The Sustainability of Health Spending Growth

Glenn Follette Louise Sheiner

Federal Reserve Board

Historically, spending growth on health has exceeded that of consumption

Health Spending As a Share of Consumption

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Perc

en

t

Health Spending Projections

• Since 1970, per capita health spending has grown an average of 2-1/2 percentage points faster than per capita GDP.

• Obviously, health spending cannot continue to grow faster than consumption (or GDP) forever.

• Until 2001, Medicare Trustees assumed per capita health care spending growth would slow to the rate of per capita GDP growth.

• Since 2001, Trustees have assumed that per capita health care spending growth would slow to a rate 1 percentage point faster than per capita GDP. This has been called the assumption of 1 percentage point excess cost growth.

Sustainability of Excess Cost Growth from a Macroeconomic Perspective

• Any rate of excess cost growth will eventually crowd out all of GDP and will be unsustainable.

• One rationale for the Trustees’ assumptions for the next 75 years is that, even with such cost growth, real per capita non-health consumption continues to grow, although slower than per capita GDP. No absolute crowd-out of non-health consumption.

• Note that what matters for real crowd-out is the share of health spending in consumption:– In particular, crowd-out occurs when the share of health

spending in consumption is equal to the ratio of the growth rate of income divided by the growth rate of health spending.

1 percent excess cost growth and 1.5 percent per capita GDP growth, crowd-out starts to occur when health

spending reaches 60% of consumption

Excess Growth = 1.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

year

Th

ou

sa

nd

s o

f 2

00

0 $

PCE health other

Health Share--excess growth =1.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

With 1.5 percent excess cost growth, crowd-out starts when health spending reaches 50% of consumption.

Health share--excess growth =1.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Excess Growth = 1.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

year

Th

ou

sa

nd

s o

f 2

00

0 $

PCE health other

With 2.0 percent excess cost growth, crowd-out begins at 43% of consumption.

Health Share--excess growth =2.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Excess Growth = 2.0

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

year

Th

ou

sa

nd

s o

f 2

00

0 $

PCE health other

Crowding out criteria suggests 1 percent excess growth is upper bound over the

century

• Under baseline macroeconomic projections, health spending reaches 40% of consumption by 2080; just getting close to real crowd-out.

• With 1.5 percent excess cost growth, health spending would reach 67% of consumption – crowd-out has begun.

• With 2 percent excess cost growth, health spending would reach 93% of consumption – non-health consumption is declining rapidly.

Sustainability of Excess Cost Growth from a

More Microeconomic Perspective • On average, real consumption continues to grow even

with 1 percent excess cost growth. But, is this true across groups? – Low-income might already spend a larger share of income on

health spending, which would lead to earlier crowd out.– Elderly or others with high medical expenses might also already

have larger share of income on health spending.

• Projection of 1 percent excess cost growth assumes that only force driving health care cost growth in future will be exogenous technological growth.– Implicitly assumes that insurance markets and public sector

involvement in health care remain stable. Is this reasonable? Or will increases in health spending itself engender changes in public and private insurance?

Health Spending by Income QuintileNonelderly

0

1000

2000

3000

1970 1977 1987 1996 2002

Pe

r c

ap

ita

, 20

04

$ Lowest

Quintile 2

Quintile 3

Quintile 4

Highest

Elderly

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

1970 1977 1987 1996 2002

Per

cap

ita,

200

4 $ Lowest

Quintile 2

Quintile 3

Quintile 4

Highest

Health Spending as a Share of Income

Elderly

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

125%

150%

1970 1977 1987 1996 2002

Lowest

Quintile 2

Quintile 3

Quintile 4

Highest

Nonelderly

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1970 1977 1987 1996 2002

Lowest

Quintile 2

Quintile 3

Quintile 4

Highest

Private health spending as a share of income has been relatively flat

Non-elderly

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1 2 3 4 5

Quintlie

Per

cen

t o

f in

com

e

1970

1977

1987

1996

2002

Elderly

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

1 2 3 4 5

Quintle

Per

cen

t o

f in

com

e

1970

1977

1987

1996

2002

Share of Health Paid by Public Sector

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1970 2002 1970 2002

ElderlyNonelderly

1

2

3

4

5

Simulations

• We took 2002 data of the distribution of income and public and private health spending for elderly and non-elderly

• We projected them forward to 2080 using 1 percent excess growth, maintaining 2002 public share of health spending adjusted for Medicare drug benefit

Simulation Results

• Under 1 percent excess cost growth assumption, private shares of spending increase over time, but most quintiles do not reach the point where private health spending is 60% of income and starts to crowd out other consumption.– This is because the public share of health spending is

very high, particularly for elderly. • Note that, even under these conditions, many individuals

will face real crowd-out, because we don’t have perfect insurance (i.e., private health spending will still rise if you get sick).

