US Health Care Spending by Race and Ethnicity, 2002-2016.

Importance: Measuring health care spending by race and ethnicity is important for understanding patterns in utilization and treatment. Objective: To estimate, identify, and account for differences in health care spending by race and ethnicity from 2002 through 2016 in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This exploratory study included data from 7.3 million health system visits, admissions, or prescriptions captured in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2002-2016) and the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (2002-2012), which were combined with the insured population and notified case estimates from the National Health Interview Survey (2002; 2016) and health care spending estimates from the Disease Expenditure project (1996-2016). Exposure: Six mutually exclusive self-reported race and ethnicity groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total and age-standardized health care spending per person by race and ethnicity for each year from 2002 through 2016 by type of care. Health care spending per notified case by race and ethnicity for key diseases in 2016. Differences in health care spending across race and ethnicity groups were decomposed into differences in utilization rate vs differences in price and intensity of care. Results: In 2016, an estimated $2.4 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $2.4 trillion-$2.4 trillion) was spent on health care across the 6 types of care included in this study. The estimated age-standardized total health care spending per person in 2016 was $7649 (95% UI, $6129-$8814) for American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) individuals; $4692 (95% UI, $4068-$5202) for Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) individuals; $7361 (95% UI, $6917-$7797) for Black (non-Hispanic) individuals; $6025 (95% UI, $5703-$6373) for Hispanic individuals; $9276 (95% UI, $8066-$10 601) for individuals categorized as multiple races (non-Hispanic); and $8141 (95% UI, $8038-$8258) for White (non-Hispanic) individuals, who accounted for an estimated 72% (95% UI, 71%-73%) of health care spending. After adjusting for population size and age, White individuals received an estimated 15% (95% UI, 13%-17%; P < .001) more spending on ambulatory care than the all-population mean. Black (non-Hispanic) individuals received an estimated 26% (95% UI, 19%-32%; P < .001) less spending than the all-population mean on ambulatory care but received 19% (95% UI, 3%-32%; P = .02) more on inpatient and 12% (95% UI, 4%-24%; P = .04) more on emergency department care. Hispanic individuals received an estimated 33% (95% UI, 26%-37%; P < .001) less spending per person on ambulatory care than the all-population mean. Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) individuals received less spending than the all-population mean on all types of care except dental (all P < .001), while American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) individuals had more spending on emergency department care than the all-population mean (estimated 90% more; 95% UI, 11%-165%; P = .04), and multiple-race (non-Hispanic) individuals had more spending on emergency department care than the all-population mean (estimated 40% more; 95% UI, 19%-63%; P = .006). All 18 of the statistically significant race and ethnicity spending differences by type of care corresponded with differences in utilization. These differences persisted when controlling for underlying disease burden. Conclusions and Relevance: In the US from 2002 through 2016, health care spending varied by race and ethnicity across different types of care even after adjusting for age and health conditions. Further research is needed to determine current health care spending by race and ethnicity, including spending related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Varied Health Spending Growth Across US States Was Associated With Incomes, Price Levels, And Medicaid Expansion, 2000-19.

Little is known about health care spending variation across the US for recent years. To estimate health spending by state and payer, we combined data from the government's State Health Expenditure Accounts, which have estimates through 2014, with other primary data on spending. In 2019 state-specific per person spending ranged from $7,250 to $14,500. After adjustment for inflation, annualized per person spending growth for each state ranged from 1.0 percent in Washington, D.C., to 4.2 percent in South Dakota between 2013 and 2019. The factors that explained the most variation across states were incomes (25.3 percent) and consumer prices (21.7 percent). Medicaid expansion was associated with increases in total spending per person, although the median of spending in expansion states showed slower growth in out-of-pocket spending than the median in nonexpansion states. Contemporary estimates of state health spending are valuable for tracking divergent expenditure trajectories in the US and assessing the associated factors.

Trends and outcomes in primary health care expenditures in low-income and middle-income countries, 2000-2017.

INTRODUCTION: As the world responds to COVID-19 and aims for the Sustainable Development Goals, the potential for primary healthcare (PHC) is substantial, although the trends and effectiveness of PHC expenditure are unknown. We estimate PHC expenditure for each low-income and middle-income country between 2000 and 2017 and test which health outputs and outcomes were associated with PHC expenditure. METHODS: We used three data sources to estimate PHC expenditures: recently published health expenditure estimates for each low-income and middle-income country, which were constructed using 1662 country-reported National Health Accounts; proprietary data from IQVIA to estimate expenditure of prescribed pharmaceuticals for PHC; and household surveys and costing estimates to estimate inpatient vaginal delivery expenditures. We employed regression analyses to measure the association between PHC expenditures and 15 health outcomes and intermediate health outputs. RESULTS: PHC expenditures in low-income and middle-income countries increased between 2000 and 2017, from $41 per capita (95% uncertainty interval $33-$49) to $90 ($73-$105). Expenditures for low-income countries plateaued since 2014 at $17 per capita ($15-$19). As national income increased, the proportion of health expenditures on PHC generally decrease; however, the fraction of PHC expenditures spent via ambulatory care providers grew. Increases in the fraction of health expenditures on PHC was associated with lower maternal mortality rate (p value≤0.001), improved coverage of antenatal care visits (p value≤0.001), measles vaccination (p value≤0.001) and an increase in the Health Access and Quality index (p value≤0.05). PHC expenditure was not systematically associated with all-age mortality, communicable and non-communicable disease (NCD) burden. CONCLUSION: PHC expenditures were associated with maternal and child health but were not associated with reduction in health burden for other key causes of disability, such as NCDs. To combat changing disease burdens, policy-makers and health professionals need to adapt primary healthcare to ensure continued impact on emerging health challenges.

