January 13, 2015
For the poorest 50 percent of countries in 1960, the growth in full income was 4.1 percent, of which only 2.4 percentage points were attributed to GDP growth. This was in contrast to the richest 50 percent of countries that had a growth in full income of 2.6 percent, of which most of it was due to GDP growth, i.e., 2.2 percentage points. Thus, the poorest and richest countries grew at about the same rate in GDP, 2.4 percent vs 2.2 percent, but the poorer countries grew much faster when incorporating health into the full income, 4.1 percent vs 2.6 percent
In sum, valuing gains in national levels of health between 1960 and 2000 is an important component of reducing overall world inequality. Once health is accounted for, there was a significant reduction in inequality throughout the world between 1960 and 2000 that cannot be perceived from measuring income alone.
via Why World Inequality Is Falling And Not Rising.
December 7, 2014
The Uninsured: A Primer is structured in two parts. The first presents basic information about health coverage and the uninsured population leading up to and after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, who the uninsured are and why they do not have health coverage. The second presents information on the impact lack of insurance can have on health outcomes and personal finances, and provides an understanding of the difference health insurance makes in people’s lives.
via The Uninsured: A Primer – Key Facts About Health Insurance and the Uninsured in America | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
November 26, 2014
One percent of the U.S. population accounts for nearly 23 percent of overall health care spending, and 5 percent are responsible for a full 50 percent of spending. In stark contrast, the lowest-spending half of the population generates less than 3 percent of total spending—or only about $234 per person, per year. Any meaningful effort to control spending growth must account for this extreme concentration. This chart story uses newly-released data to take a closer look at the top spenders, noting factors driving their higher spending and examining the persistence of spending patterns over time.
via NIHCM – Concentration of Health Care Spending Chart Story.
November 20, 2014
The fabric of our society is changing. In 1980, approximately 78 percent of families with children were headed by married parents. In 2012, married parents headed only 66 percent of families with children. In a new report, Bradford Wilcox and Robert Lerman explore the role of family structure with new data and analysis, and document how this retreat from marriage is not simply a social and cultural phenomenon. It has important economic implications for, amongst others, men’s labor force participation rates, children’s high school dropout rates and teen pregnancy rates. Since these factors are highly correlated with economic opportunity and the ability to move up the income ladder, this suggests that income inequality and economic mobility across generations are critically influenced by people’s decisions and attitudes towards marriage. Understanding the role of family structure is therefore key to understanding the big economic challenges of our time.
via The Biggest Reason For Income Inequality Is Single Parenthood.
November 19, 2014
But the major finding of the CBO report is that the households in the top income quintile are the real “net payers” of the US economy. The average household in the top one-fifth of American households by income paid $57,500 in federal taxes in 2011, received $11,000 in government transfers, and therefore made a net positive contribution of $46,500. The second-highest income quintile basically just barely covers its transfer payments, so it’s really the top 20% of “net payer” households that are financing transfer payments to the entire bottom 60% AND financing the non-financed operations of the entire federal government.
via New CBO study shows that ‘the rich’ don’t just pay their ‘fair share,’ they pay almost everybody’s share » AEI.
September 16, 2014
The Sheiner study is similar to an earlier study by Andrew Rettenmaier and Thomas Saving a former trustee of Medicare. That study found that 80 percent of the variation in Medicare spending per enrollee could be explained by demographics age, race, sex, etc., income, and the uninsured rate. After making adjustments for these variables, the study asked how much money Medicare could save if every state matched the performance of the five lowest-spending states? The answer: about 10 percent. For all health care spending, how much could be saved if every state matched the performance of the five lowest-spending states? Answer: about 5 percent.
via Is The Variation In Health Care Spending Among The States A Myth?.
July 23, 2014
Rationing by waiting is having its greatest effect on those at the bottom of the income ladder. As I wrote at the Health Affairs blog:“Think metaphorically of waiting in line for care. The lowest-income families are at the end of that line. The longer the line, the longer they will have to wait. If you do something to shorten the line, you will be mainly benefiting higher-income people who are at the front.”There is another study gated with abstract that suggests that even low-income patients are more deterred by non-price barriers than by money prices.
via Why Are People Waiting So Long For Medical Care?.