Is healthcare spending doomed to increase forever?

Does healthcare spending suffer from an inevitable escalation in costs? Can it ever be reduced?

Matt Yglesias has a good post up over at Slate, detailing the problem that all wealthy countries have when it comes to healthcare expenditure: Demand for health is, quite literally, insatiable.

Yglesias writes:

It turns out that electronic medical records may not reduce health care spending (see Lohr & Kliff) for the very sensible reason that when you make it cheaper and easier to order and analyze tests, medical professionals grow more inclined to order tests. It's kind of a health care version of the energy efficiency rebound effect, when you make it cheaper to keep your home comfortably warm in the winter people grow more inclined to crank up the heat rather than wear a thick sweater inside. The difference is that once you reach a certain level of affluence your house is warm enough and you find yourself sated. The crux of the matter with healthcare is that we're never really sated. Once you're talking about a middle class family in a developed country—a family that's not worried about starving to death or freezing on the streets or being unable to afford shoes—you're talking about a family that's going to plow what resources it has into attempting to address the potentially limitless health care needs of its members.

It is a real concern for anyone trying to improve the efficiency of health services; and yet, at the back of my mind, I couldn't get this out of my head:

Healthcare: Chart One

It clearly is possible for the US to reduce spending on health - possibly even halve it. So what's missing from Yglesias' analysis? It may be as simple as saying 'no'.

For all the hysteria over the accusation that Obamacare would lead to a network of "death panels", the problem with the claim is more style over substance. Health systems necessarily involve an element of rationing (we do not live in a post-scarcity society quite yet); but whereas NICE attempts to do that in a way that guarantees the most efficient use of resources for the nation as a whole, the US system follows the path which ensures that those who can afford to spend ever-increasing amounts of money, to secure ever-decreasing returns, do so.

In the long term, we may hope for a change in attitude to that demonstrated in Ken Murray's wonderful piece from January, but for now, it seems that the best response to the infinite demand for health may be gentle pressure in the opposite direction.

A patient is monitored by a nurse while walking on crutches. Credit: Getty

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.