Examining patterns of assistive device distribution under the Indian ADIP scheme from 2020 to 2025.

The disabled population figures come from the 2011 Census, which is over a decade old and may not reflect current numbers or distribution. Beneficiary data are cumulative over five years, so a person who received multiple devices is counted multiple times, potentially inflating coverage. The analysis does not adjust for differences in device costs across states, so a state spending more per person may simply be distributing more expensive devices. The analysis is at the state level and ignores variation within states; a state that looks moderate on average may have severe gaps in specific districts. The study is purely descriptive and cannot explain why some states perform better than others.

The authors declared that no financial support was received for the work or its publication.

Do not read the high coverage figures in small states (for example, 201.8% in Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu) as evidence that the scheme works well for all patients. The paper is a descriptive comparison of government records across states; it does not track whether individual patients received the right device, whether the device was fitted correctly, or whether the patient's function improved. A state-level average says nothing about any one patient's experience.