Anyway, today's New York Times says this about the Number One problem facing the United States.
In Hopeful Sign, Health Spending Is Flattening Out
By ANNIE LOWREY
WASHINGTON — The growth of health spending has slowed substantially in
the last few years, surprising experts and offering some fuel for
optimism about the federal government’s long-term fiscal performance.
Much of the slowdown is because of the recession,
and thus not unexpected, health experts say. But some of it seems to be
attributable to changing behavior by consumers and providers of health
care — meaning that the lower rates of growth might persist even as the
economy picks up.
Because Medicare and Medicaid
are two of the largest contributors to the country’s long-term debts,
slower growth in health costs could reduce the pressure for enormous
spending cuts or tax increases.
In 2009 and 2010, total nationwide health care spending grew less than 4
percent per year, the slowest annual pace in more than five decades,
according to the latest numbers
from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services. After years of
taking up a growing share of economic activity, health spending held
steady in 2010, at 17.9 percent of the gross domestic product.
The growth rate mostly slowed as millions of Americans lost insurance
coverage along with their jobs. Worried about job security, others may
have feared taking time off work for doctor’s visits or surgical
procedures, or skipped nonurgent care when money was tight.
Still, the slowdown was sharper than health economists expected, and a
broad, bipartisan range of academics, hospital administrators and policy
experts has started to wonder if what had seemed impossible might be
happening — if doctors and patients have begun to change their behavior
in ways that bend the so-called cost curve.
If so, it was happening just as the new health care law
was coming into force, and before the Supreme Court could weigh in on
it or the voters could pronounce their own verdict at the polls.
“The tectonic plates might be beginning to shift,” said Karen Davis, the
president of the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group in New
York. “It’s hard to believe everything that’s been tried over the last
decade to slow spending wouldn’t be making a difference.”
Experts were surprised, for instance, at a drop in spending on some
hospitalized seniors — people enrolled in Medicare, whose coverage the
recession should not affect. They also noted that some of the states
where health care spending slowed most rapidly were states that were not
hit particularly badly by the recession, suggesting that other factors
were at play.
“The recession just doesn’t account for the numbers we’re seeing,” said David Cutler, a Harvard health economist and former adviser to President Obama. “I think there’s much more going on.”
The implications of a bend in the cost curve would be enormous. Policy
makers on both sides of the aisle see rising health care costs as the
central threat to household budgets and the country’s fiscal health. If
the growth in Medicare were to come down to a rate of only 1 percentage
point a year faster than the economy’s growth, the projected long-term
deficit would fall by more than one-third.
The growth of health costs slowed in the 1990s as health maintenance
organizations became more popular. That played a role in both gains in
household income — less money on employer-provided health benefits means
more money for raises — and in budget surpluses, economists argue.
Some experts caution that there remains too little data to determine
whether the current slowdown will become permanent, or whether it is
merely a blip caused by the economy’s weakness.
“If there’s something else going on, we don’t know what it is yet,” said
Gail Wilensky, a health economist who headed Medicare and Medicaid
during the administration of President George Bush. “The most honest
thing to say is that, one, the reduction in use is greater than the
recession predicts; two, we don’t understand why yet; and, three, you’d
be foolhardy to say that we can understand it.”
She argued that the unusual decline in not just income but also wealth
during the recession might be one factor cutting down on use of the
health care system.
But many other health experts say that there is just enough data to
start detecting trends — even if the numbers remain murky, and the vast
complexity of the national health care market puts definitive answers
out of reach.
Many experts — and the Medicare and Medicaid center itself — point to
the explosion of high-deductible plans, in which consumers have lower
premiums but pay more out of pocket, as one main factor. The share of employees enrolled in high-deductible plans surged to 13 percent in 2011 from 3 percent in 2006, according to Mercer Consulting.
That means thousands of consumers with an incentive to think twice about heading to the doctor. One study
by the RAND Corporation found that health spending among people who
shifted into a high-deductible plan dropped 14 percent — though the
study also found that enrollees cut back on some care that tended to
save money in the long run, like vaccinations.
A second factor is a dearth of expensive, novel drugs coming onto the
market, experts said, as well as growing pressure to use generics.
“There just aren’t as many blockbusters,” said Professor Cutler, the
Harvard economist.
Finally, and most important, health economists point to a shift toward
accountable care, in which providers are paid for the quality of care,
not the quantity.
There are about 164 “accountable organizations” in the United States,
according to research by Leavitt Partners. Hundreds of other insurers
and health systems have enacted some of the features of accountable
care, like assigning specially trained nurse practitioners to patients with multiple chronic conditions to make sure they take their medications and to prevent hospitalizations.
Many health care experts said they believed that the shift toward
publicizing medical error rates and encouraging accountable care seemed
to be paying dividends — and that providers were making changes in
anticipation of the health care overhaul, which further emphasize
accountable care.
“In Massachusetts, we had a lot of political pressure to understand the
growth in costs as unsustainable,” said Sandra Fenwick, the chief
operating officer of Children’s Hospital Boston, which has put more than
100 reforms into effect, saving millions of dollars, in the past four
years. “We had to figure out how we were going to be part of the
solution, not part of the problem.”
Ms. Davis of the Commonwealth Fund said that “a lot of the big gains
have come from keeping people out of the hospital and the emergency
rooms.”
“Five or seven years ago, the private sector started rewarding providers that got their patients’ chronic conditions like diabetes and asthma
under control,” Ms. Davis said. “That was couched as a quality-control
measure, or putting an emphasis on chronic-disease care. But the direct
result is going to be a reduction of hospitalization.”
Moreover, experts said not to discount the accountable-care revolution
just because it remained small or because the changes implemented by the
Obama health care law had not come into full effect yet.
“In the past, these slowdowns have occurred not just because of the
direct effect of reforms, but because of greater attention to reforms
changing provider and patient behavior,” said Mark B. McClellan, the
economist and doctor who ran Medicare and Medicaid under President
George W. Bush.
Of course, health care experts caution that there have been times when
health care spending had slowed, only to start tracking back up again.
“If you asked me, ‘How confident are you that this is not just the
recession?’ I’d say 75 percent,” said Professor Cutler of Harvard. But
he said he was less confident that this trend would continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment