The New York Times notes today that Medicare spending has flattened out over the past decade. They say that no one knows why its spending growth is now so low, but I'd put it differently. Here is medical inflation over the past 50 years:
The growth of medical spending has not always been sky high. In fact, for most of our history it grew only modestly more than overall inflation. It was only for a 15-year period between about 1983 and 1997 that medical inflation was high, and since then it's reverted to its historical average of 1-2% above overall inflation. In the past few years it's actually been lower than overall inflation.
So the way I'd put it is: Why did it take so long for Medicare spending to slow down? It should have started to flatten around 2000, but instead it kept rising all the way until 2010.
In any case, this is the basic reason for the flattening. There are other factors too, including policy changes under Obamacare, but the big underlying cause of the recent good news for Medicare is that there's been recent good news for all of health care.
interesting and good news thanks to the one good political party in the USA.
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/08/03/new-hhs-report-shows-national-uninsured-rate-reached-all-time-low-2023-after-record-breaking-aca-enrollment-period.html
more needs to be done
"Why did it take so long for Medicare spending to slow down? It should have started to flatten around 2000, but instead it kept rising all the way until 2010."
Because medical inflation was still in excess of overall inflation until at least 2015? Why is this confusing?
Also, I fundamentally disagree with the implication of the statement that "for most of our history it grew only modestly more than overall inflation." You're saying that medical costs didn't explode because they didn't go up that much more than inflation did. Well, here's a graph of inflation from 1960 to today: https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
Prettier but non-BLS version: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/inflation-rate-cpi
Medical inflation may have been only 2% above average in the 1970s (mostly), but inflation in the 1970s was also high. And these things compound. Something that grows 2% faster than inflation for 10 years is about 22% more expensive after those 10 years, adjusted for inflation. Geometric growth gets large quickly.
Didn't the GOP/MAGA party always claimed that the ACA was going to drive up medical costs and destroy US healthcare as we know it?
Not sure how relevant it is, but in my neck of the woods (1 hour north of NYC), over the past 30+ years, the local, somewhat large group medical practice was first taken over by a moderately large regional healthcare provider, then recently acquired by Optum, the largest healthcare company in the US (I think). Over the course of time it has "Hoovered" up most of the independent doctors and small medical groups, and recently cut doctor salaries by about 1/3, requiring them to make up the difference through productivity (seeing more patients per day / cutting patient visit times). Not sure if this trend nationwide has contributed to lower medical inflation.
Medicare inflation isn't the same as saying "health care inflation has been low". Having said that, wouldn't it be nice if we had Medicare for All?
Bernie's Medicare for All is the way to go. Unfortunately what I thought was a great name turned out to be a turn-off for people who left really nice company plans for the complications of Medicare as it is now. I've had the conversation where I explain that the first thing Bernie's bill does is make Medicare into a simple standard, every-damn-thing just about is covered plan.
Because it would kill off the big private insurers (people would still buy Aflac policies) and eliminate the need for healthcare providers to hire armies of billing agents, several million people (and their fat-cat bosses) would no longer be eating our substance. They'd be available for work that might actually benefit society.
So that's $650B to 700B saved on costs created by the health insurance industry. Pry $200B to $300B out of the drug companies and get another $200B out of healthcare fraud...hey, MFA is paid for without increasing taxes.
A little known fact: Government in the USA accounts for 67% of all healthcare spending if you include tax breaks and count the government's share of their employees' premiums.. The most generous countries in the world almost make it to 90%. So, the amount extra the government needs to spend to get to 90% is likely less than the savings from going to Medicare For All. It probably would reduce the deficit. (That won't sway a single damn Republican.)
I'm convinced that non-profit insurers would thrive and for-profit insurers would target supplementary insurance and/or convert to non-profit and go private.
The so-called control of expenditures has clearly not extended to drugs which in one study increased 30% (sample of 1,216 products) between 2016 and 2022.
And as noted by other commenters, Medicare does not represent the entire picture of health care costs. Our expenditures/capita still are the highest in the world almost double that of most other industrialized countries and many multiples of others. So declaring victory seems a bit premature.
Tell that to my copays.
Since I do not receive raises that are even commensurate with inflation, 1-2% above inflation over the course of 30 years is a significant erosion of my effective wages.
In a previous post, you campaigned against innumeracy. I think you should subject this idea to the same scrutiny. What matters is not how much above inflation but how much above wage growth.