January 7, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Kevin OuttersonFrom a recent GAO Report. Fig. 2 looks like the US is underspending in prevention & public health, but since the denominator is total health spending, our middling result is not surprising at all:
Fig. 3 tells a more surprising story:
In Fig. 4, the US rates very highly per capita:
Comments:
- It is surprising (to me) how highly the US ranks in per capita and % of GDP, despite our heavy reliance on private health insurance systems.
- All of this data is 2010, before the public health measures in PPACA had taken full effect.
- Is this political ammo for those who would cut the Prevention & Public Health Fund?
- Note the GAO’s comments on the limitations of the available data.
@koutterson
Comments closed
by Austin Frakt on January 7th, 2013 at 16:02
I don’t find these surprising given the large amount spent in the U.S. as a fraction of GDP. Yes, we have more private spending than other OECD countries, but it isn’t obvious that should compensate for the large total. I think the basic story is we spend a lot.
by Brad F on January 7th, 2013 at 20:04
Kevin
The report allows for wide latitude in defining clinical preventative services. If you include PSA and mammo screening, because the GAO does, do you find the numbers surprising?
A more helpful mapping would be services employed by cost/QALY or interventions based on cost effectiveness.
Brad