Hoosiers 'waste' $2.5B a year on health care, group says

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hoosiers spend $2.5 billion more each year than they would if they lived in the most efficient health care markets in the country, according to an analysis of data from the federal Medicare program.

And residents in Indiana’s highest cost metro area spend more than twice as much as the lowest cost city for treatment of the same conditions, concluded the analysis by Indianapolis-based Better Healthcare for Indiana, a not-for-profit group advocating for grass-roots health reform.

Better Healthcare will release its findings Thursday at an 8 a.m. press conference at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis. Afterwards, it will conduct a day-long summit to help community leaders from around the state develop local strategies to reduce health care costs and improve their citizens' health.

A key part of the summit will be presentations by hospital officials from LaCrosse, Wisc., and Grand Junction, Colo.—two communities that provide the lowest-cost health care, according to Medicare data. President Obama visited Grand Junction earlier this year to kick off his push for health care reform, which is now being debated in the U.S. Senate.

"There are communities that have already managed to produce excellent medical outcomes at costs substantially below the norm, without federal health care/health insurance reform or without reform of the current payment system with its perverse incentives," said Dr. David Cook, a board member of Better Healthcare and the medical director of Indianapolis-based Key Benefits Administrators. "We can learn from those communities and apply the methods used to achieve those outcomes here in Indiana too."

Better Healthcare based its conclusions on data provided by the Dartmouth Atlas for Health Care. It compares the amount of money health care providers spend to provide care to Medicare patients in the last two years of their lives.

The Dartmouth Atlas has famously found that the way doctors practice varies widely from region to region, with some regions prescribing far more—and therefore more expensive—care while achieving quality that is no better, and sometimes slightly worse.

Many health reformers, including Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag, say that if all regions practiced like Grand Junction and LaCrosse, it would cut out 30 percent of all health care spending—or about $700 billion each year.

In Indiana, the most expensive metro area is around Hammond, in the northwest corner of the state. Also high on the cost ranking are Terre Haute, Elkhart, Kokomo, Crawfordsville and Evansville.

Those cities all pay at least 56 percent more for their care than Indiana’s cheapest city, Seymour.

The Indianapolis area is average for the state. But the Medicare program still pays 45 percent more here than it does in Seymour.

Other lower-cost cities include Logansport and Columbus, but Medicare spending there still runs more than 20 percent higher than in Seymour.

If all cities had the costs of Seymour, the federal Medicare program would spend $2.5 billion less each year than it currently does in Indiana. Private insurance companies and the employers they serve would, presumably, see substantial savings, too.

Dr. Alan Snell, another Better Healthcare board member, insists that these instances of local overspending can be addressed regardless of the reforms Congress passes to reform health care.

"The current federal proposals on health care reform won’t necessarily fix health care," said Snell, who is chief medical informatics officer at the St. Vincent Health hospital system. "Health care is local, and leadership within local communities can come together with proper planning and tools to assure their community efforts to improve its health status."


  • In related news:
    Hoosiers found to collectively weight 2.5 billion pounds more than citizens of healthier states.

    Seriously, so much of this is obesity and lifestyle. Grand Junction, Colorado? Everyone there seems to eat healthy, run, hike, ski, and take care of themselves. Little surprise that their health care costs are so low.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.