Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Paying More, Getting Less: Just Where Do America's Health Care Dollars Go?

By Joel A. Harrison, Dollars and Sense. Posted June 23, 2008.


If people grasped the size of the health care bill they already pay (through taxes), opponents of a universal single-payer system would be in trouble.
Advertisement

By any measure, the United States spends an enormous amount of money on health care. Here are a few of those measures. In 2006, U.S. health care spending exceeded 16 percent of the nation’s GDP. To put U.S. spending into perspective: the United States spent 15.3 percent of GDP on health care in 2004, while Canada spent 9.9 percent, France 10.7 percent, Germany 10.9 percent, Sweden 9.1 percent, and the United Kingdom 8.7 percent. Or consider per capita spending: the United States spent $6,037 per person in 2004, compared to Canada at $3,161, France at $3,191, Germany at $3,169, and the U.K. at $2,560.

By now the high overall cost of health care in the United States is broadly recognized. And many Americans are acutely aware of how much they pay for their own care. Those without health insurance face sky-high doctor and hospital bills and ever more aggressive collection tactics -- when they receive care at all. Those who are fortunate enough to have insurance experience steep annual premium hikes along with rising deductibles and co-pays, and, all too often, a well-founded fear of losing their coverage should they lose a job or have a serious illness in the family.

Still, Americans may well underestimate the degree to which they subsidize the current U.S. health care system out of their own pockets. And almost no one recognizes that even people without health insurance pay substantial sums into the system today. If more people understood the full size of the health care bill that they as individuals are already paying -- and for a system that provides seriously inadequate care to millions of Americans -- then the corporate opponents of a universal single-payer system might find it far more difficult to frighten the public about the costs of that system. In other words, to recognize the advantages of a single-payer system, we have to understand how the United States funds health care and health research and how much it actually costs us today.

Paying through the Taxman

The U.S. health care system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60 percent of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes, according to a 2002 analysis published in Health Affairs by Harvard Medical School associate professors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein. Tax dollars pay for Medicare and Medicaid, for the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service. Tax dollars pay for health coverage for federal, state, and municipal government employees and their families, as well as for many employees of private companies working on government contracts. Less visible but no less important, the tax deduction for employer-paid health insurance, along with other health care-related tax deductions, also represents a form of government spending on health care. It makes little difference whether the government gives taxpayers (or their employers) a deduction for their health care spending, on the one hand, or collects their taxes then pays for their health care, either directly or via a voucher, on the other. Moreover, tax dollars also pay for critical elements of the health care system apart from direct care -- Medicare funds much of the expensive equipment hospitals use, for instance, along with all medical residencies.

All told, then, tax dollars already pay for at least $1.2 trillion in annual U.S. health care expenses. Since federal, state, and local governments collected approximately $3.5 trillion in taxes of all kinds -- income, sales, property, corporate -- in 2006, that means that more than one third of the aggregate tax revenues collected in the United States that year went to pay for health care. (See Addendum below for information about how this estimate was calculated.)

Beyond their direct payments to health care providers and health insurance companies, then, Americans already make a sizeable annual payment into the health care system via taxes. How much does a typical household contribute to the country’s health care system altogether? Of course, households pay varying amounts in taxes depending on income and many other factors. Moreover, some households have no health insurance coverage; others do have coverage for which they may pay some or all of the premium cost. What I aim to do here is to estimate the average size of the health care cost burden for households at different income levels, both those with job-based health coverage and those with no coverage.

Note that the estimates in the table below do not include out-of-pocket expenses. For those with health insurance, these include co-pays, deductibles, and uncovered expenses (consider, for example, that even my high-end policy does not cover commonly used home medical equipment such as oxygen). For those without insurance, of course, out-of-pocket expenses include their full hospital, doctor, and pharmacy bills.

Click for larger version
(click for larger version)

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health care costs, single-payer, universal health care

Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, lives in San Diego, where he does consulting in epidemiology and research design.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Value for money vs redistribution of wealth to the rich.
Posted by: BlueGorilla on Jun 23, 2008 6:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems clear that US citizens, are not getting what they pay for.The US health service is heavy with unnecessaries ..ie admin,share holder dividends,ceo salaries etc.At the same time it is miserably failing to deliver on health outcomes.Cuba..little so called Communist Cuba has a more successful system ,than the worlds richest country,when it comes to the delivery of universal healthcare.
Here in the UK,our economically struggling country,managed to set up our national health service,following World War Two.This is free at the point of delivery,its not perfect,but even in consumer speak,we get more value for money,than US citizens.
It isn't the money,its how the money is spent.To be paying above the board premiums,and to be receiving an under the floor service,is rotten.
For so many American's to have bought into the myth that universal ,tax and employer funded and state provided health care, will transform the US citizens into 1930s Muscovites is tragi-comic.
This issue ,strongly shows,the power of the free market illusion (despite the unpleasant reality),and the effects of propaganda on a majority of US citizens.It also reveals the power of the corporate lobbyists,and the lack of any real political alternatives.The choice is between two conservative parties,competing in crooked elections.Where is the freedom?
Even relatively right wing friends and family of mine in the UK,don't go as far,as wanting to copy the US health system.
The social benefits,to having a tax/employer funded system,delivered by the public employees of the health service are huge.
Employers benefit from the lower sick/death rates,working and so called middle class employees enjoy a higher living standard ,are on the whole healthier (mentally and physically),society becomes more coherent,and the insecurity of worrying about meeting insurance payments dissapears.
I would argue that these factors make a society more free,and more fair.If people keep buying into bogus notions of freedom,then they will be fools to themselves,and their families.
The present US system could be renamed "Rich Aid",because it doesn't benefit anyone else.
Look at the international health outcomes league tables,and tell me which countries have the most freedom.Freedom from want,and disease is a genuine freedom,freedom to be lied to and ripped off,is not really much of a freedom at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Tell me . . . Posted by: countingdaisies
Simple : Say ~ Medicare for Everybody !
Posted by: mmckinl on Jun 24, 2008 12:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent article ... And another expose' of how corporations are ripping off the American taxpayer.

The question is : Just when are we going to get politicians that give a damn about this country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Get off your ass Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Get off your ass Posted by: mmckinl
In The Trenches
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jun 24, 2008 12:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a healthcare worker and have been in the trenches for more than 20 years, from small rural hospitals to big teaching hospitals. One thing I can assure you is that the money is NOT going to the bulk of people providing your care. Despite working in a licensed profession, wages, for most of us, have been stagnant for years and in real dollars are lower than they were a decade ago.

Hospitals are doing more with fewer people in direct patient contact. They are also replacing open full-time positions with multiple part-time positions, effectively making it harder for people to earn a decent living taking care of the sick and injured. The only area that I see growing, to massive bloat, is the overhead- people sitting behind desks in suit and tie with no real background, understanding or experience in healthcare. I'm not talking about necessary people like billing clerks, IT, medical records and such- I'm talking about pure administrative bloat. I have yet to see a sick person ask for an M.B.A. to tend to them- yet these people think they are qualified to run hospitals, tell licensed professionals how to do their jobs, generally make more money than anyone excepting the M.D.'s, and could not succinctly explain how anything they do improves the care of the patients of the operations of the facility.

The issue I raise is not the main problem, but is a major one and rarely ever gets discussed. Each year it only gets worse and is a major contributor to the frustrations driving highly qualified and experienced people out of the healing professions. It has been estimated that between 30-40% of a patient's bill in the US system has nothing to do with patient care or the necessary documentation and billing. That number is moving in the wrong direction and so is the condition of our system.

I and many like me did not go to school, take board exams, submit to continuing education and licensure to be ruled over by people so clueless they could not tell you which end of a thermometer goes in a patient's mouth- yet they are the 'experts' and 'managers' of much of our healthcare delivery system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» thank you Posted by: deborama
» I'm a Political Refugee Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: In The Trenches Posted by: dayenta
» Nothing is going to change. Posted by: wolfgangmo75
» RE: In The Trenches Posted by: badkitty
This one's easy to answer: lobbying and campaign donations. DUH !!
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 24, 2008 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's no different from Big "Defense". Oh, and they still get "free" bailouts from gubbmint. How about that ?!?!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

US "HEALTH CARE" SYSTEM IS BLOATED
Posted by: drricklippin on Jun 24, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In addition to extreme inefficient fragmentation and obscene administrative costs the US health care system is extremely bloated.

The system often fails the basic tests of
- does the particular service/product work? (efficacy)
- is the service/product downright dangerous?(safety)

In short americans have been duped by paternalistic,overly aggressive purveyors and marketers of high tech-high cost "disease care"(not health care)services much of which we don't need.

(I admit there are many tragically who don't even receive the basics?)

But what we need is a true US health care system based on individual (health behaviors) and institutional(public health) prevention

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,PA
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Posted by: gellero1
What can we expect from a fascist government?
Posted by: bdcroan on Jun 24, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our broken healthcare system is a reflection of our government. Do we need a revolution to make the dramatic changes needed in this country?

Not mentioned in the article is the high cost of medical malpractice, which does lie at the feet of the healthcare professionals. I bet we could reduce cost by 25 to 30 percent if that was eliminated.

