Study spoils common wisdom on health spending

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Thomson Reuters study that showed Anderson as the highest-spending health care market in the nation also throws a wrench in what was a widely accepted conclusion in health care policy.

That conclusion is that the levels of health care treatment and spending vary widely from one locale to another with no clear reason based on demographics or health outcomes. The idea was first advanced in 1973 by Dr. Jack Wennberg’s analysis of Medicare data from across the country and is now formalized in the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care.

The Dartmouth research burst into public view during the 2009 health reform debate, when President Obama and his then-budget director Peter Orszag used it to argue that the wide variation in spending was unnecessary and could be eliminated—shaving about 30 percent off the nation’s annual health tab—without diminishing the quality of care one bit.

Also that year, The New Yorker magazine ran an article by Harvard physician Atul Gawande that compared McAllen, Texas—identified by the Dartmouth Atlas as the highest-spending market in the nation—with nearby El Paso. Gawande found no health advantages in McAllen, even though the level of Medicare spending there was far higher than in El Paso. He concluded that cultural factors among the medical community in McAllen were needlessly driving up spending.

But the Thomson Reuters study, which uses data from employer-sponsored health plans instead of Medicare, throws that conclusion into doubt. That’s because McAllen is one of the lowest-spending markets for commercial health insurers.

Residents there spent less than $3,000 per person, compared with spending in the Anderson area of more than $7,200 per person.

“The reason for these differences must be understood to generate effective policies that use resources effectively without compromising health care quality,” wrote the authors of the Thomson Reuters study, which is based on the market research company’s database of claims data from employer health plans and some health insurers.

Interestingly, Anderson is not one of the highest spending areas for Medicare, according to a 2009 analysis of Dartmouth Atlas data by Better Healthcare for Indiana, a not-for-profit group promoting community-based efforts to improve health and health care.

It found that Anderson’s seniors on Medicare spent about $7,200 per year on health care, which was actually lower than spending in Indianapolis and the state as a whole. Those regions tend to be about at the national average.

And even among seniors with commercial health insurance—typically Medicare supplement policies—seniors in Anderson spend less than the national average: about 97 percent of it, according to Thomson Reuters findings.

Meanwhile, health care spending in McAllen, Texas, by seniors with commercial health insurance was about 30 percent higher than the national average.

Some have speculated that doctors and hospitals that derive less revenue from private health insurers may engage in aggressive treatment of seniors in order to boost their revenue from Medicare. But Les Zwirn, executive director of Better Healthcare for Indiana, said it’s unreasonable to assume doctors change their habits that drastically from one patient type to another.

“It’s a mystery,” Zwirn said of the discrepancy between the Dartmouth Atlas and the Thomson Reuters study.


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. OK Larry, let's sign Lance, shore up the PG and let's get to the finals.

  2. A couple of issues need some clarification especially since my name was on the list. I am not sure how this information was obtained and from where. For me, the amount was incorrect to begin with and the money does not come to me personally. I am guessing that the names listed are the Principal Investigators (individual responsible for the conduct of the trail) for the different pharmaceutical trials and not the entity which receives the checks. In my case, I participate in Phase II and Phase III trials which are required for new drug development. Your article should differentiate the amount of money received for consulting, for speaking fees, and for conduct of a clinical trial for new drug development. The lumping of all of these categories may give the reader a false impression of physicians just trying to get rich. The Sunshine Law may help to differentiate these categories in the future. The public should be aware that the Clinical Trial Industry could be a real economic driver for Indiana since these revenues supports jobs and new job creation. Nationally, this account for 10-20 billion which our State is missing out on to a large degree. Yes, new drug and technology development has gotten most of the attention (e.g. CTSI, BioCrossroads, etc.) However, serious money is being left on the table by not participating in the clinical trials to get those new drugs and medical devices on the market!!!! I guess that this is not sexy enough for academia.

  3. The address given for the Goldfish Swim Club is the Ace Hardware, is it closing?

  4. Out of state management and ownership. If Kite controlled it, everything would be leased. Of course, due to the roundabout, there is limited access to the south side of 116th now also. Just have to go down to the light.

  5. Hey smudge, You're opposed to arresting people for minor crimes? Sounds great! We should only focus on murders and such, right? Let's stand around and wait until someone shoots someone before we act. Whatever we do, we should never question anyone, frisk anyone, or arrest anyone unless they are actively engaged in shooting or stabbing. Very sound!