Health expenditures by services and providers for 195 countries, 2000-2017.

INTRODUCTION: National Health Accounts are a significant source of health expenditure data, designed to be comprehensive and comparable across countries. However, there is currently no single repository of this data and even when compiled major gaps persist. This research aims to provide policymakers and researchers with a single repository of available national health expenditures by healthcare functions (ie, services) and providers of such services. Leveraging these data within statistical methods, a complete set of detailed health expenditures is estimated. METHODS: A methodical compilation and synthesis of all available national health expenditure reports including disaggregation by healthcare functions and providers was conducted. Using these data, a Bayesian multivariate regression analysis was implemented to estimate national-level health expenditures by the cross-classification of functions and providers for 195 countries, from 2000 to 2017. RESULTS: This research used 1662 country-years and 110 070 data points of health expenditures from existing National Health Accounts. The most detailed country-year had 52% of the categories of interest reported. Of all health functions, curative care and medical goods were estimated to make up 51.4% (uncertainty interval (UI) 33.2% to 59.4%) and 17.5% (UI 13.0% to 26.9%) of total global health expenditures in 2017, respectively. Three-quarters of the global health expenditures are allocated to three categories of providers: hospital providers (35.4%, UI 30.3% to 38.9%), providers of ambulatory care (25.5%, UI 21.1% to 28.8%) and retailers of medical goods (14.4%, UI 12.4% to 16.3%). As gross domestic product increases, countries spend more on long-term care and less on preventive care. CONCLUSION: Disaggregated estimates of health expenditures are often unavailable and unable to provide policymakers and researchers a holistic understanding of how expenditures are used. This research aggregates reported data and provides a complete time-series of estimates, with uncertainty, of health expenditures by health functions and providers between 2000 and 2017 for 195 countries.

Tracking total spending on tuberculosis by source and function in 135 low-income and middle-income countries, 2000-17: a financial modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of government spending and development assistance for tuberculosis exist, but less is known about out-of-pocket and prepaid private spending. We aimed to provide comprehensive estimates of total spending on tuberculosis in low-income and middle-income countries for 2000-17. METHODS: We extracted data on tuberculosis spending, unit costs, and health-care use from the WHO global tuberculosis database, Global Fund proposals and reports, National Health Accounts, the WHO-Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective project database, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Development Assistance for Health Database. We extracted data from at least one of these sources for all 135 low-income and middle-income countries using the World Bank 2019 definitions. We estimated tuberculosis spending by source and function for notified (officially reported) and non-notified tuberculosis cases separately and combined, using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression to fill in for missing data and estimate uncertainty. We aggregated estimates of government, out-of-pocket, prepaid private, and development assistance spending on tuberculosis to estimate total spending in 2019 US$. FINDINGS: Total spending on tuberculosis in 135 low-income and middle-income countries increased annually by 3·9% (95% CI 3·0 to 4·6), from $5·7 billion (5·2 to 6·5) in 2000 to $10·9 billion (10·3 to 11·8) in 2017. Government spending increased annually by 5·1% (4·4 to 5·7) between 2000 and 2017, and reached $6·9 billion (6·5 to 7·5) or 63·5% (59·2 to 66·8) of all tuberculosis spending in 2017. Of government spending, $5·8 billion (5·6 to 6·1) was spent on notified cases. Out-of-pocket spending decreased annually by 0·8% (-2·9 to 1·3), from $2·4 billion (1·9 to 3·1) in 2000 to $2·1 billion (1·6 to 2·7) in 2017. Development assistance for country-specific spending on tuberculosis increased from $54·6 million in 2000 to $1·1 billion in 2017. Administrative costs and development assistance for global projects related to tuberculosis care increased from $85·3 million in 2000 to $576·2 million in 2017. 30 high tuberculosis burden countries of low and middle income accounted for 73·7% (71·8-75·8) of tuberculosis spending in 2017. INTERPRETATION: Despite substantial increases since 2000, funding for tuberculosis is still far short of global financing targets and out-of-pocket spending remains high in resource-constrained countries, posing a barrier to patient's access to care and treatment adherence. Of the 30 countries with a high-burden of tuberculosis, just over half were primarily funded by government, while others, especially lower-middle-income and low-income countries, were still primarily dependent on development assistance for tuberculosis or out-of-pocket health spending. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.