Treated disease prevalence and spending per treated case drove most of the growth in health care spending in 1987-2009.

Analysis of data from the National Medical Expenditure Survey and the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys from 1987-2009 reinforces previous observations that increased prevalence of treated disease has become the main driver of increased spending on health care in the United States. Higher treated disease prevalence and higher spending per treated case were associated with 50.8 percent and 39.0 percent, respectively, of the spending increase seen in the population ages eighteen and older, while their joint effect accounts for the remaining 10.2 percent. The proportion of increased spending attributable to increased treated prevalence alone is particularly high in the Medicare population: 77.7 percent, compared to 33.5 percent among the privately insured. Moreover, the current findings reveal a substantial contribution to the increase in total spending (10.4 percent) from a doubling of the share of the population considered to be obese and from increases in treatment intensity, a component of spending per treated case (11.9 percent), in 1987-2009. Constraining the cost of health care will require policy options focused on reducing the incidence of disease, as well as improved understanding of the extent to which more aggressive treatments for chronic conditions do, or do not, result in lower morbidity and mortality.

[1]  B. Dean,et al.  Evolution of clinical practice guidelines: evidence supporting expanded use of medicines. , 2006, Disease management : DM.

[2]  C. Steiner,et al.  Sensitivity of Household Reported Medical Conditions in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey , 2009, Medical care.

[3]  K. Thorpe,et al.  The rising prevalence of treated disease: effects on private health insurance spending. , 2005, Health affairs.

[4]  Joel W. Cohen,et al.  A Guide to Comparing Health Care Expenditures in the 1996 MEPS to the 1987 NMES , 2002, Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing.

[5]  T. Yoshizumi,et al.  Radiologic and nuclear medicine studies in the United States and worldwide: frequency, radiation dose, and comparison with other radiation sources--1950-2007. , 2009, Radiology.

[6]  K. Thorpe,et al.  Understanding recent increases in chronic disease treatment rates: more disease or more detection? , 2010, Health Economics, Policy and Law.

[7]  M. Ekeland Obesity, Metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease , 2014 .

[8]  Amy N. Finkelstein The Aggregate Effects of Health Insurance: Evidence from the Introduction of Medicare , 2007 .

[9]  K. Thorpe Factors accounting for the rise in health-care spending in the United States: the role of rising disease prevalence and treatment intensity. , 2006, Public health.

[10]  E. Berndt,et al.  The value of antihypertensive drugs: a perspective on medical innovation. , 2007, Health affairs.

[11]  C. Roehrig,et al.  The growth in cost per case explains far more of US health spending increases than rising disease prevalence. , 2011, Health affairs.

[12]  J. Newhouse,et al.  Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? , 1992, The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association.

[13]  S. Grundy,et al.  Obesity, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. , 2004, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.