to the hospital itself."

Ethical considerations
The research protocol and survey instruments were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the Institute for Financial Management and Research (IFMR) in India and Stanford University in the United States. All data collection was managed by a team employed by JPAL South Asia at IFMR, which has extensive research conducting field and phone-based research. Standard research protocols were followed. Participants were informed of the nature and possible consequences of the study and were given the opportunity to discontinue participation at any point of their choosing.
Given that data were being collected during a pandemic that may have severely adversely affected households, the households in our sample may have been particularly vulnerable due to their socioeconomic status and illness, and the health and security of our data team was also a concern, we took several additional precautions to reduce any adverse consequences. To reduce the burden on households, we designed the surveys to be short: among surveyed households, the first round of the survey took 25 minutes and the second follow-up round took 13 minutes, on average. We trained surveyors to very clearly offer households the option not to participate, to be sensitive to households during the survey, particularly those that had faced substantial difficulties or deaths, and to provide all households with information on local COVID-19 and hospital health service helplines to consult if they experience medical problems. To protect the surveyors, all surveys were conducted over the phone from the security of their homes. Additional software was installed on the surveyor tablets to mask phone numbers from them and to automatically upload all data to secure cloud services without storing it locally . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted April 6, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.19.20196915 doi: medRxiv preprint