The most obvious siphoning of taxpayer dollars is the Medicare Part D program which cannot claim to have just a 3% overhead. Doctors in Wisconsin have about 50 plans they have to understand so that the beneficiary receives benefit under their plan. It's a huge ripoff to everyone except the drug companies, the insurance companies and our bribe taking elected officials. My bad experience as a previous and involuntary "beneficiary" of a Part D plan (I was drafted by an secret government agency that was never revealed to me--very weird), defined the insurer's administration as corrupt or just incompetent. Were I not an aggressive old croan, they would have reaped HUGE profits, but instead raped very large profits.

Poor people are taking it in the shorts as usual.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So educate me, oh wise one. Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Just one little question.
Posted by: ciccio on Jun 24, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the height of the bird flu scare, when the government stockpiled millions of doses of tamiflu at a reported cost of $100 per dose, I went to my neighbourhood pharmacy in Toronto, were the price was $40 plus prescription fee which varies from $6-10. The question is simply this, why can this puny, powerless Canadian govt. buy American drugs cheaper than the US govt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just one little question. Posted by: wolfgangmo75
» RE: Just one little question. Posted by: tgabriel
INSURANCE COMPANIES INSURANCE INSURANCE
Posted by: FAITHCARR on Jun 24, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My family would GLADLY pay for a universal/singlepayer/whatever system...

$375 monthly premium
$150 monthly prescription co pay
$65 monthly doctor co-pay

The insurance companies will NEVER allow this to happen.

Faith Carr

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Health insurance typically excludes precisely the sort of health care you will likely need
Posted by: don_alejandro on Jun 24, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea of excluding pre-existing conditions from health insurance coverage is insane, and another reason why the US spends so much for so little (minor often conditions develop into major complications when they receive no care).

Virtually everyone has some sort of pre-existing condition (though some may not yet be aware of their own) for which they will be likely to need care during their life. What sense does it make to deny coverage for precisely the type of care a person is most likely to need? How did the insurance companies sell the idea that only previously unknown (or concealed) conditions or accidents qualify for medical care? Of course, if you develop a condition not previously excluded and you have coverage, you can only get a little care until your policy comes up for renewal, at which time your now known condition will be excluded from coverage!

If the goal were to provide decent health care, then pre-existing conditions would be fully covered (and receive top priority). The only reason to deny such care is the private sector profit motive, which would be eliminated by a single payer national health care system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh Come On.............. Posted by: gellero1
what we really need are more doctors
Posted by: cyr3n on Jun 24, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another solution without going into socialized healthcare:

If our tax dollars went into training more doctors.. who'd manage their own practices like some of the doctors do down in Naples, Florida.. it would solve 80% of our problems.

Here's what they do down there.. A doctor takes on x number of patients who pay a monthly retainer to the doctor's office. In return, the doctor provides top notch care, even up to y house visits a year. Some doctors ask a minor office visit fee some don't. This system has worked wonders. Doctors tend to catch problems earlier since patients don't stay at home until the problem gets chronically worse.. and its cheaper than HMO healthcare! The only problem is there aren't enough doctors to go around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Monthly Retainer??/ Posted by: gellero1
The US is doomed
Posted by: wolfgangmo75 on Jun 24, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, but no amount of hand wringing and earnest blog posting is going to change a damn thing. And frankly, Americans don't have the intelligence of guts to stand up and do something about this.

Everyone here will post their little comments and nothing will change because they are not holding their friends, neighbors, representatives, and insurance companies feet to the fire.

This country has EXACTLY to health system it deserves. And that won't change until the complacency and apathy of Americans change. And that is as likely as this country getting off it's collective obese ass and losing some weight.

It ain't gonna happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The US is doomed Posted by: bdcroan
» I have spoken for myself Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Way to undermine your argument
Posted by: Joe on Jun 24, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if a major chuck of health care is being paid through tax dollars and health care sucks then that's an argument for giving the people back their money and letting people be in control.

seems all the blaming the "free market" (which doesn't exist) were just fear mongering boogey man tactics similar to what alternet accuses bush of using to give government more control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Way to undermine your argument Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Heath Economics with Paul Krugman
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 24, 2008 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HealthCare Economics 101

Medicare For All (MP3 format)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Medicare, One Payer and Quality of Care are not compatible
Posted by: Raymonde on Jun 24, 2008 5:53 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would invite the author and any reader interested in health care to travel to this web site:
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:10718351
Read as long as you can and click on as many of the links as you can until you get sick, or your eyes are blinded by the glaze of fear and terror that will inevitably set in.
Just a few lines:

CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and types of adverse events in Utah and Colorado in 1992 were similar to those in New York State in 1984. Iatrogenic injury continues to be a significant public health problem. Improving systems of surgical care and drug delivery could substantially reduce the burden of iatrogenic injury.
The word "iatrogenic" comes from the Greek roots "iatros" meaning "the healer or physician" + "gennan" meaning "as a product of" = due to the doctor.

