IS THERE INFLATION IN THE PRICE OF HEALTH CARE? I have linked several times to articles by Robert Samuelson and I have a high regard for him. I have to disagree with some of this article and the implications of one sentence in particular. (You can see from the date of the article that I have been brooding about this). The sentence in the article is: “Since 1975, annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation, has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person.” The point comes up frequently—I think unfortunately. The article speaks of “health cost inflation.” The costs are added up without taking into account the changes in what is obtained for the increased costs. When inflation in other consumer prices is measured, corrections are generally made for quality improvements. It is recognized that a “computer” in 1975 is less valuable than a “computer” in 2009. Yet costs of health care are added up without considering what we are getting for the money. This article gives the average expected life span at birth in 1975 as 72.6 years and the figure for 2005 as 77.8. I marvel that five years were added to life expectancy in thirty years. Somehow that improvement must be taken into account when increases in health costs are considered.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
- Nick: Further informing my perspective was that in the writings of classical Romans the middle-aged authors opined...
- ARE PEOPLE LESS VIOLENT? (COMMENT). (2)
- Dick Weisfelder: My prior comment was just in the context of sports. Whether or not from Pinker, I have seen the...
- erik: It seems doubtful that human nature has changed. The most likely explanation would be that modern culture gives...
- HOW BANKS PREPARED FOR A U.S. DEFAULT. (2)
- GREECE’S ADVANTAGE IN THE CHICKEN GAME. (2)
- Nick: That makes sense. It reminds me of the stories Pater Familias would tell me about how in Boston the person with...
- Dick Weisfelder: Greece seems to me to be playing a game that Karl Deutsch called “underdog.” While one...
- FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? (3)
- Nick: It was my understanding that boxing gloves were to protect the puncher’s hands and not the...
- Dick Weisfelder: Remember the Roman arenas? Bare knuckled boxing? Such injuries were taken as natural and accepted in...
- Mary Jane Schaefer: This isn’t about football. Or even sportsmanship. Well, it is about sportsmanship. But what...
- A 25 % CHANCE OF A EURO DEFAULT? (1)
- Nick: The fact that this has gone on for so long is pretty perplexing. The Economist is referring back to articles it...
- DECIDING WHAT KIND OF PATIENT YOU ARE. (1)
- Dick Weisfelder: One can be very open to new technology, but also risk averse. The recent debates about how to...
- “A COMFORT BLANKET FOR THE SMUG”? (1)
Meta
The article on health care in the Economist of June 27, 2009 suggests that Americans are getting far less for their money than they should. It demonstrates that the alleged relationship between cost and quality of care or outcome is largely spurious. The differential between the average annual medicare expenditure in Miami of $16,000 and less than $5,000 in Salem, Oregon does not reflect better care in the former. In fact that article suggests that outcomes are better where costs are lower and that a third of US expenditure is pure waste. The article also makes interesting comparisons of US costs and outcomes with those in other industrial nations with different types of health care systems.
Pingback: WHY IS MEDICAL CARE MORE EXPENSIVE IN SOME CITIES (COMMENT)? | Pater Familias
Pingback: THE FIGHT AGAINST HEART DISEASE—”EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND WILDLY SUCCESSFUL.” | Pater Familias
Pingback: CURBING RUNAWAY EXPENDITURE ON COMPUTERS. | Pater Familias
Pingback: WILL THE NEXT GENERATION BE DOWNWARDLY MOBILE? | Pater Familias