WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF YESTERDAY’S POST? Yesterday’s post simply stated the conclusion of the Burtless study that “on average, annual health spending per person — from all private and government sources — is equal for the poorest and the richest Americans. In 2003, it was $4,477 for the poorest fifth and $4,451 for the richest.” I left the conclusion without comment partly to emphasize it and partly because I don’t have a lot more to say than to express surprise. I couldn’t find the study on Google. There may be questions about the methodology of the study, especially given the convoluted, jerry-built nature of health-care financing. It may be that the health of the poorest fifth is a lot worse than that of the rich so expenditures on the poorest ought to be a lot larger. Expenditures are not the same as outcomes (mortality by income quintile). The Samuelson article cited a study which “compared the insured and uninsured after the onset of a chronic illness — say, heart disease or diabetes.” The conclusion: “Outcomes differed little.”
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- Gary Nuetzel on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Francesca on EATING PEAS WITH A KNIFE.
- avon wilsmore on CHEATING IN CHAMPIONSHIP BRIDGE.
- Anonymous on THE LANGUAGE WEIRDNESS INDEX.
- James Friscia on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Lickity Splitfingers on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- David Quemere on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Nicholas Schaefer on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
Meta
Perhaps the equivqlence in expnditure is because the very poor have Medicaid. (Where else could the poor be getting this money? I doubt that ER expenditures cause the equivalence.) Many of the arguments in favor of more health insurance coverage seem to focus on the working poor. Elmer