How will a one payer system work so that it will not pay for low quality care that even as we speak is maiming, injuring, misdiagnosing and maltreating and yes killing -perhaps as many as 100,000 people a year. The studies cited are conservatively based statistical abstractions which could be used to show that 360,000 people are killed yearly.

We need a system that quantifies quality of care based on the outcome for the patient over the long term of treatment for a particular medical condition. If you the reader were in charge of a quality evaluation system, how would you score a system of hospitals and doctors that consistently give bad care to patients? Would your reward them with higher pay? Would your perhaps give those low quality care givers time out while they solved their quality issues? Will a one payer system (the mythical, the ever present, somewhere over the rainbow) change our present system in this regard?

I'll have a long pause while I wait for the readers and the author to respond.


Meanwhile I'll continue to check out those studies listed and well as these:
Do a search for quality here:
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3718.aspx
Again just a snip from one of those studies
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/4636/4290.aspx

This report follows several tudies spearheaded by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and other groups that document disturbing shortfalls in the quality of health care in the United States. The following statement prepared for the National Roundtable on Health Care Quality captures the magnitude and scope of the problem:

Serious and widespread quality problems exist throughout American medicine.[They] occur in small and large communities alike, in all parts of the country and with approximately equal frequency in managed care and fee-forservice
systems of care. Very large numbers of Americans are harmed as a result (Chassin and Galvin, 1998:1000).
Likewise, two subsequent IOM studies—To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System (Institute of Medicine, 2000) and Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21stCentury (Institute of Medicine, 2001a)—focus national attention on patient safety concerns surrounding the high incidence of medicalerrors and sizable gaps in health care quality, respectively.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So what is your solution? Posted by: wolfgangmo75
Medicare's efficiency is based on non competitive practices and cost shifting
Posted by: Raymonde on Jun 24, 2008 7:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author must have been commissioned to write this article by AlterNet.org because he is so obviously trumpeting the wonders of Medicare and a one payer system.

He states the Canadian system is based on 'negotiations' (exactly how that happens when you're the only health care plan in town is not explained)while ignoring that in this country, Medicare rates are set by executive fiat or acts of Congress, neither of which have proven to be fair of just let alone 'negotiable'. Medicare however, just like the Canadian example, is often the only plan in town: if you've paid thousands of your hard earned dollars over a lifetime into a health care plan, are you likely to leave that plan and only visit out of network (non Medicare) health care providers?

A long silence ensues now while the author adjusts his perspective.

In short, Medicare can be efficient because it operates outside the competitive flow of events. Granted, the competitive flow in the US is pretty low down and ugly, but compete they must if private insurance companies are to exist. The cost of this nasty competition often results in some pretty ugly stuff, but it's not any less pretty than the tattered care known as Medicare.

1.Medicare does not have to sell
it's plan, as we've seen, it moves into the playing field, piggybacking on the private system and then lowers its costs in any old way it wants by just saying 'Poof! You're paid %30 less now cause we think that's what you're worth' Would the author sell his articles on a network that arbitrarily set his fees at bargain basement rates? Medicare does not enter into negotiations with other entities, private insurance companies have to have huge staffs of help deriving numbers so they can hopefully get a piece of the pie dished out by AT&T, Ford, GM, Chase Morgan and others who will NOT look at a sales team dressed in dock shoes, shorts and a tank top. Would the author likely be able to run a largish company (the size of Medicare) that had a sales force of zero?

A long pause will now ensue while the author reconnects his aging dial up modem. (all he can afford on the Medicare style fees that Congress has decided he'll get paid for writing rubbish-poetic justice ensues in the name of efficiency.)

2. In lowering its rates on a moments whim, Medicare passes the costs of doing business on to the facilities and providers who are stuck with the decisions made in marble clad halls in DC. Medical providers, should they find Medicare rates unsupportable, can't disengage from Medicare can they? Can you imagine a major urban centered hospital suddenly disengaging from Medicare because it did not like the draconian pay scale established by a politically savvy administrator?

Another long silence will ensue while we listen to the sound to stampeding patients trying to reach the author's home for clues on health care availability from non Medicare providers.

3. The author knows he is not in the real of health care, but he is not paid by AlterNet to care about that.

He knows that he has acted as though we could compare life on Mars with life on Earth and talk as though the atmospheric pressure, land temperatures and seasons were identical on each planet. He knows the Medicare can operate in a world of its own and tip people off the edge into the brambles on the side of the nearest cliff if they become too costly.
He knows that so called efficiency is therefor measured with one set of metrics for a publicly mandated system vs. a private swelter of plans cutting each other's throats on the way to trying to provide some semblance of care. But does the author really care about the issues I've raised in these last two articles?

A long silence will now ensue while we listen to the sound of twenty soggy noodles lashing the author's back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Conspiracy much? Posted by: wolfgangmo75