Medicare Spending Has Wide Regional Disparities, Study Finds
The government's cost of providing health care to seniors varies widely
across the country, with Medicare spending three times as high for enrollees in
Miami than in Honolulu
By Catherine
Arnst
A new study examining 14 years of Medicare spending finds that
state-by-state increases vary wildly depending on how much medical care is
available.
The study, released on Feb. 25 in the New England Journal of
Medicine, found that annual Medicare spending increased an average of 3.5%
from 1992 to 2006 nationwide, but the burden on the government program was not
uniform: Nebraska's spending rose 5.3% annually over the same period, more than
any other state, while the District of Columbia clocked in with the lowest
annual inflation, at 1.6%.
Spending per Medicare enrollee also varied widely, from a high of $9,564 in
New York in 2006 to a low of $5,311 in Hawaii. The national average for 2006 was
$8,304. The reasons given for the discrepancies were not the health or wealth of
a particular state's population but the amount of health-care
resources available. The more hospital beds and doctors in a region, the
higher the costs billed to Medicare.
Obama Targets Health Care
Consequently, Medicare spends nearly three times more to care for enrollees
in Miami than in Honolulu, and the cost of providing health care to senior
citizens is rising more than twice as fast in Dallas as in San Diego. Lead
author Dr. Elliott Fisher, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at
the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy, says the data highlight how
considerable costs could be cut from the nation's health-care bill. "The good
news is that in many regions, spending is growing relatively slowly," he said.
"We can figure out what these regions are doing and encourage the high cost
areas to emulate their practices."
President Barack Obama, in his speech to Congress on Feb. 24, called for major
reforms to the U.S. health-care system that would cover the 45 million
uninsured and lower costs. Most health-care experts think the cost issue will be
far more difficult to address, and far more crucial, than coverage. Earlier this
week federal economists estimated that total U.S. health-care spending will
reach $2.5 trillion this year, consuming 17.%
of gross domestic product. By 2018 national health-care spending is expected
to nearly double, to $4.4 trillion, or 20.3% of GDP. The Dartmouth researchers
estimated that, at current spending rates, the Medicare balance sheet will be
$660 billion in the red by 2023. However, if the annual growth in spending were
reduced from the national average of 3.5% to San Francisco's 2.4%, Medicare
could instead accrue a balance of $758 billion over the same period.
The authors of the study examined spending differences in 306 local
health-care markets across the country. They found no evidence of greater
survival gains in the highest-spending regions. Instead, they said, doctors in
those high-spending areas were much more likely to recommend expensive and
discretionary services, such as noncritical hospital admissions, referrals to
subspecialists, and more diagnostic tests.
Fee-for-Service Blamed
Fisher blames the current fee-for-service payment structure, where doctors
and hospitals are paid for every service regardless of need or outcome, for
these practices. "Physicians cannot afford the time it takes to help patients
understand why a test or procedure is not needed. Hospitals lose money when they
improve care in ways that reduce admissions," the study noted. To lower costs,
Fisher suggests that policymakers focus reform efforts on current areas of
overspending, and encourage doctors in New York to pay attention to Hawaii, for
example.
An interactive map showing the regional health-care spending can be found at
here.
Arnst is a
senior writer for BusinessWeek based in New York.
Copyright 2000-2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All
rights reserved.