Balancing Coverage Affordability and Continuity under a Basic Health Program Option

By John A. Graves, Ph.D., Rick Curtis, M.P.P., and Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D.
The New England Journal of Medicine, November 30, 2011

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will bring health insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million currently uninsured people. It does so through various mechanisms, including an expansion of Medicaid to Americans with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level (133% plus a 5% “income disregard”), premium and cost-sharing subsidies for coverage purchased through a new insurance exchange, small-employer tax credits, and an individual mandate to obtain health insurance.

The ACA’s incremental approach to near-universal coverage has raised concerns that changes in income, employment, and family composition will shift people into and out of different coverage arrangements over time – a phenomenon referred to as “churning.” Avoiding disruptions in coverage is an important goal because it can reduce unnecessary administrative costs and improve health plans’ incentives to invest in achieving longer-term health outcomes. Continuity of coverage can also help maintain clinician–patient relationships, especially in places where there are substantial differences between the clinicians participating in Medicaid and those participating only in private plans.

To address concerns about churning, some states are considering adopting a Basic Health Program (BHP) – an ACA-created option modeled after Washington State’s Basic Health Plan. Under this option, a state would receive an annual lump-sum payment equal to 95% of the projected cost of the subsidies for coverage through an insurance exchange for households with incomes between 139 and 200% of the federal poverty level. The state would then assume responsibility for financing a BHP for adults in that income range that met or exceeded the generosity and scope of benefits available in the exchange. A number of states are considering this option, including California, where BHP legislation has already passed the senate and final consideration is planned for 2012.

The eligibility range for a BHP is narrow – and there’s no guarantee that there will be continuity of access for people moving from Medicaid to a BHP, or vice versa. A BHP could theoretically extend access to the same plans and providers as Medicaid does, but in practice, states may find that providers willing to accept reimbursement that is often below their costs for their most indigent patients will be unable or unwilling to do so for an additional population. Moreover, introducing a BHP may create a new point of disruption: although patients might retain their coverage when moving above or below 138% of the poverty level ($30,843 for a family of four in 2011), they would be more likely to have coverage disruptions when moving above or below 200% of the poverty level ($44,700 for a family of four). Such disruptions could occur if the mainstream plans and providers used by people with incomes above 200% of the poverty level do not participate in the BHP. Finally, introducing a BHP would reduce the subsidized population in the insurance exchange by about half, which could compromise its efficiency and market role and reduce the proportion of uninsured people who gain access to mainstream coverage.

To investigate BHPs’ potential for reducing churning between Medicaid and an exchange by acting as a bridge between them, we used data from a dynamic income microsimulation model of the ACA. Since we follow an initially eligible cohort over a 2-year period, we can more easily model relative changes in churning in varied policy environments.

For our analysis, we used a national sample of adults 18 to 61 years of age who were initially uninsured or enrolled in nongroup coverage and who were eligible for subsidized coverage (had an income below 400% of the poverty level). We then simulated eligibility for Medicaid, a BHP, and an exchange in three policy environments: the baseline ACA structure, under which people with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level are eligible for Medicaid and those with higher incomes are eligible for the exchange; an integrated BHP, under which Medicaid and the BHP are run as a single program, with identical plans and providers; and three separate programs, with Medicaid, the BHP, and the exchange all operating independently, with different reimbursement rates, cost-sharing structures, and provider networks. Both Washington State’s original BHP and California’s pending BHP legislation would fit in the third category.

Our main findings are summarized in the Kaplan–Meier curves (see graph, available at link below), which show the overall proportion of subsidized adults who would remain continuously eligible for their initial program over a 24-month period.

As the graph shows, operating separate BHP, Medicaid, and exchange programs substantially increases churning. Under that policy, just 44% of adults remain eligible for their initial program after 1 year and less than one third remain so after 2 years; under the baseline ACA structure, the proportions are 63% and 49%, respectively. Given the dynamic nature of the wages and incomes of adults with moderate incomes, this finding is not entirely surprising: a separate BHP coverage category based on a narrow income range increases the likelihood of eligibility shifts between programs.

