We tend to think of healthcare as a local good. Most people use the doctor or hospital in their neighborhood. China does not export medical care. Health and lifespans differ from country to country, even county to county, but when it comes to healthcare spending, the picture is starting to look more global.
After decades when health spending in the US grew much faster than it did in other Western countries, a new pattern has emerged in the past two decades that has become particularly pronounced since the economic crisis. The rate of health-cost growth has slowed substantially since 2000 in every high-income country, including the US, Canada, Britain, France, Germany and Switzerland, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
“We used to be different,” said Louise Sheiner, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former senior economist at the US Federal Reserve. “Since about 1990, we’ve looked about the same.”
The synchronized slowdown offers reasons to be skeptical about neat explanations for the trends in any one nation, be it local changes in medical practices or the US’ Affordable Care Act’s various attempts to slow cost growth. The slowdown has also reduced budget pressures around the world, a welcome development as baby-boomers are retiring.
Just this week, the US Congressional Budget Office reduced its long-term forecasts for spending in the Medicare program, one of several recent reductions that mean the program’s solvency is looking safer than it has in years.
What is behind the pattern?
Economic growth around the industrialized world has been slow for much of the past decade and the aging of the population in much of the world has also created fiscal pressures to rein in health spending, but these economic and political forces — which in turn leave governments and households with less money to purchase medical care — do not appear to be the only causes.
The world’s healthcare systems are also converging in important ways. New drugs and medical advances, which were once adopted locally and spread more slowly, are now experiencing international launches.
Medical technology companies are increasingly global and seeing regulatory approval in many markets at once. Strategies that can reduce the need for expensive hospital stays, such as performing surgeries in outpatient clinics, are expanding around the world.
Findings from medical research and the ways that doctors practice are also spreading faster and wider.
“We’re learning from other nations and the best practices take a year or two to diffuse, whereas in the past they might have taken five or 10 years,” said Gerard Anderson, a public health professor at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. “We’re getting a convergence because of a more rapid diffusion of information.”
Two recent papers highlighted the trend. One in The Journal of the American Medical Association compared the US with countries in the OECD. Its author, David Squires of the Commonwealth Fund, a New York healthcare research group, concluded that the similarities in spending growth suggested that “the factors that stimulated the slowdown in the US also affected other industrialized nations.”
The other paper, from the OECD’s own economists, made a similar point, highlighting that what really differentiates the US from other countries is the high prices paid for medical care, not big differences in how doctors are treating their patients.
In the US, the health spending slowdown has eased workers’ insurance rate increases and taken the pressure off the federal budget deficit. US health economists are puzzling over the precise causes of the slowdown, but they largely agree on a few factors.
The economic crisis drove down demand for new medical services, as people lost their jobs and coverage, or simply decided to put off elective procedures, such as knee replacements. Tougher times also led to policy-tightening by federal and state officials — and employers, who have increasingly moved from generous health insurance plans to those that expose their workers to more out-of-pocket costs.
The US Affordable Care Act expands coverage to new people, but over the past few years it has also cut back on spending in Medicare, much of it from lower reimbursements to hospitals and insurers. The law also includes attempts to make the medical system more efficient by reducing forms of care that do not make people healthier.
At the same time, the development of new expensive technologies has slowed recently. That trend has been most pronounced in the pharmaceutical market. Many big blockbuster drugs have lost their patent protection, including Lipitor, the best-selling drug in history. Few expensive, mass-market medications have come to replace them.
Many of these same forces affect other nations. They also had fewer new drugs, devices and procedures to adopt, and their economies were slammed by the global recession.
Other nations also have political mechanisms to reduce spending. With great political controversy, the US’ Affordable Care Act tries to mimic some of these mechanisms — such as a board of experts who consider whether treatments are effective. Most other countries have aggressive regulatory systems that allow government officials to directly tamp down health spending when times get tough.
Still, similarities among countries are not the same thing as destiny.
“Healthcare slowed down here and it slowed down there, and that doesn’t mean it’s all entirely cyclical,” said Peter Orszag, a vice chairman at Citibank and a former top official at the US Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.
Orszag, one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, says the US spending slowdown has been caused in part by changes in the practice of medicine that go deeper than economic and technological trends.
He hopes the US will be able to sustain those changes and keep spending growth low far into the future, whatever the rest of the world does, but the growing globalization of health spending means it may be hard for the US to pull away from whatever international trend comes next, which means US policymakers should shy away from declaring victory just yet.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS