Showing posts with label GDP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GDP. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

How Much Do U.S.A Health Insurance Tax Breaks and Subsidies Charge?

U.S. taxpayers will fork over $660 billion this year to subsidize health insurance for persons under the age of 65, the vast majority of whom have coverage through their employers, the Congressional Budget Office claimed on the day of Thursday.


In its most comprehensive report on the cost of subsidized health coverage, a potential aim for deficit reduction, CBO stated the 2016 tax bill equals 3.6% of gross domestic product and involves the federal tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance, Medicaid programs for the worse and tax credits present to lower-income Americans through the healthcare law called as Obamacare.


CBO claimed that the cost of healthcare subsidies is hoped to grow an annual 5.4% on average over the next decade, reaching $1.1 trillion, or 4.1% of GDP, in the year 2026, CBO researchers stated in a report.


The report did not involve the federal cost of health insurance for persons 65 and older.

Friday, April 8, 2016

U.S. Healthcare: On the expensive verge

1.The United States spends 16.4 percent of its national GDP – or $2.75 trillion – per year on healthcare costs (as of 2013).


2.Healthcare takes a far greater share of national GDP in the United States than in any other OECD country – at least 50 percent more than in other comparable countries.


3.In Germany, healthcare consumed 11 percent of GDP in the year 2013. France spent 10.9 percent of GDP on it.


4.The 2 countries utilize a tightly regulated and largely non-profit system for health insurance to offer competitive coverage options.


5.The United Kingdom, with 64 million people under a unified and centralized single-payer payment and care system, spent 8.5 percent of GDP on healthcare.


6.Canada, with its single-payer national health insurance system and private care contributors, spent 10.2 percent.


7.The 2nd most populous developed nation, Japan, spent 10.2 percent of its GDP on healthcare, through non-profit insurance and private hospitals.


8.For all of this money, the United States does not have better health results – rather on cancer treatment.


9.Relative to peer nations, U.S. life expectancy is lower, chronic diseases are more widespread, infant mortality is larger.

Friday, August 12, 2011

US Gets Less for Its Healthcare Buck Than Other Nations


August 11, 2011 — Despite outspending 18 other developed nations on healthcare as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005, the United States posted the highest mortality rate among its peers, according to a study published online last month in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Short Reports.

Although the United States reduced its mortality rate from 1979 to 2005, 15 of the other developed countries, including the United Kingdom, did the same thing at a faster clip.

In short, the American healthcare system is one of the least cost-effective, whereas the system in the United Kingdom is the second most cost-effective, doing more with less, write Colin Pritchard, PhD, a professor of psychiatric social work at Bournemouth University in Bournemouth, United Kingdom; and Mark Wallace, BSc, who teaches economics, politics, and philosophy at the Latymer School in London.

Pritchard and Wallace paid particular attention to the United Kingdom's performance because they conducted their study in response to frequent references to the "apparent failings" of the National Health Service during the ongoing healthcare reform debate in the United States.

The other countries in the study are Austria, Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

In 1980, public and private healthcare expenditures in the United States as a percent of GDP amounted to 8.8%, ranking it second behind Sweden at 9%. By 2005, the United States had vaulted to first place with 15.3%, Switzerland placing a distant second at 11.6%. The United States also ranked number 1 in average GDP healthcare expenditures — 12.2% — during the entire 25-year time frame.

The authors extrapolated mortality rates per million (PM) from data compiled by the World Health Organization for 2 time frames — 1979 to 1981, and 2003 to 2005 — with separate rates for individuals aged 15 to 74 years, 15 to 34 years, 35 to 54 years, and 55 to 74 years.

The mortality rate in the United States for the comprehensive 15- to 74-year-old age group decreased from 9158 deaths PM to 6660 PM, or by 27% during the roughly quarter-century span, but the nation nevertheless posted the highest mortality rate in 2005 among the 19 developed nations. All but Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland saw their mortality rate decrease at a slower pace. The United Kingdom had the fifth highest mortality rate — 5471 PM.

Likewise, the United States topped the mortality-rate list for the 55- to 74-year-old age groups, whereas the United Kingdom came in at number 6.

Too Many Guns in the United States?

The authors calculated a cost-effectiveness ratio for each country by dividing the level of reduced mortality rates — in the case of the United States, 9158 PM minus 6660 PM or 2498 PM — by average GDP healthcare spending from 1980 to 2005. According to this measure, the United States ranked third from the bottom for the 15- to 74-year-old age group with a ratio of 1:205 vs 1:557 for the United Kingdom, which ranked second behind Ireland. The same pecking order for the 3 countries held true in the 55- to 74-year-old age group.

Several characteristics of the United States might help explain the country's high mortality rate among the 19 nations, according to Pritchard and Wallace. They point to the country's "considerable variation" on a range of socioeconomic and health factors, especially regarding ethnic groups. In addition, the availability of firearms here "impacts upon mortality rates such as homicide and suicide, far more than any other Western country."

