Estimating health care delivery system value for each US state and testing key associations.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate health care systems' value in treating major illnesses for each US state and identify system characteristics associated with value. DATA SOURCES: Annual condition-specific death and incidence estimates for each US state from the Global Burden Disease 2019 Study and annual health care spending per person for each state from the National Health Expenditure Accounts. STUDY DESIGN: Using non-linear meta-stochastic frontier analysis, mortality incidence ratios for 136 major treatable illnesses were regressed separately on per capita health care spending and key covariates such as age, obesity, smoking, and educational attainment. State- and year-specific inefficiency estimates were extracted for each health condition and combined to create a single estimate of health care delivery system value for each US state for each year, 1991-2014. The association between changes in health care value and changes in 23 key health care system characteristics and state policies was measured. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: US state with relatively high spending per person or relatively poor health-outcomes were shown to have low health care delivery system value. New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, Arizona, and New York attained the highest value scores in 2014 (81 [95% uncertainty interval 72-88], 80 [72-87], 80 [71-86], 77 [69-84], and 77 [66-85], respectively), after controlling for health care spending, age, obesity, smoking, physical activity, race, and educational attainment. Greater market concentration of hospitals and of insurers were associated with worse health care value (p-value ranging from <0.01 to 0.02). Higher hospital geographic density and use were also associated with worse health care value (p-value ranging from 0.03 to 0.05). Enrollment in Medicare Advantage HMOs was associated with better value, as was more generous Medicaid income eligibility (p-value 0.04 and 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in the value of health care exists across states. Key health system characteristics such as market concentration and provider density were associated with value.

US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016.

Importance: US health care spending has continued to increase and now accounts for 18% of the US economy, although little is known about how spending on each health condition varies by payer, and how these amounts have changed over time. Objective: To estimate US spending on health care according to 3 types of payers (public insurance [including Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs], private insurance, or out-of-pocket payments) and by health condition, age group, sex, and type of care for 1996 through 2016. Design and Setting: Government budgets, insurance claims, facility records, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2016 were collected to estimate spending for 154 health conditions. Spending growth rates (standardized by population size and age group) were calculated for each type of payer and health condition. Exposures: Ambulatory care, inpatient care, nursing care facility stay, emergency department care, dental care, and purchase of prescribed pharmaceuticals in a retail setting. Main Outcomes and Measures: National spending estimates stratified by health condition, age group, sex, type of care, and type of payer and modeled for each year from 1996 through 2016. Results: Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. In 2016, an estimated 48.0% (95% CI, 48.0%-48.0%) of health care spending was paid by private insurance, 42.6% (95% CI, 42.5%-42.6%) by public insurance, and 9.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-9.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. In 2016, among the 154 conditions, low back and neck pain had the highest amount of health care spending with an estimated $134.5 billion (95% CI, $122.4-$146.9 billion) in spending, of which 57.2% (95% CI, 52.2%-61.2%) was paid by private insurance, 33.7% (95% CI, 30.0%-38.4%) by public insurance, and 9.2% (95% CI, 8.3%-10.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. Other musculoskeletal disorders accounted for the second highest amount of health care spending (estimated at $129.8 billion [95% CI, $116.3-$149.7 billion]) and most had private insurance (56.4% [95% CI, 52.6%-59.3%]). Diabetes accounted for the third highest amount of the health care spending (estimated at $111.2 billion [95% CI, $105.7-$115.9 billion]) and most had public insurance (49.8% [95% CI, 44.4%-56.0%]). Other conditions estimated to have substantial health care spending in 2016 were ischemic heart disease ($89.3 billion [95% CI, $81.1-$95.5 billion]), falls ($87.4 billion [95% CI, $75.0-$100.1 billion]), urinary diseases ($86.0 billion [95% CI, $76.3-$95.9 billion]), skin and subcutaneous diseases ($85.0 billion [95% CI, $80.5-$90.2 billion]), osteoarthritis ($80.0 billion [95% CI, $72.2-$86.1 billion]), dementias ($79.2 billion [95% CI, $67.6-$90.8 billion]), and hypertension ($79.0 billion [95% CI, $72.6-$86.8 billion]). The conditions with the highest spending varied by type of payer, age, sex, type of care, and year. After adjusting for changes in inflation, population size, and age groups, public insurance spending was estimated to have increased at an annualized rate of 2.9% (95% CI, 2.9%-2.9%); private insurance, 2.6% (95% CI, 2.6%-2.6%); and out-of-pocket payments, 1.1% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: Estimates of US spending on health care showed substantial increases from 1996 through 2016, with the highest increases in population-adjusted spending by public insurance. Although spending on low back and neck pain, other musculoskeletal disorders, and diabetes accounted for the highest amounts of spending, the payers and the rates of change in annual spending growth rates varied considerably.

Funding and services needed to achieve universal health coverage: applications of global, regional, and national estimates of utilisation of outpatient visits and inpatient admissions from 1990 to 2016, and unit costs from 1995 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: To inform plans to achieve universal health coverage (UHC), we estimated utilisation and unit cost of outpatient visits and inpatient admissions, did a decomposition analysis of utilisation, and estimated additional services and funds needed to meet a UHC standard for utilisation. METHODS: We collated 1175 country-years of outpatient data on utilisation from 130 countries and 2068 country-years of inpatient data from 128 countries. We did meta-regression analyses of annual visits and admissions per capita by sex, age, location, and year with DisMod-MR, a Bayesian meta-regression tool. We decomposed changes in total number of services from 1990 to 2016. We used data from 795 National Health Accounts to estimate shares of outpatient and inpatient services in total health expenditure by location and year and estimated unit costs as expenditure divided by utilisation. We identified standards of utilisation per disability-adjusted life-year and estimated additional services and funds needed. FINDINGS: In 2016, the global age-standardised outpatient utilisation rate was 5·42 visits (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 4·88-5·99) per capita and the inpatient utilisation rate was 0·10 admissions (0·09-0·11) per capita. Globally, 39·35 billion (95% UI 35·38-43·58) visits and 0·71 billion (0·65-0·77) admissions were provided in 2016. Of the 58·65% increase in visits since 1990, population growth accounted for 42·95%, population ageing for 8·09%, and higher utilisation rates for 7·63%; results for the 67·96% increase in admissions were 44·33% from population growth, 9·99% from population ageing, and 13·55% from increases in utilisation rates. 2016 unit cost estimates (in 2017 international dollars [I$]) ranged from I$2 to I$478 for visits and from I$87 to I$22 543 for admissions. The annual cost of 8·20 billion (6·24-9·95) additional visits and 0·28 billion (0·25-0·30) admissions in low-income and lower-middle income countries in 2016 was I$503·12 billion (404·35-605·98) or US$158·10 billion (126·58-189·67). INTERPRETATION: UHC plans can be based on utilisation and unit costs of current health systems and guided by standards of utilisation of outpatient visits and inpatient admissions that achieve the highest coverage of personal health services at the lowest cost. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.