Some leading health economists disagree with the assumption that when the national GDP picks up, so too will the growth of national health spending. On the NYTimes Economix blog, Princeton econ professor Uwe Reinhardt gives his two cents about why healthcare spending will continue to lag. Or, perhaps more dismally: “. . .I would be surprised if health spending in the future grew even one percentage point faster than GDP. The actual differential may well be south of that.”
And here are Reinhardt’s two reasons why (emphasis added):
- First, there have been enormous advances in health information technology, putting more and more of the traditionally opaque health care industry into statistical fishbowls that reveal to the world information on both the quality and the prices of health care. As I noted in my previous post, this greater transparency will make it possible to force real price competition on the supply side of the health system, including the powerful instrument of reference pricing.
- Second, for the foreseeable future–in contrast to the late 1990s, when the American economy was booming and labor markets were tight–economic growth is likely to be relatively sluggish, as will be labor markets for all but highly skilled workers. It is my theory, forged by the experience of the 1990s, that under employment-based health insurance attempts at cost control will fail unless there is high unemployment.Employees who worry about keeping their jobs or unemployed workers desperately seeking jobs are more likely to accept limits on their health insurance, along with higher levels of cost sharing, including reference pricing.
presented by
When Investment Rhymes with Canada
Canada has a proud history of achievement in the areas of science and technology, and the field of biomanufacturing and life sciences is no exception.
Does this ring true to you?