Perhaps more striking, however, is our finding that a BHP operating within Medicaid would result in slightly more eligibility losses than would the baseline ACA structure. Although we find that a BHP would reduce churning (i.e., increase retention) at the 138%-of-poverty threshold, there would be a more-than-offsetting increase in churning between the exchange and the Medicaid–BHP at 200% of the poverty level. The net result would be slightly more overall churning than with the baseline ACA structure. Moreover, these program-eligibility shifts would now happen around a “notch” created at 200% of the poverty level, where there are much larger implications for enrollees, in terms of premiums and cost sharing, of moving from Medicaid–BHP to private coverage. For example, a family moving from a Medicaid-like BHP program to the exchange tax-credit structure at 200% of the poverty level could suddenly see the value of its benefits fall by as much as 25% (depending on state decisions about patient cost sharing under the BHP). The ACA’s sliding-scale subsidies were designed to avoid such notches, which create major inequities between people with marginally different incomes and penalize them for additional work and earnings.

Ensuring access to stable and affordable coverage is an important ACA goal. Whether by design or through attrition of willing plans and providers, however, operating a BHP with provider networks different from those of both Medicaid and the exchange could further stratify the low-income and moderate-income population into three separate classes of coverage. As our modeling shows, such stratification would exacerbate the concerns about churning that BHPs were designed to address. Moreover, even a BHP integrated with Medicaid would slightly increase churning overall, with the increased churning around the 200%-of-poverty point more than offsetting the reduced churning around the 138%-of-poverty point. Although various policy considerations should enter into decisions about adopting a BHP, the need to achieve coverage and provider stability is an argument against doing so.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1111863

Section 1331 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) authorizes states to establish “basic health programs” to cover individuals with incomes between 133% and 200% of the federal poverty level, who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid. The primary thrust of ACA is to cover many of the currently uninsured by expanding Medicaid and by establishing new state health exchanges offering private health plans. This NEJM article evaluates whether adding a third option – a basic health program – would improve stability and continuity of coverage for this low-income sector.

This is an important question since setting up an additional program adds considerable administrative costs and complexity to our health care financing system. The brief answer is “no.” After two years with three separate programs, less than one-third would still be in the programs in which they were originally enrolled.

Suppose the states decided against establishing basic health programs, what would happen under the baseline ACA structure with just Medicaid and the private exchange plans? Half of individuals would no longer be in their initial programs. This is only over a period of two years. Because of continual fluctuations in eligibility (changing income levels, etc.), stability over a decade or two would be virtually nonexistent.

This instability can be quite disruptive. Between Medicaid, basic health programs, and private exchange plans, there may be little or no overlap in provider networks. A change in coverage could also have a major impact on out-of-pocket expenses required of the insured individuals.

One intent of the basic health programs would be to save the government money by paying providers at levels close to those of Medicaid. Many physicians already reject Medicaid because of these low rates. Adding many more new patients to the Medicaid program, plus introducing an entirely new, under-funded, basic health program, would surely cause providers to flee both Medicaid and the basic health programs. The patients might have a basic health ticket, but nowhere to use it.

The entire ACA infrastructure is irreparably fragmented and dysfunctional. It needs to be replaced with… yes, an improved Medicare for all.

By Gary Claxton and Larry Levitt
Kaiser Family Foundation, November 15, 2011

Various market watchers have reported that the use of health care services has not been growing recently as it had in the past, resulting in lower than expected health care claims for people with private insurance and higher than expected earnings for insurers. A look at physician office visits by nonelderly patients with private insurance over the past decade illustrates the change in the use of services.

Although the total number of visits jumps around somewhat from quarter to quarter, the analysis shows generally that the quarterly number of office visits by privately insured patients increased from about 140 million visits per quarter at the beginning of the decade to 160 million visits early in 2005. The number of non-elderly people with private insurance changed hardly at all over that period, increasing by about 1% according to our analysis of the National Health Interview survey. So, the increase was driven by people with private insurance going to the doctor more often.

From 2005 through 2008, the trend in physician visits was largely flat as the number of people with private insurance dropped slightly (about 1.7%).

Then, as the economic downturn deepened, the number of physician visits among the privately insured started a downward trend, which has continued even as the recession technically ended in June of 2009. The number of visits fell to a low of 129 million in the 2nd quarter of 2011, a decline of 17% from 156 million visits in the 2nd quarter of 2009. The number of people with private insurance declined over this period as well as many people lost their jobs and their insurance along with them. But, the decline in the number of people with private insurance is much smaller than the decline in visits – about 2% between 2009 and 2010.