The authors attempt to answer the question of why the United States performs so poorly on healthcare cost-effectiveness when the market forces of a largely private healthcare system are assumed to foster efficiency. The US system, Pritchard and Wallace write, has "inherent market failures" such as adverse selection, in which individuals with greater health risks are more likely to obtain coverage from private insurers than individuals with lesser risks, driving premiums upward and discouraging the "better bets" from getting coverage in the first place. Another market failure stems from private insurers charging everyone higher premiums to hedge against "a few individuals that require unexpectedly very expensive medical treatment."

Nations with mostly public healthcare systems, such as the United Kingdom, avoid these pitfalls, according to the authors.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

J R Soc Med Sh Rep. 2011;2:60. Full text

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Deficit Reduction Plan to Implement Feared Cost-Control Tool

April 13, 2011 — The deficit-reduction plan unveiled by President Barack Obama today strengthens a cost-control tool in healthcare reform that organized medicine fears.


The savings mechanism is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the IPAB will advise Congress on ways to curb the per capita growth of Medicare spending if it exceeds growth-rate targets set by the law.


If it does not implement IPAB recommendations, Congress must enact policies that save just as much, or else let the Department of Health and Human Services make the cuts.


The Medicare growth-rate target initially will be the average of the consumer price index (CPI) for urban residents and the CPI for medical costs. In 2018, the target changes to growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) plus 1%.


To wring more savings from Medicare, Obama proposes to lower the second spending target, triggering IPAB action to GDP growth plus 0.5% beginning in 2018. In addition, the IPAB would gain additional tools and enforcement mechanisms to control Medicare spending.


The greater role of the IPAB is part of a plan to reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion over 13 years or less that Obama outlined in a speech at George Washington University.


End of Medicare "As We Know It"


Obama would hit those numbers with $3 in spending cuts and interest savings for every $1 in higher tax revenue, partly derived from ending Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Obama said his prescription borrows from the recommendations of a bipartisan fiscal commission that he appointed last year, and incorporates $1 trillion already contained in his budget proposal for fiscal 2012, which begins October 1.


Obama laid out a different path toward a balanced budget than Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the chair of the House Budget Committee, did last week. Under the Ryan proposal, federal outlays would decrease by $5.8 trillion over 10 years based on current spending policies.


The GOP plan achieves these savings partly by giving seniors who turn age 65 in 2022 and beyond a subsidy for buying healthcare coverage from private insurers, and turning federal contributions to state Medicaid programs into block grants.


Obama opposes the GOP "voucher" system, saying it would "end Medicare as we know it" and shift more costs from the federal government to seniors. He also argues that converting Medicaid into a block-grant program would leave it underfunded.


Hitting a Raw Nerve


Although Obama intends to preserve Medicare as an entitlement as opposed to a subsidy program, he nevertheless seeks to trim $340 billion from it over 10 years, which is on top of more than $400 billion in savings through 2019 that the ACA calls for. Some of the extra economizing involves improving patient safety, cutting unnecessary prescription drug outlays, and reducing waste and abuse that drives up costs.


None of those measures, however, is likely to hit a raw nerve in medical circles like the increased reliance on the 15-member IPAB to control Medicare spending.


Ever since the ACA was passed in 2009, organized medicine has sought to eliminate or drastically reshape this new entity, designed to function in a framework resembling the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula for determining physician reimbursement in Medicare.


That formula sets an annual target for Medicare spending on physician services based on GDP growth, which also forms the basis for IPAB targets starting in 2018. If actual spending on physician services exceeds the target in a given year, reimbursement rates under the SGR formula must decrease the following year to make up the difference.


Organized medicine argues that the SGR formula is flawed because physician practice costs typically rise faster than the GDP. Every year since 2003, the SGR formula has triggered cuts to Medicare rates that Congress has subsequently postponed, causing them to pile up. As a result, physicians face a 29.5% reduction in 2012.


Obama's deficit-reduction plan allocates a "sufficient" amount of money to reform the SGR formula and avert this catastrophe but does not provide details on what this reform looks like.


In the meantime, the IPAB looms as a similar threat to physician compensation. Leaders of the American Medical Association and other medical societies contend that the IPAB could expose physicians to a double whammy by requiring pay cuts in addition to those mandated by the SGR formula.


"Strong Concerns"


In a written statement issued after Obama's speech today, American Medical Association Chairwoman Ardis Hoven, MD, said that her group has "strong concerns about the potential for automatic, across-the-board Medicare spending cuts because they are not consistent with meeting the medical needs of patients, which is our primary focus."


Medical societies also object to a group of unelected officials having so much power over physician reimbursement. And they consider it unfair that hospitals are spared IPAB cuts until 2019.


There are other restrictions that cause physicians to feel the brunt of IPAB spending decisions. The ACA prohibits the board from recommending any solutions that would reduce Medicare eligibility and benefits or increase costs borne by beneficiaries, including Part A and Part B premiums. In short, seniors avoid the IPAB axe just as hospitals do.


However, a senior White House official hinted during a not-for-attribution press briefing today that the IPAB might spread out the pain. When asked whether the various restrictions on IPAB cuts might disappear under the president's deficit-reduction plan, the official replied, "No, not all of them. I think the idea is there would be some expansion."