US: 1% of People Account for 22% of Total Healthcare Spending

[BoyNextDoor]

As the healthcare debate seems to be driving much of the policy in the 2020 presidential election - I thought this was interesting:


1% of People Account for 22% of Total Healthcare Spending

Additionally, the top 5% of the population accounted for over half of total healthcare spending in 2017.

Using data from the agency’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component (MEPS-HC), researchers found that just 5 percent of the population accounted for over half (50.1 percent) of total healthcare spending in 2017, which represented nearly 18 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) that year.

Of these individuals, the top 1 percent of individuals ranked by their healthcare expenditures in 2017 represented about 22 percent of total healthcare spending that year, with an annual mean expenditure of $116,331. This included all sources of healthcare payments, including private insurance payments, Medicare, Medicaid, out-of-pocket spending, and other sources.

People who spent more on healthcare tended to be older and white, and they spent more on inpatient care compared to the bottom half of the population.

AHRQ researchers found that nearly 40 percent of the expenses from the top 5 percent of the population were for inpatient stays. Individuals in the bottom 50 percent of the population spent next to nothing (0.1 percent) on inpatient care. Their expenditures were more likely to go toward ambulatory events (54.3 percent).

[Please do not post copyright material without citation, and then limit your excerpts to less than 5 paragraphs, per our forum guidelines.]

 

[BotanyBoy]

so what

He's helping identify the first to go to gulag for cost controls.

 

[RobDownSouth]

People who spent more on healthcare tended to be older and white, and they spent more on inpatient care compared to the bottom half of the population.

But hai, there's no such thing as "white privilege", right? Right?

 

[BotanyBoy]

But hai, there's no such thing as "white privilege", right? Right?

No. Tend =/= exclusive....learn to read.

That's green privilege, not the same as white privilege.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No. Tend =/= exclusive....learn to read.

That's green privilege, not the same as white privilege.

Tend =/= exclusive? Really? What is causing this logical "about face"?

Earlier this week you were yammering loudly that "some = all". So if someone supported "some" parts of a policy, they supported "all", and conversely, if they didn't support "all", they didn't support "any".

You'll recall that since I didn't support "all" of the DHS policies (specifically the "kids in concentration camps" policy that you adore), that I therefore supported "none" of them and ergo that was your "proof" that I somehow supported "OpenBorders".

Are you willing to admit the obvious flaw in your earlier "false dilemma" fallacy now?
Or are you going to continue to insist that "2+2=5"?

 

[Paul_Chance]

It does illustrate one of the underlying problem with health care - stated concisely, it is limited supply/unlimited demand. Any true solution has to address the supply side of the equation as well as the demand side of the equation.

Proposals like the ACA before and "Medicare For All" now both failed to address the supply side - which is why they ultimately failed in addressing the big picture. I don't have a solution, through things like price transparency and freedom of choice are steps in the right direction, what is needed to a massive program to increase the supply, which of course is generally opposed by the various medical lobbies because it reduces their power over the market place, which is ultimately driven by their ability to control supply.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Tend =/= exclusive? Really? What is causing this logical "about face"?

Earlier this week you were yammering loudly that "some = all". So if someone supported "some" parts of a policy, they supported "all", and conversely, if they didn't support "all", they didn't support "any".

Nope, all your fantasy.

You'll recall that since I didn't support "all" of the DHS policies (specifically the "kids in concentration camps" policy that you adore), that I therefore supported "none" of them and ergo that was your "proof" that I somehow supported "OpenBorders".

More of your fantasies.

Your open derision of Immigration and Customs (ice) as Nazis and refusal to state that you support secure borders and control over who/what comes into the USA is STRONG evidence that you are in support of OpenBorders.

But don't let that stop you from making up lies about me, never does.

Are you willing to admit the obvious flaw in your earlier "false dilemma" fallacy now?
Or are you going to continue to insist that "2+2=5"?

Admit to your ascribed bullshit or continue to insist on your made up bullshit???

How about neither because you're wild dishonesty doesn't hold up.


Are you going to openly support having secure borders and control over who/what comes into the USA or are you an open borders nut???

 

[RobDownSouth]

So, as we can see above, BotanaziBoy continues to insist "2+2=5", and he has the excrusive right to asclibe positions to anyone. Hai!

 

[BotanyBoy]

So, as we can see above, BotanaziBoy continues to insist "2+2=5", and he has the excrusive right to asclibe positions to anyone. Hai!

A total ascription of a post itself.

What's NOT ascription is that Rob continues to REFUSE to state that he supports the USA having secure borders and control over who/what comes into it.

We know why.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

It does illustrate one of the underlying problem with health care - stated concisely, it is limited supply/unlimited demand. Any true solution has to address the supply side of the equation as well as the demand side of the equation.

Proposals like the ACA before and "Medicare For All" now both failed to address the supply side - which is why they ultimately failed in addressing the big picture. I don't have a solution, through things like price transparency and freedom of choice are steps in the right direction, what is needed to a massive program to increase the supply, which of course is generally opposed by the various medical lobbies because it reduces their power over the market place, which is ultimately driven by their ability to control supply.

Agreed.

My PCP of 22 years is retiring at the end of this year. He carries 2400 patients and there is no way to spread us out over the other 34 PCPs because they are all maxxed at their 2400 patient capacity.

They are hiring but the competition is fierce and the costs of becoming a doctor are so high most new docs have to specialize for the higher fees to pay their loans. PCPs are becoming an endangered species. They (the industry) are going to have to let nurse practitioners do more I think.

Costs have to come down for a medical education and yes we need a massive program to recruit and educate a new generation of doctors and advanced healthcare practitioners.

 

[dolf]

A small percentage of people with chronic illness are going to use a lot more than a large number of people who rarely need more than a flu shot and pap test.
The race thing is interesting... Could cultural differences in the care of the elderly account for some of it? An elderly person who has regular company and assistance from their family is likely to be healthier for longer.
Of course, this being about America, there's going to be financial inequalities impacting this to a greater degree than it would here.

Interesting stats!

 

[chillywilly2]

BNB
what do they mean by top and bottom percent.
Is it an income level or what is spent on care.
To me it is what is spent on care. top 5% are sicker and need more spending.
As far as the older and white goes, thats just a matter of they account for a greater % of population so of course there will be more spending.

There is way too much missing from the article to draw any conclusion.
All I can see here from the replys is that litsters just like to argue when they only have 25% of the facts

 

[BoyNextDoor]

This is the source data It includes references. From the statistical brief:

"The group within the top 1 percent is defined as persons who spent $66,454 or more during the year. Cut-points for additional percentile groups are shown in table 1. The top 5 percent of the population accounted for 50.1 percent of total expenditures (100 minus 49.9 percent), with an annual mean expenditure of $53,174. The bottom 50 percent accounted for only 2.9 percent of total health care expenditures. Persons in this group spent less than $1,051 during the year (table 1), with an average annual expenditure of $305."

 

[toeskr]

So, as we can see above, BotanaziBoy continues to insist "2+2=5", and he has the excrusive right to asclibe positions to anyone. Hai!

Dyed in the wool racist. You just can't help yourself can you?

Do you miss your lunches with Sen. Byrd?

Has bot damaged you that bad?

 

[SpeareChucker]

* reported *


for too many c&p paragraphs.