Even people who are insured are going to the doctor less. Likely, consumers are reacting to the severe economic downturn and significant job-loss which has defined the economy over the last several years by cutting back on health spending. Higher deductibles, copays and coinsurance increase the cost of care, and their impact may be magnified in these tough economic times. The Kaiser/HRET Annual Survey of Employer Health Benefits finds that the share of workers covered on the job by plans with a deductible of at least $1,000 grew from 18% in 2008 to 31% this year. In some cases people may be foregoing unnecessary care, meaning that health costs are reduced with little or no effect on health. In other cases people are likely cutting back on necessary care, potentially endangering patients’ longer term health and leading to higher costs over time.

http://healthreform.kff.org/notes-on-health-insurance-and-reform/2011/november/the-economy-and-medical-care.aspx

KFF – Increase in employer-sponsored high-deductible plans:
http://ehbs.kff.org/?page=charts&id=2&sn=22&ch=2257

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

In the past two years, office visits by privately insured patients under age 65 decreased by 17 percent. Although the insurers attribute this lower utilization to the economic downturn, it does correlate very closely to the increase in enrollment in employer-sponsored high-deductible plans.

Although it is difficult to predict future trends, it is very likely that the diminished utilization will persist since other studies have confirmed that high out-of-pocket expenses deter access to health care. It is also clear that many of the forgone services are beneficial.

Every reasonable person in the policy community agrees that patients should have access to beneficial services, but some believe that financial disincentives to care are important because they will encourage patients to forgo unnecessary services. The problem with this reasoning is that a person with symptoms cannot know without a consultation whether or not the visit is unnecessary. Even if it turns out that no intervention is required other than reassurance, even reassurance itself provides an important medical outcome in the form of reduced anxiety.

The consumer-directed advocates are winning the battle. The increase in high-deductible plans has placed financial barriers between patients and the care that they should be receiving. By making patients more sensitive to the costs of office visits, they are using fewer. But is this wise?

Studies such as the RAND Health Insurance Experiment suggest that there is not much harm done. But those studies do not measure certain endpoints such as symptom relief or simple reassurance. They also do not measure longer term consequences such as complications from inadequate management of chronic disorders – diabetes, hypertension, consequential hyperlipidemia, and many others. They do not measure the benefits of preventive screening in this under 65 population, which may prevent or ameliorate disorders that might occur only decades later.

Most of these office visits are for primary care services and constitute only a very small percentage of our national health expenditures. Reducing office visits by 17 percent does not save much overall because 17 percent of a small number is a very small number. Since primary care is essential in improving value in health care, we should be adopting policies that encourage primary care access, not discourage it as these high out-of-pocket costs do.

Treating A Scorpion Sting: $ 100 In Mexico Or $ 12,000 In U.S.

By Jenny Gold
Kaiser Health News, November 28, 2011

Say you’re trekking through the desert in Mexico, minding your own business, when all of a sudden a scorpion scrambles up your boot and stings your leg. You hobble over to a nearby clinic, where you’re given a dose of anti-venom that brings you fast relief. The charge for the serum is about $100.

Now imagine instead that you happen to be hiking in Arizona, and the same type of scorpion stings you. You make it to the emergency room, where the charge for a dose of the same anti-venom costs can cost as much as $12,000, according to a survey by The Arizona Republic.  Since patients need three to five doses, the cost can reach about $50,000.

The drug, called Anascorp, has been available for years in Mexico, but was just given FDA approval in August  for the U.S. market. Anascorp is designed to treat the sting of the Bark Scorpion, a particularly poisonous species.

Milton Ellis, president of Rare Disease Therapeutics, a Tennessee-based company that has the rights to Anascorp in the U.S., told The Arizona Republic that the cost of the drug is based on a number of factors, including the expensive clinical trial the company sponsored to get FDA approval and the expected demand for the serum. The company sells the drug for $3,500 to another firm that provides it to Arizona hospitals for about $3,780, The Republic found.

Hospitals mark up the drug to cover other costs, including the expenses of patients who are uninsured and the heavy discounts it gives to insurers.

Dr. Leslie Boyer, director of the Venom Immunochemistry, Pharmacology and Emergency Response (VIPER) Institute and the principal investigator of the Anascorp study published in the New England Journal of Medicine,  says she was surprised and “a little saddened” by the high cost of the drug. “It’s priced at a level where we can only use it for the very sickest patients, when I know that people with more moderate symptom would also benefit but might not be able to afford it,” she explains.

