Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

A few links

Will soft drink restrictions in New York City reduce obesity? Aaron Carroll, from The Incidental Economist, says "no".

Paul Krugman is winning the macroeconomics debate. Really, he is.

Learn about health policy and the Affordable Care Act in a free class. Hat tip to Kevin Outterson at The Incidental Economist.

From The Guardian - Test policies in 'randomised controlled trials', nudge unit urges. Science? What's that?

What can you do with an economics degree? Well, for one, the video game company Valve is hiring:

(click to enlarge)

Friday, June 15, 2012

A new health insurance experiment

Does Medicaid help the poor, or do doctors turn away so many Medicaid patients that it actually hurts them? Katherine Baicker at Harvard discusses the results of a natural experiment in Ohio on yesterday's episode of Planet Money. I have not heard of such an interesting heath economics experiment since the RAND experiment in the '70s.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Mr. Mandate

Economics reporter Catherine Rampell has written an engaging profile of Jonathan Gruber, the primary designer of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) and Massachusetts' earlier health care reform.

I admit that I enjoyed his comic book, which I bought last week.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

How to cut federal spending

Vote against HB126, which effectively nullifies the Affordable Care Act:

(Graph courtesy of the Kaiser Family Foundation, via Ezra Klein.)

According to this data, the American government spends more as a share of GDP on health than supposed bastions of government medicine, such as Canada or the U.K. (Ezra also helpfully notes that this does not include subsidies of employer-provided insurance, which are de facto government expenditures. Including this adds another percent of GDP to U.S. government health spending.*)

But I think this measure is too kind to the U.S. The more practical comparison is per capita spending:


The private/public spending proportions from the first graph, combined with the absolute spending levels of the second graph, allow us to calculate U.S. government health spending per capita. It's the second highest of the set, after Norway, at about $3500 per year. (Yes, this means we spend more per capita than France.) (If we include subsidies of employer-provided insurance, we almost match Norway— $4060 per year versus $4240 per year.)**

Of course, international comparisons generally find that we get poorer health outcomes for all of this spending.

If the American Care Act has an effect similar to the health care systems of these other countries, it seems likely that government spending will actually decrease. It's hard not to conclude that, contrary to Tea Party rhetoric, if the American Care Act is a government boondoggle, it's probably much less of a government boondoggle than the old system.

HB126 is currently retained in committee, meaning it'll be considered during the next legislative session.



* I took the estimate Ezra Klein cited from the Joint Committee on Taxation ($660 billion over 4 years) and divided it by 4. $165 billion is a bit more than one percent of U.S. GDP, which is approximately $14.2 trillion.

** The numbers come from multiplying the proportion of total health spending from the government (first graph) by the total spending (second graph). So, for example, for the U.S. estimate, 7.4/(8.5 + 7.4) × 7538 = 3508. To add employer subsidies, ((7.4 + 1.16)/(8.5 +7.4)) × 7538 = 4058.