IMPORTANCE US health care spending has continued to increase, and now accounts for more than 17% of the US economy. Despite the size and growth of this spending, little is known about how spending on each condition varies by age and across time.OBJECTIVE To systematically and comprehensively estimate US spending on personal health care and public health, according to condition, age and sex group, and type of care.DESIGN AND SETTING Government budgets, insurance claims, facility surveys, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2013 were collected and combined. In total, 183 sources of data were used to estimate spending for 155 conditions (including cancer, which was disaggregated into 29 conditions). For each record, spending was extracted, along with the age and sex of the patient, and the type of care. Spending was adjusted to reflect the health condition treated, rather than the primary diagnosis.EXPOSURES Encounter with US health care system. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESNational spending estimates stratified by condition, age and sex group, and type of care. RESULTSFrom 1996 through 2013, $30.1 trillion of personal health care spending was disaggregated by 155 conditions, age and sex group, and type of care. Among these 155 conditions, diabetes had the highest health care spending in 2013, with an estimated $101.4 billion (uncertainty interval [UI], $96.7 billion-$106.5 billion) in spending, including 57.6% (UI, 53.8%-62.1%) spent on pharmaceuticals and 23.5% (UI, 21.7%-25.7%) spent on ambulatory care.

IMPORTANCE US health care spending has continued to increase and now accounts for 18% of the US economy, although little is known about how spending on each health condition varies by payer, and how these amounts have changed over time. OBJECTIVE To estimate US spending on health care according to 3 types of payers (public insurance [including Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs], private insurance, or out-of-pocket payments) and by health condition, age group, sex, and type of care for 1996 through 2016. DESIGN AND SETTING Government budgets, insurance claims, facility records, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2016 were collected to estimate spending for 154 health conditions. Spending growth rates (standardized by population size and age group) were calculated for each type of payer and health condition. EXPOSURES Ambulatory care, inpatient care, nursing care facility stay, emergency department care, dental care, and purchase of prescribed pharmaceuticals in a retail setting. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES National spending estimates stratified by health condition, age group, sex, type of care, and type of payer and modeled for each year from 1996 through 2016. RESULTS Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. In 2016, an estimated 48.0% (95% CI, 48.0%-48.0%) of health care spending was paid by private insurance, 42.6% (95% CI, 42.5%-42.6%) by public insurance, and 9.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-9.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. In 2016, among the 154 conditions, low back and neck pain had the highest amount of health care spending with an estimated $134.5 billion (95% CI, $122.4-$146.9 billion) in spending, of which 57.2% (95% CI, 52.2%-61.2%) was paid by private insurance, 33.7% (95% CI, 30.0%-38.4%) by public insurance, and 9.2% (95% CI, 8.3%-10.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. Other musculoskeletal disorders accounted for the second highest amount of health care spending

Increases in US health care spending from 1996 through 2013 were largely related to increases in health care service price and intensity but were also positively associated with population growth and aging and negatively associated with disease prevalence or incidence. Understanding these factors and their variability across health conditions and types of care may inform policy efforts to contain health care spending.

SummaryBackgroundAn adequate amount of prepaid resources for health is important to ensure access to health services and for the pursuit of universal health coverage. Previous studies on global health financing have described the relationship between economic development and health financing. In this study, we further explore global health financing trends and examine how the sources of funds used, types of services purchased, and development assistance for health disbursed change with economic development. We also identify countries that deviate from the trends.MethodsWe estimated national health spending by type of care and by source, including development assistance for health, based on a diverse set of data including programme reports, budget data, national estimates, and 964 National Health Accounts. These data represent health spending for 184 countries from 1995 through 2014. We converted these data into a common inflation-adjusted and purchasing power-adjusted currency, and used non-linear regression methods to model the relationship between health financing, time, and economic development.FindingsBetween 1995 and 2014, economic development was positively associated with total health spending and a shift away from a reliance on development assistance and out-of-pocket (OOP) towards government spending. The largest absolute increase in spending was in high-income countries, which increased to purchasing power-adjusted $5221 per capita based on an annual growth rate of 3·0%. The largest health spending growth rates were in upper-middle-income (5·9) and lower-middle-income groups (5·0), which both increased spending at more than 5% per year, and spent $914 and $267 per capita in 2014, respectively. Spending in low-income countries grew nearly as fast, at 4·6%, and health spending increased from $51 to $120 per capita. In 2014, 59·2% of all health spending was financed by the government, although in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 29·1% and 58·0% of spending was OOP spending and 35·7% and 3·0% of spending was development assistance. Recent growth in development assistance for health has been tepid; between 2010 and 2016, it grew annually at 1·8%, and reached US$37·6 billion in 2016. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of variation revolving around these averages. 29 countries spend at least 50% more than expected per capita, based on their level of economic development alone, whereas 11 countries spend less than 50% their expected amount.InterpretationHealth spending remains disparate, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries increasing spending in absolute terms the least, and relying heavily on OOP spending and development assistance. Moreover, tremendous variation shows that neither time nor economic development guarantee adequate prepaid health resources, which are vital for the pursuit of universal health coverage.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

BackgroundThe amount of resources, particularly prepaid resources, available for health can affect access to health care and health outcomes. Although health spending tends to increase with economic development, tremendous variation exists among health financing systems. Estimates of future spending can be beneficial for policy makers and planners, and can identify financing gaps. In this study, we estimate future gross domestic product (GDP), all-sector government spending, and health spending disaggregated by source, and we compare expected future spending to potential future spending.MethodsWe extracted GDP, government spending in 184 countries from 1980–2015, and health spend data from 1995–2014. We used a series of ensemble models to estimate future GDP, all-sector government spending, development assistance for health, and government, out-of-pocket, and prepaid private health spending through 2040. We used frontier analyses to identify patterns exhibited by the countries that dedicate the most funding to health, and used these frontiers to estimate potential health spending for each low-income or middle-income country. All estimates are inflation and purchasing power adjusted.FindingsWe estimated that global spending on health will increase from US$9·21 trillion in 2014 to $24·24 trillion (uncertainty interval [UI] 20·47–29·72) in 2040. We expect per capita health spending to increase fastest in upper-middle-income countries, at 5·3% (UI 4·1–6·8) per year. This growth is driven by continued growth in GDP, government spending, and government health spending. Lower-middle income countries are expected to grow at 4·2% (3·8–4·9). High-income countries are expected to grow at 2·1% (UI 1·8–2·4) and low-income countries are expected to grow at 1·8% (1·0–2·8). Despite this growth, health spending per capita in low-income countries is expected to remain low, at $154 (UI 133–181) per capita in 2030 and $195 (157–258) per capita in 2040. Increases in national health spending to reach the level of the countries who spend the most on health, relative to their level of economic development, would mean $321 (157–258) per capita was available for health in 2040 in low-income countries.InterpretationHealth spending is associated with economic development but past trends and relationships suggest that spending will remain variable, and low in some low-resource settings. Policy change could lead to increased health spending, although for the poorest countries external support might remain essential.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

BackgroundOne of the major challenges in estimating health care spending spent on each cause of illness is allocating spending for a health care event to a single cause of illness in the presence of comorbidities. Comorbidities, the secondary diagnoses, are common across many causes of illness and often correlate with worse health outcomes and more expensive health care. In this study, we propose a method for measuring the average spending for each cause of illness with and without comorbidities.MethodsOur strategy for measuring cause of illness-specific spending and adjusting for the presence of comorbidities uses a regression-based framework to estimate excess spending due to comorbidities. We consider multiple causes simultaneously, allowing causes of illness to appear as either a primary diagnosis or a comorbidity. Our adjustment method distributes excess spending away from primary diagnoses (outflows), exaggerated due to the presence of comorbidities, and allocates that spending towards causes of illness that appear as comorbidities (inflows). We apply this framework for spending adjustment to the National Inpatient Survey data in the United States for years 1996-2012 to generate comorbidity-adjusted health care spending estimates for 154 causes of illness by age and sex.ResultsThe primary diagnoses with the greatest number of comorbidities in the NIS dataset were acute renal failure, septicemia, and endocarditis. Hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease were the most common comorbidities across all age groups. After adjusting for comorbidities, chronic kidney diseases, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease increased by 74.1%, 40.9%, and 21.0%, respectively, while pancreatitis, lower respiratory infections, and septicemia decreased by 21.3%, 17.2%, and 16.0%. For many diseases, comorbidity adjustments had varying effects on spending for different age groups.ConclusionsOur methodology takes a unified approach to account for excess spending caused by the presence of comorbidities. Adjusting for comorbidities provides a substantially altered, more accurate estimate of the spending attributed to specific cause of illness. Making these adjustments supports improved resource tracking, accountability, and planning for future resource allocation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13561-017-0166-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Health care spending on diabetes in the U.S. has increased, and spending per encounter has been the biggest driver. This information can help policy makers who are attempting to control future spending on diabetes.

No abstract