If the drug were “priced for the walking miserable,” instead of only those patients with the most severe symptoms, more of the drug would be sold and the price could be lower, she explains. As it is, she worries that rural Arizona hospitals, which tend to be the least wealthy, will not be able to stock the anti-venom and will still have to send critically-ill patients on a long helicopter or ambulance ride instead.

The high prices, she says, are “a public health problem.”

****

Response

Don McCanne says:
(Comment is awaiting moderation as of this posting.)
November 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Results of a quick Internet search:

Study posted yesterday at ClinicalTrials.gov:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00624078?term=Anascorp&rank=1

Sponsor: Instituto Bioclon S.A. de C.V. (Mexico
Collaborator: University of Arizona

R&D at Instituto Bioclon:
http://www.bioclon.com.mx/bioclon/html/investigaciond_en.html

“The Bioclon Institute’s technology plan has been implemented through a financing strategy that combines the Institute’s own investments with resources from governmental institutions through agreements with: The National Science and Technology Board (El Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia) (Mexico), The Commerce Secretary (La Secretaria de Economía) (Mexico), and The Food and Drug Administration (United States).”

The fact that government-supported research (United States and Mexico) can result in a product that sells for $100 in Mexico and $12,000 in the United States, says much more about how health care is financed in the United States than it does about government and private roles in research.

All other wealthy nations have controlled health care spending much more effectively, while covering everyone, by using financing systems that require considerable government oversight. We rely on a fragmented system of private plans, public programs (and no programs at all for far too many), that has allowed runaway spending without a commensurate improvement in quality and outcomes.

It really is time to dump the administratively wasteful but expensive private insurers which have been ineffective in slowing cost escalation. We should improve Medicare, and then provide it for everyone. We might not be able to get the price of Anascorp down to $100, but negotiations through our own public Medicare administrators would set pricing based on legitimate costs and fair profits – a price that would undoubtedly be a small fraction of the $12,000 being charged.

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/11/treating-a-scorpion-sting-100-in-mexico-or-12000-in-u-s/comment-page-1/#comment-19404

And…

Antivenom for Critically Ill Children with Neurotoxicity from Scorpion Stings

By Leslie V. Boyer, M.D., et al
The New England Journal of Medicine, May 14, 2009

Among critically ill children with neurotoxic effects of scorpion envenomation, intravenous administration of scorpion-specific F(ab′)2 antivenom resolved the clinical syndrome within 4 hours, reduced the need for concomitant sedation with midazolam, and reduced the levels of circulating unbound venom. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00685230.)

Supported by grants from the Food and Drug Administration (FD-R-002385-01) and the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission (0001).

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0808455#t=abstract

Instead of administered pricing, our government depends more heavily on the market for the pricing of our health care when payments are made through private insurers. Only the magic of the marketplace can price a $100 vial of antivenin at $12,000! Obviously we do not have nor ever will have a functioning free market in health care. It’s time to abandon this myth and move on with an effective method of controlling costs through fair pricing – a single payer national health program.

New Evidence of the Association between Hospital Market Concentration and Higher Prices and Profits

By James C. Robinson, PhD, University of California, Berkeley
National Institute for Health Care Management, November 2011

After a swell of hospital mergers and acquisitions in the 1990s, the industry has again been experiencing significant consolidation as large hospital systems have bought up smaller systems and stand-alone hospitals left vulnerable by the recession. The local and regional chains resulting from consolidation typically wield greater bargaining leverage than do stand-alone facilities. The evidence from several decades of research on this topic shows higher hospital prices following consolidation and recent work documents how large hospital systems serving multiple markets are able to extract higher prices for all facilities in their chain, not just in markets where they are dominant.

Two provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) have brought new attention to the issue of hospital market power. First, because the ACA coverage expansions will be financed in part by slowing the rate of increase in Medicare payment updates, there is concern that hospitals with as yet unexploited pricing leverage will attempt to recoup some of the lost Medicare revenue by raising prices to private insurers. Second, the integration of hospitals and physicians into the accountable care organizations (ACOs) encouraged by the health reform legislation is expected to accelerate provider consolidation in local markets. Indeed, hospitals are already consolidating with physicians at a fast clip, and many observers are asking whether this integration will give hospitals (and physicians) additional pricing power vis-à-vis private payers.

In this essay I present findings from a new study that adds another piece of evidence to support concerns over hospital consolidation and market power. Specifically, using individual level data from 61 hospitals for patients treated during 2008 for any of six high-cost inpatient cardiac or orthopedic procedures, I show that hospitals in concentrated markets charge significantly higher prices to private payers than do their peers in more competitive markets. Furthermore, these prices are significantly above their direct costs of providing care.

The work reported here confirms earlier studies showing that hospitals are able to extract higher private payments when they hold more market power. Public policy has been ambivalent with respect to the ongoing consolidation within hospital markets. While antitrust regulatory agencies have challenged a number of hospital mergers in the past few decades, these challenges rarely culminated in decisions to disallow a merger. Now provisions of the ACA are encouraging further consolidation of hospitals and physicians, and the final antitrust review regulations from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have eliminated the proposed mandatory review of certain prospective ACOs.

It will take some time to see what types of ACOs are allowed to form and how they will affect the competitive structure within their markets. It is clear, however, that the ongoing consolidation of local hospital markets is already frustrating the efforts of employers and private insurers to moderate the growth of health care costs. While the use of administered pricing systems largely insulates public payers from the effects of provider market power, the higher reimbursement rates that dominant providers can extract from private payers during rate negotiations put significant upward pressure on private premiums. In response, employers and other purchasers of private coverage have begun demonstrating a new willingness to accept limits on their health plan’s provider network, and private insurers are developing new products using tiered networks that exclude or disadvantage providers judged to not deliver value commensurate with their higher prices.

http://nihcm.org/images/stories/NIHCM-EV-Robinson-Final.pdf

The increase in hospital market concentration has resulted in higher prices with enormous profits, simply due to the boost in leverage that consolidation of hospitals has had in price negotiations with private insurers. How will the Affordable Care Act impact this?

The Federal Trade Commission will be relaxing antitrust review of provider consolidation in order to allow greater freedom for accountable care organizations to experiment with delivery system reform. Consolidation will likely increase.

To counter this, private insurers are already developing new products such as those with tiered networks which will penalize patients financially if they use the dominant providers in their communities.

So the intent is to improve quality and the cost effectiveness of health care by encouraging integration of the health care providers, as through accountable care organizations, yet we will be seeing higher costs and higher profits as a result. That inevitably means that premiums for the private health plans will be higher – a problem that the Affordable Care Act was supposed to address.

What is the link that causes this unintended perversity? It is the insistence of our policymakers that the private insurers be included as the financial intermediaries. Plenty of studies have now shown that the private insurers do not have negotiating clout in markets with provider consolidation. So why should we continue to include them, especially when they waste so much in imposing a huge administration burden, while taking away patients’ choices of health care providers?

The government does have the leverage to get the pricing right. We should have it representing all of us in obtaining the best value for our national health expenditures. An improved Medicare for everyone is the vehicle that we need.

By Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff, Stanford University
US2010 Project, November 2011

Report Abstract
 
As overall income inequality grew in the last four decades, high- and low-income families have become increasingly less likely to live near one another. Mixed income neighborhoods have grown rarer, while affluent and poor neighborhoods have grown much more common. In fact, the share of the population in large and moderate-sized metropolitan areas who live in the poorest and most affluent neighborhoods has more than doubled since 1970, while the share of families living in middle-income neighborhoods dropped from 65 percent to 44 percent. The residential isolation of the both poor and affluent families has grown over the last four decades, though affluent families have been generally more residentially isolated than poor families during this period. Income segregation among African Americans and Hispanics grew more rapidly than among non-Hispanic whites, especially since 2000. These trends are consequential because people are affected by the character of the local areas in which they live. The increasing concentration of income and wealth (and therefore of resources such as schools, parks, and public services) in a small number of neighborhoods results in greater disadvantages for the remaining neighborhoods where low- and middle-income families live.

From the Conclusion

During the last four decades, the isolation of the rich has been consistently greater than the isolation of the poor. Although much of the scholarly and policy discussion about the effects of segregation and neighborhood conditions focuses on the isolation of poor families in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage, it is perhaps equally important to consider the implications of the substantial, and growing, isolation of high-income families. Given that in 2008 the top 10 percent of earners controlled approximately 48 percent of all income in the United States (Piketty & Saez, 2010), the increasing isolation of the affluent from low- and moderate-income families means that a significant proportion of society’s resources are concentrated in a smaller and smaller proportion of neighborhoods. As we argued above, this has significant consequences for low- and middle-income families, because the isolation of the rich may lead to lower public and private investments in resources, services, and amenities that benefit large shares of the population, such as schools, parks, and public services.

http://cepa.stanford.edu/system/assets/drupal/RussellSageIncomeSegregationreport.pdf

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

As the more affluent members of our society continue to concentrate themselves in their upscale neighborhoods, they take our resources with them, including some of the best of our health care services. Not only do they leave behind fewer resources for low- and moderate-income families, they also leave behind the political will to do something about it.

Can we convince those in the affluent communities that most of them are still a part of the 99 percent? Or will their guileless but infelicitous complacency perpetuate inertia?

Growth in the Residential Segregation of Families by Income, 1970-2009

By Sean F. Reardon and Kendra Bischoff, Stanford University
US2010 Project, November 2011

Report Abstract

As overall income inequality grew in the last four decades, high- and low-income families have become increasingly less likely to live near one another. Mixed income neighborhoods have grown rarer, while affluent and poor neighborhoods have grown much more common. In fact, the share of the population in large and moderate-sized metropolitan areas who live in the poorest and most affluent neighborhoods has more than doubled since 1970, while the share of families living in middle-income neighborhoods dropped from 65 percent to 44 percent. The residential isolation of the both poor and affluent families has grown over the last four decades, though affluent families have been generally more residentially isolated than poor families during this period. Income segregation among African Americans and Hispanics grew more rapidly than among non-Hispanic whites, especially since 2000. These trends are consequential because people are affected by the character of the local areas in which they live. The increasing concentration of income and wealth (and therefore of resources such as schools, parks, and public services) in a small number of neighborhoods results in greater disadvantages for the remaining neighborhoods where low- and middle-income families live.

From the Conclusion

During the last four decades, the isolation of the rich has been consistently greater than the isolation of the poor. Although much of the scholarly and policy discussion about the effects of segregation and neighborhood conditions focuses on the isolation of poor families in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage, it is perhaps equally important to consider the implications of the substantial, and growing, isolation of high-income families. Given that in 2008 the top 10 percent of earners controlled approximately 48 percent of all income in the United States (Piketty & Saez, 2010), the increasing isolation of the affluent from low- and moderate-income families means that a significant proportion of society’s resources are concentrated in a smaller and smaller proportion of neighborhoods. As we argued above, this has significant consequences for low- and middle-income families, because the isolation of the rich may lead to lower public and private investments in resources, services, and amenities that benefit large shares of the population, such as schools, parks, and public services.

http://cepa.stanford.edu/system/assets/drupal/RussellSageIncomeSegregationreport.pdf

As the more affluent members of our society continue to concentrate themselves in their upscale neighborhoods, they take our resources with them, including some of the best of our health care services. Not only do they leave behind fewer resources for low- and moderate-income families, they also leave behind the political will to do something about it.

Can we convince those in the affluent communities that most of them are still a part of the 99 percent? Or will their guileless but infelicitous complacency perpetuate inertia?

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
November 23,2011

Why is health spending in the United States so high?

The United States spends two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average health expenditure per person.

Rich countries spend more than poor countries. Chart 3 (at link below) shows that for nearly every country, if you know how rich they are, you can predict their health spending per person per year to within a few hundred dollars. The United States is an exception – Americans spend nearly $3000 per person per year more than Swiss people, even though Swiss people have about the same level of income.

Where does the money go?

Hospital spending is higher than in the five other OECD countries, by over 60%.

Spending on Ambulatory care providers – that is, physicians and specialists as well as dentists, is much higher than in the other OECD countries – almost two-and-a-half times the average of the other five countries.

Spending on Pharmaceuticals and medical goods is higher in the US than in any other country, but overall accounts for a smaller share of total health spending than in the other countries.

Spending on Public Health and Administration is particularly high – more than two-and-a-half times the average.

Are U.S. health prices high?

Overall, the evidence suggests that prices for health services and goods are substantially higher in the United States than elsewhere. This is an important cause of higher health spending in the United States.

Does the U.S. provide too much health care?

(The United States) does not have many physicians relative to its population; it does not have a lot of doctor consultations; it does not have a lot of hospital beds, or hospitals stays, when compared with other countries, and when people go to hospital, they do not stay for long. All these data on health care activities suggest that US health spending should be low compared with other countries.

On the other hand, the US health system does do a lot of interventions. Table 3 (at link below) shows that it has a lot of expensive diagnostic equipment, which it uses a lot. And it does a lot of elective surgery – the sort of activities where it is not always clearcut about whether a particular intervention is necessary or not.

Why is health spending in the United States so high?
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/16/49084355.pdf

Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators
(The entire publication can be accessed for free at this website.)
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-2011_health_glance-2011-en

Comment: 

By Don McCanne, MD

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has just released “Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators.” It “provides the latest comparable data on different aspects of the performance of health systems in OECD countries.” You should save the link above that provides free access to this publication since the data are frequently used by the policy community to compare the United States with other nations.

When examining the tables, charts, graphs and text, keep in mind that the data are sometimes presented in a manner that does not always correlate with highly credible data from other sources.

For instance, the category of public health and administration does not include the same administrative costs as measured by Woolhandler and colleagues in their landmark NEJM articles. Nevertheless, the OECD still reports that public health and administrative costs in the United States are more than two-and-a-half times the OECD average.

Also, the OECD estimates of public spending for health care in the United States leave out two important categories. The tax deductibility of employer-sponsored plans amounts to a subsidy of taxpayer funds, plus taxpayers also pay for the employer component of health insurance premiums for employees of federal, state and local government agencies. Although the OECD reports the percent of government spending on health care in the United States as being one of the lowest, on a per capita basis our public spending on health care is actually higher than the public and private spending combined in almost all other nations.

So when you hear others cite the OECD data, it would be helpful if you have a heads up on the actual data and how it compares to that of other reliable sources. Save the link above for future reference.

Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
November 23,2011

Why is health spending in the United States so high?

The United States spends two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average health expenditure per person.

Rich countries spend more than poor countries. Chart 3 (at link below) shows that for nearly every country, if you know how rich they are, you can predict their health spending per person per year to within a few hundred dollars. The United States is an exception – Americans spend nearly $3000 per person per year more than Swiss people, even though Swiss people have about the same level of income.

Where does the money go?

Hospital spending is higher than in the five other OECD countries, by over 60%.

Spending on Ambulatory care providers – that is, physicians and specialists as well as dentists, is much higher than in the other OECD countries – almost two-and-a-half times the average of the other five countries.

Spending on Pharmaceuticals and medical goods is higher in the US than in any other country, but overall accounts for a smaller share of total health spending than in the other countries.

Spending on Public Health and Administration is particularly high – more than two-and-a-half times the average.

Are U.S. health prices high?

Overall, the evidence suggests that prices for health services and goods are substantially higher in the United States than elsewhere. This is an important cause of higher health spending in the United States.

Does the U.S. provide too much health care?

(The United States) does not have many physicians relative to its population; it does not have a lot of doctor consultations; it does not have a lot of hospital beds, or hospitals stays, when compared with other countries, and when people go to hospital, they do not stay for long. All these data on health care activities suggest that US health spending should be low compared with other countries.

On the other hand, the US health system does do a lot of interventions. Table 3 (at link below) shows that it has a lot of expensive diagnostic equipment, which it uses a lot. And it does a lot of elective surgery – the sort of activities where it is not always clearcut about whether a particular intervention is necessary or not.

Why is health spending in the United States so high?
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/16/49084355.pdf

Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators
(The entire publication can be accessed for free at this website.)
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-2011_health_glance-2011-en

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has just released “Health at a Glance 2011: OECD Indicators.” It “provides the latest comparable data on different aspects of the performance of health systems in OECD countries.” You should save the link above that provides free access to this publication since the data are frequently used by the policy community to compare the United States with other nations.

When examining the tables, charts, graphs and text, keep in mind that the data are sometimes presented in a manner that does not always correlate with highly credible data from other sources.

For instance, the category of public health and administration does not include the same administrative costs as measured by Woolhandler and colleagues in their landmark NEJM articles. Nevertheless, the OECD still reports that public health and administrative costs in the United States are more than two-and-a-half times the OECD average.

Also, the OECD estimates of public spending for health care in the United States leave out two important categories. The tax deductibility of employer-sponsored plans amounts to a subsidy of taxpayer funds, plus taxpayers also pay for the employer component of health insurance premiums for employees of federal, state and local government agencies. Although the OECD reports the percent of government spending on health care in the United States as being one of the lowest, on a per capita basis our public spending on health care is actually higher than the public and private spending combined in almost all other nations.

So when you hear others cite the OECD data, it would be helpful if you have a heads up on the actual data and how it compares to that of other reliable sources. Save the link above for future reference.