Per-capita health care spending for seniors has increased by nearly a third

This chapter addresses overspending in health care. Americans spend half as many days in hospital as persons living in other high-income countries. They take fewer pills per person, and they have fewer doctors per capita. Yet Americans spend two to three times as much on health care as other countries, and they have poorer health outcomes. This is because they overpay. Talking about overspending suggests that certain partners in the health system are charging more than they should. Since about one third of health care spending is related to hospitals and another 20% is paid to health care providers, these are the obvious culprits. If Americans spent less on hospitals and clinicians, they could spend more on the social services required to prevent or reduce illness, to make their entire population healthier.

Download Full-text

Estimates of global spending and financing of mental health

Die Psychiatrie ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1671846 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 08 (01) ◽

pp. 05-08 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

R. M. Scheffler

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Health Care ◽

Mental Health Services ◽

Health Services ◽

Capita Income ◽

Health Spending ◽

The United States ◽

Health Care Spending ◽

Per Capita Income ◽

Per Capita

SummaryThis paper illustrates the wide variation in the spending and financing of mental health services around the globe. As would be expected, mental health spending in high-income countries is a larger percent of overall health care spending, which in the United States, United Kingdom, and France is about 10% of health care spending, compared to countries such as Japan, Portugal, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, where the spending is around 6%. In OECD countries, mental health spending is approximately 7.4% of total health care spending. Our analysis of the relationship between per capita spending on mental health and per capita income shows that the elasticity of mental health spending is 0.49, suggesting that a 10% change in per capita income produces a 4.9% increase in mental health spending per capita. In LMIC, we found that the spending levels for mental health was approximately 1–2% of the total health care budget. The dominant payer for mental health services throughout the globe still appears to be that of the government sector. The case studies that we present in Korea, Spain, and Ghana show dramatically different approaches to the financing and spending of mental health.

Download Full-text

Decomposing Trends in U.S. Health Care Spending Among Nonelderly Adults, 2007-2016

Medical Care Research and Review ◽

10.1177/1077558719865084 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 107755871986508

Author(s):

Fredric Blavin ◽

Michael Karpman ◽

Diane Arnos

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey ◽

Medical Expenditure ◽

Health Care Spending ◽

Policy Changes ◽

The Great Recession ◽

Technological Developments ◽

Capita Spending ◽

Per Capita ◽

Spending Growth

Using the 2007 to 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey–Household Component, this study analyzes trends in per capita health expenditures among nonelderly adults from the Great Recession to the period following full implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We find that the growth in total per capita spending—and specifically for prescription drug and emergency room spending—from 2007-2009 to 2014-2016 was largely driven by increases in expenditures per unit, that is, increases in per unit prices, quality, and/or intensity of treatment. We also find that changes in the health insurance distribution were the largest driver behind the increase in total per capita expenditures over this period, while changes in prevalence of chronic conditions explained a smaller portion of the increase. Identifying policies for containing health care spending growth requires a detailed understanding of the sources of that growth, particularly during periods of economic fluctuations, policy changes, and technological developments.

Download Full-text

Einkommenswachstum, steigende Gesundheitsausgaben und Finanzierung / Income Increase, Health Spending Growth and Financing

Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik ◽

10.1515/jbnst-2007-5-610 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 227 (5-6) ◽

Author(s):

Hans Adam

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Gross Domestic Product ◽

Health Spending ◽

Domestic Product ◽

Health Care Spending ◽

Public Provision ◽

Health Care Consumption ◽

Out Of Pocket Payments ◽

Per Capita ◽

Spending Growth

SummaryIn 2005, total health spending in Germany amounted to € 239,4 billion or € 2900 per capita. Given the aging of the population in the next decades and the progress in medical technology there are some doubts about the affordability of health spending growth. One important criterion which has been proposed is that increasing health care spending should not lead to an absolute reduction of real per capita non-health care consumption. Calculations for the period 2005-2075 show that non-health consumption will not fall if per capita health care spending growth exceeds per capita gross domestic product growth by 1 percentage point. Health care spending as a share of the gross domestic product will rise from 10.4 percent in 2005 to 21 percent in 2075. An increase in the ratio of health care spending to the gross domestic product must be expected to change the funding of the German health care system. The public provision of health care will decline while the share of income devoted to private health spending (additional insurance, out-of-pocket-payments) will increase.

Download Full-text

A Comparison of Country’s Cultural Dimensions and Health Outcomes

Healthcare ◽

10.3390/healthcare9121654 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (12) ◽

pp. 1654

Author(s):

Justin C. Matus

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Life Expectancy ◽

Regression Model ◽

Small Sample Size ◽

Small Sample ◽

Cultural Dimensions ◽

Future Research ◽

Health Care Spending ◽

Data Set ◽

Per Capita

Research comparing health care systems of countries, with a particular emphasis on health care spending and health care outcomes, has found unexplained differences which are often attributed to the countries’ cultures, yet these cultural dimensions are never completely identified or measured. This study examines if culture predicts a country’s population health, measured as life expectancy and health care spending. Using the Hofstede country-level measures (six dimensions) of culture as independent variables, two regression models to predict life expectancy and per capita health care using 2016 World Bank data were developed. The original data set included 112 countries which was reduced to a final total of 60 due to missing or incomplete data. The first regression model, predicting life expectancy, indicated an adjusted R square of 0.45. The second regression model, predicting per capita health care spending, indicated an adjusted R square of 0.63. The study suggests culture is a predictor of both life expectancy and health care spending. However, by creating a composite measure for all six culture measures, we have not found a significant association between culture and life expectancy and healthcare expenditure. The study is limited by small sample size, differences in geography, climate and political systems. Future research should examine more closely the relative influence of individualism on life expectancy and assumptions about models of socialized medicine.

Download Full-text

A Comparison of International Health Outcomes and Health Care Spending

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462300006619 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 376-381 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Akira Babazono ◽

Alan L. Hillman

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

International Health ◽

Oecd Countries ◽

Health Care Spending ◽

Health Care Outcomes ◽

Inpatient Utilization ◽

Care Outcomes ◽

Per Capita ◽

Improve Health

AbstractDoes increased spending improve health outcomes? We analyzed 1988 data from OECD countries to determine how key health care indexes correlate with health care outcomes. Total health care spending per capita and outpatient and inpatient utilization are not related to health outcomes. How our resources are allocated seems to be more important than how much money is actually spent.

Download Full-text