June 17th, 2014
I was surprised but pleased to see the Martha Starr, Laura Dominiak, and Ana Aizcorbe article in the May issue of Health Affairs replicating earlier work of Charles Roehrig and David Rousseau. These papers attempt to understand the role that treated disease prevalence and spending per case treated assume in accounting for the growth in average per capita healthcare spending. (Treated disease prevalence can increase when either a disease becomes more common or is diagnosed more frequently.) Starr and coauthors, like Roehrig and Rousseau, conclude that spending per case treated accounts for more of the growth in per capita spending than treated prevalence.
In our own work, my colleagues and I have addressed a different question. Our line of research focuses on changes in total health care spending – as opposed to per capita spending — over time. We have updated this work now through 2011 and our major conclusion remains the same; the rise in treated disease prevalence accounts for a slightly larger share of the growth in total healthcare spending than spending per case treated.
The three research teams employ different methods and use different spending measures. (In an earlier appendix, we described in detail the differences between our approach and that of Roehrig and Rousseau.) For example, our expenditures include home health and dental services, which are excluded in the paper by Starr and colleagues.Read the rest of this entry »