Bureau of Economic Analysis

About: Bureau of Economic Analysis is a government organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Price index & Productivity. The organization has 139 authors who have published 305 publications receiving 5975 citations. The organization is also known as: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis & United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

US Spending on Personal Health Care and Public Health, 1996-2013.

Abstract: Importance US health care spending has continued to increase, and now accounts for more than 17% of the US economy. Despite the size and growth of this spending, little is known about how spending on each condition varies by age and across time. Objective To systematically and comprehensively estimate US spending on personal health care and public health, according to condition, age and sex group, and type of care. Design and Setting Government budgets, insurance claims, facility surveys, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2013 were collected and combined. In total, 183 sources of data were used to estimate spending for 155 conditions (including cancer, which was disaggregated into 29 conditions). For each record, spending was extracted, along with the age and sex of the patient, and the type of care. Spending was adjusted to reflect the health condition treated, rather than the primary diagnosis. Exposures Encounter with US health care system. Main Outcomes and Measures National spending estimates stratified by condition, age and sex group, and type of care. Results From 1996 through 2013, $30.1 trillion of personal health care spending was disaggregated by 155 conditions, age and sex group, and type of care. Among these 155 conditions, diabetes had the highest health care spending in 2013, with an estimated $101.4 billion (uncertainty interval [UI], $96.7 billion-$106.5 billion) in spending, including 57.6% (UI, 53.8%-62.1%) spent on pharmaceuticals and 23.5% (UI, 21.7%-25.7%) spent on ambulatory care. Ischemic heart disease accounted for the second-highest amount of health care spending in 2013, with estimated spending of $88.1 billion (UI, $82.7 billion-$92.9 billion), and low back and neck pain accounted for the third-highest amount, with estimated health care spending of $87.6 billion (UI, $67.5 billion-$94.1 billion). The conditions with the highest spending levels varied by age, sex, type of care, and year. Personal health care spending increased for 143 of the 155 conditions from 1996 through 2013. Spending on low back and neck pain and on diabetes increased the most over the 18 years, by an estimated $57.2 billion (UI, $47.4 billion-$64.4 billion) and $64.4 billion (UI, $57.8 billion-$70.7 billion), respectively. From 1996 through 2013, spending on emergency care and retail pharmaceuticals increased at the fastest rates (6.4% [UI, 6.4%-6.4%] and 5.6% [UI, 5.6%-5.6%] annual growth rate, respectively), which were higher than annual rates for spending on inpatient care (2.8% [UI, 2.8%–2.8%] and nursing facility care (2.5% [UI, 2.5%-2.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance Modeled estimates of US spending on personal health care and public health showed substantial increases from 1996 through 2013; with spending on diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and low back and neck pain accounting for the highest amounts of spending by disease category. The rate of change in annual spending varied considerably among different conditions and types of care. This information may have implications for efforts to control US health care spending.

US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016.

Abstract: Importance US health care spending has continued to increase and now accounts for 18% of the US economy, although little is known about how spending on each health condition varies by payer, and how these amounts have changed over time. Objective To estimate US spending on health care according to 3 types of payers (public insurance [including Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs], private insurance, or out-of-pocket payments) and by health condition, age group, sex, and type of care for 1996 through 2016. Design and Setting Government budgets, insurance claims, facility records, household surveys, and official US records from 1996 through 2016 were collected to estimate spending for 154 health conditions. Spending growth rates (standardized by population size and age group) were calculated for each type of payer and health condition. Exposures Ambulatory care, inpatient care, nursing care facility stay, emergency department care, dental care, and purchase of prescribed pharmaceuticals in a retail setting. Main Outcomes and Measures National spending estimates stratified by health condition, age group, sex, type of care, and type of payer and modeled for each year from 1996 through 2016. Results Total health care spending increased from an estimated $1.4 trillion in 1996 (13.3% of gross domestic product [GDP]; $5259 per person) to an estimated $3.1 trillion in 2016 (17.9% of GDP; $9655 per person); 85.2% of that spending was included in this study. In 2016, an estimated 48.0% (95% CI, 48.0%-48.0%) of health care spending was paid by private insurance, 42.6% (95% CI, 42.5%-42.6%) by public insurance, and 9.4% (95% CI, 9.4%-9.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. In 2016, among the 154 conditions, low back and neck pain had the highest amount of health care spending with an estimated $134.5 billion (95% CI, $122.4-$146.9 billion) in spending, of which 57.2% (95% CI, 52.2%-61.2%) was paid by private insurance, 33.7% (95% CI, 30.0%-38.4%) by public insurance, and 9.2% (95% CI, 8.3%-10.4%) by out-of-pocket payments. Other musculoskeletal disorders accounted for the second highest amount of health care spending (estimated at $129.8 billion [95% CI, $116.3-$149.7 billion]) and most had private insurance (56.4% [95% CI, 52.6%-59.3%]). Diabetes accounted for the third highest amount of the health care spending (estimated at $111.2 billion [95% CI, $105.7-$115.9 billion]) and most had public insurance (49.8% [95% CI, 44.4%-56.0%]). Other conditions estimated to have substantial health care spending in 2016 were ischemic heart disease ($89.3 billion [95% CI, $81.1-$95.5 billion]), falls ($87.4 billion [95% CI, $75.0-$100.1 billion]), urinary diseases ($86.0 billion [95% CI, $76.3-$95.9 billion]), skin and subcutaneous diseases ($85.0 billion [95% CI, $80.5-$90.2 billion]), osteoarthritis ($80.0 billion [95% CI, $72.2-$86.1 billion]), dementias ($79.2 billion [95% CI, $67.6-$90.8 billion]), and hypertension ($79.0 billion [95% CI, $72.6-$86.8 billion]). The conditions with the highest spending varied by type of payer, age, sex, type of care, and year. After adjusting for changes in inflation, population size, and age groups, public insurance spending was estimated to have increased at an annualized rate of 2.9% (95% CI, 2.9%-2.9%); private insurance, 2.6% (95% CI, 2.6%-2.6%); and out-of-pocket payments, 1.1% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance Estimates of US spending on health care showed substantial increases from 1996 through 2016, with the highest increases in population-adjusted spending by public insurance. Although spending on low back and neck pain, other musculoskeletal disorders, and diabetes accounted for the highest amounts of spending, the payers and the rates of change in annual spending growth rates varied considerably.

Vertical Production Networks in Multinational Firms

Abstract: In recent decades, growth of world trade has been driven largely by rapid growth of trade in intermediate inputs. Much of input trade involves multinational firms locating input processing in their foreign affiliates, thereby creating global vertical production networks. We use firm-level data on U.S. multinationals to examine trade in intermediate inputs for further processing between parent firms and their foreign affiliates. Among our main findings are that demand for imported inputs is higher when affiliates face lower trade costs, lower wages for less-skilled labor, and lower corporate income tax rates.

Adjusting Health Expenditures for Inflation: A Review of Measures for Health Services Research in the United States

Abstract: Objective To provide guidance on selecting the most appropriate price index for adjusting health expenditures or costs for inflation. Data Sources Major price index series produced by federal statistical agencies. Study Design We compare the key characteristics of each index and develop suggestions on specific indexes to use in many common situations and general guidance in others. Data Collection/Extraction Methods Price series and methodological documentation were downloaded from federal websites and supplemented with literature scans. Principal Findings The gross domestic product implicit price deflator or the overall Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index is preferable to the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) to adjust for general inflation, in most cases. The Personal Health Care (PHC) index or the PCE health-by-function index is generally preferred to adjust total medical expenditures for inflation. The CPI medical care index is preferred for the adjustment of consumer out-of-pocket expenditures for inflation. A new, experimental disease-specific Medical Care Expenditure Index is now available to adjust payments for disease treatment episodes. Conclusions There is no single gold standard for adjusting health expenditures for inflation. Our discussion of best practices can help researchers select the index best suited to their study.

The Regional Economic Impact of an Earthquake: Direct and Indirect Effects of Electricity Lifeline Disruptions

Abstract: This paper develops a methodology to estimate the regional economic impacts of electricity lifeline disruptions caused by a catastrophic earthquake. The methodology is based on specially designed input-output and linear programming models. A simulation of a major earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone near Memphis, Tennessee, indicates the potential production loss over the recovery period could amount to as much as 7 percent of gross regional product. Reallocation of scarce electricity across sectors could reduce the impacts substantially. Additionally, an improved restoration pattern of electricity transmission substations across subareas could reduce losses even more.