Health Care Spending as a Share of Income

  Total Private

  2002 2080 2002 2080

Non-elderly      

1 46 131 16 44

2 18 51 12 34

3 11 33 10 27

4 8 23 7 20

5 5 13 4 12

Elderly  

1 132 377 33 89

2 67 191 21 46

3 40 113 16 36

4 25 72 11 25

5 12 35 5 12

Caveats

– Note that this exercise does not take into account the taxes necessary to finance the large rise in public health spending built into the baseline.

• If these taxes were to be levied predominantly on top 2 or 3 quintiles, then health spending might still not crowd out other spending.

• But if these taxes were more evenly distributed, then lower-income groups would likely face real crowd out (since increased taxes would crowd out non-health spending).

History of Public Response

• History indicates that there will be more pressure on public spending than this. Public spending tends to increase as health spending burden increases. – One reasonable view of recent history is that public

spending increases to keep private spending constant as a share of income.

– Another approach is to examine the relationship between the public share of spending and the total burden on health spending.

Private share of income stays relatively constant while public role grows

Health Spending Share of Income Lowest Quintile, Nonelderly

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1970 1977 1987 1996 2002

Total Private Public

Health Spending Share of Income Lowest Quintile, Elderly

0%

50%

100%

150%

1970 1977 1987 1996 2002

Total Private Public

Public share is larger when health spending is a higher share of income

Public Health Spending Responsiveness, Non-elderly

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50

Total Health Spending as a Share of Income, by Quintiles over Time

Pu

bli

c S

har

e o

f H

ealt

h S

pen

din

g

Public Health Spending Responsiveness, Elderly

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 50 100 150

Total Health Spending as a Share of Income, by Quintiles over Time

Pu

bli

c S

har

e o

f H

ealt

h S

pen

din

g

Simulation: Public Share Rises Above Baseline

• To get an idea of the potential costs were this trend to continue, we simulate two alternatives:– Alternative A: We raise public spending to keep private spending

for elderly and non-elderly constant at 2002 level.– Alternative B: We estimate public spending via a regression

analysis of past trends.

• Chart shows the additional government spending necessary for these alternatives. – Alternative A: By 2030 and thereafter, public health spending

would be 50 percent higher than baseline.

• Alternative B: By 2030, public health spending would be 16 percent higher than baseline; by 2080: it would be 30 percent above baseline.

Alternative Projections for Medicare and Medicaid Spending

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2005 2030 2055 2080

Per

cen

t o

f G

DP

Baseline Constant share Regression

Structure of Insurance • One striking fact is that the share of out-of-pocket spending as a share of

income has been very flat over time.

• This has been accomplished by a significant decline in the share of health spending that is financed through out-of-pocket payments.

• A lower out-of-pocket share of health spending might be a reasonable response to increasing health costs: A constant share might make health care unaffordable and/or provide too little insurance.

– Implicit baseline assumptions: out-of-pocket payments constant share of health spending.

– Alternative assumption: out-of-pocket shares continue to decline over time. Under this assumption, out-of-pocket spending as a share of health spending is halved by 2050, and about 40 percent by 2080.

• Assuming price elasticity of health spending is .2, alternative assumption would raise spending by 3% in 2030, 9% in 2050, and 12% in 2080.

• This increase in health spending would raise public spending by the same percentages.

Out-of-pocket expenses have been stable as a share of income, except among poor elderly

(Medicare drug benefit will help reverse this)Non-elderly

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

1 2 3 4 5

Income Quintile

1970

1977

1987

1996

2002

Elderly

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

1 2 3 4 5

Income Quintile

1970

1977

1987

1996

2002

Out-of-pocket share of health spending has declined

Out-of-Pocket Shares of Health Spending, Elderly

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1970 1977 1987 1996 2002

Year

Lowest Quintile 2 Quintile 3

Quintile 4 Highest

Out-of-Pocket Shares of Health Spending, Non-elderly

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1970 1977 1987 1996 2002

Year

Lowest Quintile 2 Quintile 3

Quintile 4 Highest

Conclusions

• From a macroeconomic perspective, 1 percent excess cost growth is feasible although difficult.

• From a microeconomic perspective, 1 percent seems more problematic.– Because public share of spending is so large, most income

groups will not face crowd out non-health consumption.– However, federal health spending, already difficult to sustain in

baseline, will likely face additional demands.– Also, higher health costs will likely raise demands for more

complete insurance, giving rise to further health spending pressures (or making it even harder to achieve 1 percent).