Aim <p>To critically examine patient outcomes across different funding categories in cardiac surgical interventions.</p> Methods <p>A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients undergoing cardiac surgery between April 2017 and August 2023 at a single institution. Patients were stratified into six distinct funding categories: Cash Payment, Insurance, Government Schemes, Fund/Trust, Public Sector Unit, and the state-specific Swasthya Sathi patients. We examined three major surgical procedures: isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), aortic valve replacement, and mitral valve replacement. The primary outcome was mortality rates across various funding schemes and specific surgical procedures.</p> Results <p>The overall mortality rate was 2.40%, with no statistically significant differences observed across funding categories (<i>p</i> = 0.74). Mortality rates for individual procedures were also comparable across funding sources: aortic valve replacement (<i>p</i> = 0.70), mitral valve replacement (<i>p</i> = 0.11), and isolated CABG (<i>p</i> = 0.68). Specifically, when comparing government scheme patients to cash-paying patients, no significant differences were found for aortic valve replacement (<i>p</i> = 0.65), mitral valve replacement (<i>p</i> = 0.53), or isolated CABG (<i>p</i> = 0.45). Among patients covered under West Bengal’s state-sponsored Swasthya Sathi scheme, the mortality rate was 2.2%, compared to 2.7% in non-Swasthya Sathi patients (<i>p</i> = 0.47).</p> Conclusion <p>Our study provides preliminary evidence that challenges the widespread perception of inferior care for government-funded patients. The study suggests that the funding mechanism does not significantly impact surgical outcomes in this cardiac surgery cohort, highlighting the potential effectiveness of diverse healthcare financing models in delivering equitable medical care.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>