U.S. Health Expenditures and Public Health in the Modern Economy
Introduction
In recent years, healthcare spending has become a serious concern to the U.S government and its citizens. In 2019, the U.S. government spent more than 17 percent of its GDP on healthcare. To put this number into perspective, most countries spent between 5-12.5 percent of their GDP on healthcare expenditures. Albeit having the highest percentage in healthcare spending, the U.S. is ranked #11 among other industrialized countries in quality and effectiveness of healthcare. This has sparked criticism and debate over which areas of healthcare should require more emphasis, such as public health.
Public Health and the Distribution of U.S Healthcare Expenditures
According to the CDC, Public Health is the field of protecting communities from disease and promoting large-scale health. Examples of public health activities include vaccination programs, sanitation, health education campaigns, and measures to control infectious diseases.
U.S. healthcare expenditures in 2009 and 2019.
A whopping 37.2% of U.S. healthcare expenditures is on hospital care which is for acute illnesses and not preventive health. On the other hand, public health expenditures constitute only 3%, presenting a large problem. Why is the lack of public health funding alarming? Here is why Harvard researchers and the CDC think the U.S. government should redirect healthcare expenditures to put more emphasis on public health:
Benefits of Increased Focus on Public Health
First, by focusing on preventative measures, public health initiatives address health issues before they require expensive hospital care, reducing hospital care spending as a result. On the contrary, pouring funds into hospital care does not necessarily reduce poor public health since patients may experience recurring illnesses especially if there continues to be poor public health measures. Also, a healthier workforce is a more productive workforce, which in turn strengthens the economy. Furthermore, better health also means better education: healthy children with less cognitive disadvantages generally become more educated compared to unhealthy children, and will grow up to have more successful careers, further adding to economic growthlive to work good-paying jobs which is reflected in the larger economy.
Prospective Public Health Measures
Unfortunately, legislators often spend money on programs with visible and immediate outcomes, and not on programs with invisible and less immediate outcomes such as preventative medical programs. However, if we can convince legislators that long term outcomes yield more benefits, more public health measures will be implemented, promoting the betterment of the U.S. economy and the health of the nation. Here are some public health measures that they think the government can implement:
-
Addressing the obesity problem: If U.S. obesity rates can be lowered, healthcare expenditures on personal care such as hospital care will be significantly reduced. Currently, a government-owned welfare program called SNAP provides low-income households with “food stamps” that can be used to make food purchases at stores accepting those food stamps. However, SNAP has no criteria on which foods recipients can purchase. Because the “food stamps” are often used to purchase cheap junk food, many who use SNAP are obese. The government can solve this problem by applying the criteria of WIC, which requires that their WIC “food stamps” be used on only healthy foods. By requiring healthy food purchases, SNAP can bring the benefits of long term medical cost savings, costing taxpayers less, and long term result of cheaper healthy food.
-
Spending more to reduce risk: Medical homes and better preventive primary care for patients can reduce medical costs and medical waste from overuse by preventing the need for hospital care.
-
Investing in healthy birth: This is another example of the government not investing in non-immediate payoff. Pregnant mothers are prone to stress, stigma, and inhaling toxic chemicals that cause infantile problems such as preterm birth. Unfortunately, the side effects of an unhealthy birth can also go unnoticed until years later on such as a higher lifetime risk of diabetes or cardiovascular disease. If the government were to invest in unhealthy-birth-preventive programs, its payoff could shape the lifetime health of many children.
Conclusion
Overall, investing in better public health yields more significant long-term benefits, which will be more rewarding than immediate gains. With soaring U.S. healthcare expenditures and relatively low success rates, there is a growing call for more effective distribution of healthcare spending to place greater emphasis on public health.
Sources:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/public-health-economy-election/
https://jphmpdirect.com/investing-in-public-health-a-smart-move-for-economic-prosperity/