It’s Still The Prices, Stupid: Why The US Spends So Much On Health Care, And A Tribute To Uwe Reinhardt

Anderson, Gerard F.; Hussey, Peter S.; Petrosyan, Varduhi

doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05144

Cited by 164 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Economists compared healthcare expenditures in the U.S. to those of other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and found that "US prices for a market basket of brand-name prescription drugs and medical devices are often two to three times higher than prices in other OECD countries, but there is considerable variation in prices for specific drugs and devices across countries." 87 With inaction by the federal government, nearly every state considered legislation in 2018 to address rising drug costs, and many also made changes to prescription drug coverage by their Medicaid or state employee benefit program. Nonetheless, it remains unclear if these actions will mitigate rising drug costs, especially as experts predict prescription drug costs will continue to contribute to health spending growth.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Burden of Federalism: Challenges to State Attempts at Controlling Prescription Drug Costs

Gudiksen¹,

King²

2019

Journal of Legal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Burden of Federalism: Challenges to State Attempts at Controlling Prescription Drug Costs

Gudiksen¹,

King²

2019

Journal of Legal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Government funding, including public programs, private insurance for government employees, and tax subsidies for private insurance, represented 64% of national health expenditures in 2013, or 11% of GDP, more than total health expenditures in almost any other nation [10]. Higher costs in the US are due primarily to higher prices and administrative inefficiency, not higher utilization [11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or-mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a single-payer approach. Methods and findings We conducted our literature search between June 1 and December 31, 2018, without start date restriction for included studies. We surveyed an expert panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the US or for individual states. Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings using a template. We quantified changes in total costs standardized to percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending. Additionally, we quantified cost changes by subtype, such as costs due to increased healthcare utilization and savings due to simplified payment administration, lower drug costs, and other factors. We further examined how modeling assumptions affected results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 single-payer plans over the past 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical data or assuming a substantial ongoing role for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median net result was a savings of 3.46% of total costs) in the first year of program operation and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment administration (median 8.8%), and the best predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increase, and

show abstract

“…The demand for health services is expected to increase with population ageing . In this context, price setting and regulation serves as an instrument to control volumes of services and spending, maintain quality, and promote sustainability and efficiency …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 In this context, price setting and regulation serves as an instrument to control volumes of services and spending, maintain quality, and promote sustainability and efficiency. 5,6 In recognition of its complexity and importance, many countries have established or designated specific entities to carry out price setting and regulation. In this study, we investigate systems and institutions in eight settings, to understand their roles, function, and the level of resources invested to carry out price setting and regulatory tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutions for health care price setting and regulation: A comparative review of eight settings

Barber¹,

Lorenzoni

Ong³

2019

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Price setting and regulation serve as instruments to control volumes of services, while providing incentives for quality, coverage, and efficiency. In recognition of its complexity, many countries have established specific entities to carry out price setting and regulation. Methods The aim of the study is to investigate institutions established for health care price setting and regulation and determine how countries have implemented pricing strategies. Eight settings were selected for case studies: Australia, England, France, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Thailand, and Maryland in the United States. Each identified the agency responsible, their role and function, and resources for implementation. Results In England, Japan, Korea, and Thailand, government entities conduct price setting and regulation. In Australia, France, Germany, and Maryland, independent entities were established. Their responsibilities include costing health services, establishing prices, negotiating with stakeholders, and publishing price and quality data for consumers. Conclusions Dedicated institutions have been established to carry out costing, price setting, and negotiation, and providing consumer information. Characteristics of successful systems include formal systems of communication with stakeholders, freedom from conflicts of interest, and the mandate to provide public information. Substantial investments in price regulatory systems have been made to attain coverage, quality, and efficiency.

show abstract

It’s Still The Prices, Stupid: Why The US Spends So Much On Health Care, And A Tribute To Uwe Reinhardt

Cited by 164 publications

References 40 publications

The Burden of Federalism: Challenges to State Attempts at Controlling Prescription Drug Costs

The Burden of Federalism: Challenges to State Attempts at Controlling Prescription Drug Costs

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses

Institutions for health care price setting and regulation: A comparative review of eight settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About