health economics research papers

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Health economics

• Health care
• Health care sector
• Health insurance
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Get an email alert for Health economics
• Get the RSS feed for Health economics

Showing 1 - 13 of 2,939

View by: Cover Page List Articles

Sort by: Recent Popular

Health and economic burden of insufficient physical activity in Saudi Arabia

Saleh A. Alqahtani, Reem AlAhmed,  [ ... ], Hazzaa M. Al-Hazzaa

Unmet need for alcohol use disorder treatment in reproductive-age females, with emphasis on pregnant and parenting populations in the United States: Findings from NSDUH 2015–2021

Anna Shchetinina, Natalie Slopen

County-level factors associated with a mismatch between opioid overdose mortality and availability of opioid treatment facilities

John G. Rizk, Jannat Saini,  [ ... ], Danya M. Qato

County medical community, medical insurance package payment, and hierarchical diagnosis and treatment—Empirical analysis of the impact of the pilot project of compact county medical communities in Sichuan Province

Shaoqun Ding, Yuxuan Zhou

Logistic burdens of cancer care: A qualitative study

Allison C. Dona, Patricia I. Jewett,  [ ... ], Rachel I. Vogel

Quality adjustment and analysis of human resource prices in China: Based on a hedonic price model

Streptococcus pneumoniae in European children, after widespread use of PCVs–A systematic literature review of published evidence">Clinical and economic burden of acute otitis media caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae in European children, after widespread use of PCVs–A systematic literature review of published evidence

Heloisa Ricci Conesa, Helena Skröder,  [ ... ], Eleana Tsoumani

An economic evaluation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease clinical pathway in Saskatchewan, Canada: Data-driven techniques to identify cost-effectiveness among patient subgroups

John Paul Kuwornu, Fernando Maldonado,  [ ... ], Darcy D. Marciniuk

Japanese clinical practice patterns of rituximab treatment for minimal change disease in adults 2021: A web-based questionnaire survey of certified nephrologists

Masahiro Koizumi, Takuji Ishimoto,  [ ... ], Takehiko Wada

Factors related to a sense of economic insecurity among older adults who participate in social activities

Yuriko Inoue, Hisae Nakatani, Ichie Ono, Xuxin Peng

Etonogestrel-releasing subdermal contraceptive implant: Budget impact analysis based on the Brazilian private healthcare system

Agnaldo Lopes da Silva Filho, Ricardo Luis Pereira Bueno, Yohanna Ramires, Lara Marina Cruz Lino

Association between sociodemographic factors, clinic characteristics and mental health screening rates in primary care

Frank Müller, Alyssa M. Abdelnour,  [ ... ], Harland T. Holman

Willingness and ability to pay for breast cancer treatment among patients from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study

Tamiru Demeke, Damen Hailemariam,  [ ... ], Susanne Unverzagt

Connect with Us

• PLOS ONE on Twitter
• PLOS on Facebook

Aims and scope

Benefits of publishing with bmc, high visibility.

Health Economics Review 's open access policy allows maximum visibility of articles published in the journal as they are available to a wide, global audience. 

Speed of publication

Health Economics Review offers a fast publication schedule whilst maintaining rigorous peer review; all articles must be submitted online, and peer review is managed fully electronically (articles are distributed in PDF form, which is automatically generated from the submitted files). Articles will be published with their final citation after acceptance, in both fully browsable web form, and as a formatted PDF.

Flexibility

Online publication in Health Economics Review gives you the opportunity to publish large datasets, large numbers of color illustrations and moving pictures, to display data in a form that can be read directly by other software packages so as to allow readers to manipulate the data for themselves, and to create all relevant links (for example, to PubMed , to sequence and other databases, and to other articles).

Promotion and press coverage

Articles published in Health Economics Review are included in article alerts and regular email updates. Some may be highlighted on Health Economics Review ’s pages and on the BMC homepage.

In addition, articles published in Health Economics Review may be promoted by press releases to the general or scientific press. These activities increase the exposure and number of accesses for articles published in Health Economics Review . A list of articles recently press-released by journals published by BMC is available here .

As an author of an article published in Health Economics Review you retain the copyright of your article and you are free to reproduce and disseminate your work (for further details, see the BMC license agreement ).

For further information about the advantages of publishing in a journal from BMC, please click here .

Open access

All articles published by Health Economics Review are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication, without subscription charges or registration barriers. Further information about open access can be found here .

As authors of articles published in Health Economics Review you are the copyright holders of your article and have granted to any third party, in advance and in perpetuity, the right to use, reproduce or disseminate your article, according to the BMC license agreement .

For those of you who are US government employees or are prevented from being copyright holders for similar reasons, BMC can accommodate non-standard copyright lines. Please contact us if further information is needed.

Article processing charges (APC)

Authors who publish open access in Health Economics Review are required to pay an article processing charge (APC). The APC price will be determined from the date on which the article is accepted for publication.

The current APC, subject to VAT or local taxes where applicable, is: £2090.00/$2790.00/€2390.00

Visit our open access support portal and our Journal Pricing FAQs for further information.

Open access funding

Visit Springer Nature’s open access funding & support services for information about research funders and institutions that provide funding for APCs.

Springer Nature offers agreements that enable institutions to cover open access publishing costs. Learn more about our open access agreements to check your eligibility and discover whether this journal is included.

Springer Nature offers APC waivers and discounts for articles published in our fully open access journals whose corresponding authors are based in the world’s lowest income countries (see our APC waivers and discounts policy for further information). Requests for APC waivers and discounts from other authors will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and may be granted in cases of financial need (see our open access policies for journals for more information). All applications for discretionary APC waivers and discounts should be made at the point of manuscript submission; requests made during the review process or after acceptance are unable to be considered.

Indexing services

All articles published in Health Economics Review are included in:

• Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Emerging Sources Citation Index
• PubMed Central
• Research Papers in Economics
• Social Sciences Citation Index
• Summon by Serial Solutions

The full text of all articles is deposited in digital archives around the world to guarantee long-term digital preservation. You can also access all articles published by BMC on SpringerLink . Health Economics Review has an Impact Factor of 2.306.

Peer-review policy

Peer-review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether the manuscript should be published in their journal. You can read more about the peer-review process here .

Health Economics Review operates a double-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers do not know the names or affiliations of the authors and the reviewer reports provided to the authors are anonymous. Submitted manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two to three experts who will be asked to evaluate whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates already published work, and whether or not the manuscript is sufficiently clear for publication. Reviewers will also be asked to indicate how interesting and significant the research is. The Editors will reach a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, they will consult with members of the Editorial Board.

Editorial policies

All manuscripts submitted to Health Economics Review should adhere to BMC's editorial policies .

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Citing articles in Health Economics Review

Articles in Health Economics Review  should be cited in the same way as articles in a traditional journal. Because articles are not printed, they do not have page numbers; instead, they are given a unique article number.

Article citations follow this format:

Authors: Title. Health Econ Rev [year], [volume number]:[article number].

e.g. Roberts LD, Hassall DG, Winegar DA, Haselden JN, Nicholls AW, Griffin JL: Increased hepatic oxidative metabolism distinguishes the action of Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor delta from Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor gamma in the Ob/Ob mouse. Health Econ Rev 2009, 1 :115.

refers to article 115 from Volume 1 of the journal.

Appeals and complaints

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection or make a complaint should follow the procedure outlined in the BMC Editorial Policies .

• Editorial Board
• Manuscript editing services
• Instructions for Editors
• Sign up for article alerts and news from this journal

Annual Journal Metrics

2022 Citation Impact 2.4 - 2-year Impact Factor 2.8 - 5-year Impact Factor 1.204 - SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 0.836 - SJR (SCImago Journal Rank)

2023 Speed 11 days submission to first editorial decision for all manuscripts (Median) 220 days submission to accept (Median)

2023 Usage  566,888 downloads 483 Altmetric mentions

• More about our metrics
• ISSN: 2191-1991 (electronic)

Health Economics Review

ISSN: 2191-1991

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Public Health

Healthcare Expenditure and Economic Performance: Insights From the United States Data

Viju raghupathi.

1 Koppelman School of Business, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY, United States

Wullianallur Raghupathi

2 Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University, New York, NY, United States

Associated Data

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These can be found here: CMS; BEA; BLS; https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData ; https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=2#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1 ; https://www.bls.gov/lpc/data.htm ; https://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/tusa_1tab1.htm .

This research explores the association of public health expenditure with economic performance across the United States. Healthcare expenditure can result in better provision of health opportunities, which can strengthen human capital and improve the productivity, thereby contributing to economic performance. It is therefore important to assess the phenomenon of healthcare spending in a country. Using visual analytics, we collected economic and health data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 2003–2014. The overall results strongly suggest a positive correlation between healthcare expenditure and the economic indicators of income, GDP, and labor productivity. While healthcare expenditure is negatively associated with multi-factor productivity, it is positively associated with the indicators of labor productivity, personal spending, and GDP. The study shows that an increase in healthcare expenditure has a positive relationship with economic performance. There are also variations across states that justify further research. Building on this and prior research, policy implications include that the good health of citizens indeed results in overall better economy. Therefore, investing carefully in various healthcare aspects would boost income, GDP, and productivity, and alleviate poverty. In light of these potential benefits, universal access to healthcare is something that warrants further research. Also, research can be done in countries with single-payer systems to see if a link to productivity exists there. The results support arguments against our current healthcare system's structure in a limited way.

Introduction and Background

Healthcare spending and the impact that it has on economic performance are important considerations in an economy. Some studies have shown that improvements in health can lead to an increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and vice versa ( 1 – 3 ). Healthcare holds a significant place in the quality of human capital. The increased expenditure in healthcare increases the productivity of human capital, thus making a positive contribution to economic growth ( 4 , 5 ). However, there is ongoing debate on what kinds of healthcare spending and what level of optimal spending is beneficial for economic development ( 6 – 8 ).

The theory of welfare economics is relevant to the current research. Welfare economics is a branch that deals with economic and social welfare by analyzing how the resources of the economy are allocated among the social agents ( 9 , 10 ). Here, we analyze the allocation of resources in terms of spending within the healthcare sector and assess its influence on economic welfare. In addition to this, we draw from several related studies in laying a strong foundation for our research. The relationship between health and economic growth has been examined extensively across multiple studies ( 11 – 16 ). Based on a study that examined the impact of health on economic growth in developing countries, it was evident that a decrease in birth rates positively affected economic growth ( 17 ). During the period of study, health expenditures rose threefold, from $83M to $286M, and outpaced growth in GDP. The study showed that health and income mutually affected each other and concluded that problems affecting healthcare delivery caused negative impact on economic growth ( 18 ). Arora ( 19 ) investigated the effects of health on economic growth for industrialized countries and found a strong association. In a study of the impact of health indicators for the period 1965–1990 for developed and developing countries, economic performance in developing countries increased significantly with an improvement in public health ( 20 ). Studies have proposed that an annual improvement of 1 year in life expectancy increases economic growth by 4% ( 1 , 21 ). Similarly, another study in 2001 emphasized that the existence of a healthy population may be more important than education, for human capital in the long term ( 22 ). Examining 21 African countries for the 1961–1995 period and 23 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries for the 1975–1994 period with the extended Solow growth model, authors found that 23 OECD health stocks affect growth rate of per capita income ( 23 ). Muysken ( 24 ) also investigated whether health is one of the determinants of economic growth and concluded that an iterative relationship exists between economic growth and health—high economic growth leads to investments in human capital and to health advancement, and good population health leads to more labor productivity and economic growth. Aghion et al. ( 25 ) utilized the Schumpeterian growth theory to analyze channels associated with the influence of national health on economic growth. The theory emphasizes the importance of maternal and child health on the critical dimensions of human capital. Another element that has been shown to be a critical element for sustainable economic growth is high life expectancy ( 26 ). Aghion et al. ( 27 ) applied the endogenous growth theory, which proposes that a better life expectancy enhances growth, to analyze the relationship between health and economic growth. The study examined life expectancy for various ages in OECD countries and concluded that a decline in mortality rates for the age groups below 40 has the effect of increasing economic growth Aghion et al. ( 27 ).

Based on the above-mentioned studies, we surmise that higher income per capita is associated not only with life expectancy, but also with numerous other measures of health status. While health is not the only indicator of economic development—indeed, we need to consider the impact of other factors, such as education, political freedom, gender, and many other social attributes ( 1 , 3 , 28 )—health is definitely an integral non-income component that should be considered in a measure of economic development. People generally give high priority and value to a long and healthy life ( 2 , 25 ). Secondly, the rate of achievement of this goal to aspire for a long and healthy life differs widely across countries ( 11 , 13 , 29 ). The Human Development Index, in addition to suggesting a correlation between income and health, also expresses a strong correlation between an individual's place in the income distribution and his or her health outcomes within a country ( 2 , 30 ). This within-country correlation is particularly strong in developing countries. In comparing the growth of income with improvements in health outcomes, it is common to account for simultaneous causation. As an example, people who are healthy have the ability to be more productive in school and at work, reflecting that good health can be a precursor for better economic development ( 4 ). Additionally, a higher income allows individuals or governments to make investments that yield better health ( 28 ). Finally, differences in the quality of education, government, health, and other institutions across countries, in human capital, or in the level of technology can induce correlated movements in health and income ( 16 ). One also needs to account for the dynamic effects built into many of the potential causal outlets. For example, improvements in health may only result in increased worker productivity after a lag of several decades. Similarly, when life expectancy rises, there can be increases in population growth that may temporarily reduce income per capita ( 31 ).

The per capita health expenditures of countries vary in terms of economic development.

Whereas, high-income countries spend, on average on healthcare, $3,000 on each citizen, low-income countries only spend up to $30 per capita. It is also important to consider healthcare expenditure expressed as a percentage of GDP ( 5 , 14 ). While some countries spend higher than 12% of GDP on healthcare, others spend as little as 3% ( 32 ). There are at least two methods that can explain the association between a country's healthcare expenditure and economic performance. In the first scenario, healthcare expenditure is considered an investment in human capital. Human capital accumulation is then perceived to be a source of economic growth (e.g., via increased productivity). Therefore, an increase in healthcare expenditure is likely to be associated with a higher GDP ( 30 , 33 ). In the second scenario, an increase in healthcare expenditure can lead to regular health interventions (e.g., annual medical-checkups, preventive screening, etc.), which are likely to improve labor and productivity; this, in turn, will increase the GDP ( 34 ). Both these mechanisms reflect an iterative phenomenon between healthcare and GDP. Nevertheless, the relationship needs to be checked for endogeneity—which we aim to study in this research.

An important dimension in the relationship between health expenditure and economic performance is the factor of the productivity of workers. In developed countries, labor is scarce, and capital is abundant as a factor of production ( 2 , 31 , 35 ). But this situation is reversed in developing countries where economic growth and economies are based on labor. Here, an increase in individuals' poor health will likely lead to a loss in labor workforce and productivity ( 4 , 16 ). Therefore, addressing public health and health expenditures, though important for both developed and developing countries, is more critical for the latter ( 3 , 4 , 11 , 13 , 16 , 36 ). It is generally assumed from common knowledge that individuals who are healthier are able to work more effectively, in terms of physical and mental workload. Also, adults who were healthier as children will have acquired more human capital in the form of education, which is explained by the proximate effect of health on the level of income ( 37 ). Simultaneously, the impact of individual income on health is also important ( 38 , 39 ). Higher income can result in better health by facilitating access to better nutrition, preventative treatment, good sanitation, safe water, and affordable quality healthcare. Additionally, health can also be a cause of high income, by allowing individuals to work more, be more productive and earn higher income during the lifetime ( 35 ).

The impact of health on education is an important factor that plays a role in healthcare expenditure and economic performance ( 30 , 33 ). Children who enjoy good health can attend school regularly and have the potential of high learning ability and cognitive development. Also, if good health continues through adulthood, it will enable the population to recover the investments in education ( 30 , 33 , 39 ).

Another significant dimension in the relationship that healthcare spending has with economic development is the impact of health on savings. Good health can increase the life expectancy and encourage an individual's motivation to have savings (such as for retirement) and to make more business investments, both of which are beneficial activities for economic performance ( 1 ). Population health is an important healthcare component whose impact should be considered. A healthy population can reduce the expense on national healthcare and increase the potential for earnings. In this manner, the economic impact of population health can occur at the micro and macro levels ( 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 ). It is no surprise that some countries assign a higher value to gains from health than gains from income ( 36 , 40 – 43 ). Additionally, most countries have witnessed an increase in life expectancy despite a persistent income gap over the last 50 years ( 44 ), reflecting the monetary benefits that can accrue from investing in healthcare ( 2 , 44 ).

In this research, we acknowledge the significance of healthcare expenditure and analyze its association with the economic performance. We conduct the analysis at a national level for the United States using the data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). We incorporate the techniques of visual and descriptive analytics ( 45 – 47 ). Our findings provide insight on the differences in health spending and economic performance across the various states of the U.S. The research offers implications for governments 2008; and national policy makers to identify dimensions of healthcare that contribute to national economic performance. It is especially important for policy that addresses population health issues of a nation.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: section Research 2 describes the methodology; section 3 presents the analyses and results; section 4 contains a discussion of results with implications; section 5 offers the scope and limitations of the research; and finally, section 6 presents the conclusions.

Research Methodology

Data collection and variables.

We analyze state-level data and ascertain patterns that offer insight into the healthcare spending and economic performance of various states in the United States. Our methodology includes the stages of data collection and variable selection, data preparation, analytics platform and tool selection, and analytics implementation. We collected economic and health data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ( https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData ), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) ( https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=2#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1 ), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) ( https://www.bls.gov/lpc/data.htm ; https://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/tusa_1tab1.htm ) for a period of 12 years (2003–2014). The variables relate to various economic performance and healthcare spending indicators. Table 1 shows the variables in the research.

List of variables.

The data was analyzed using the business intelligence tool Tableau for visualization, R programming language for regression analysis, and SPSS Modeler for neural network analysis.

Visual Analytics Method

We utilize visual analytics to analyze healthcare spending and economic performance data. With visual analytics, one can discover patterns and relationships that are unexpected, and get timely and rational assessments of the phenomenon that is being analyzed ( 46 , 48 ). Descriptive analytics, as a technique in visual analytics, helps one understand past and current trends and make informed decisions in a domain ( 48 ). By deploying this approach, we take a more data-driven approach to understanding the trends and associations between healthcare expenditure and economic performance scenario.

The technology of analytics is used increasingly in the domain of healthcare. As a business intelligence component, analytics allows statistical and quantitative analyses of large data repositories, enabling evidenced-based decision making ( 49 ). Specifically, in the domain of healthcare, analytics offers timely, relevant and quality information that can help healthcare entities and governments optimize health resource allocation goals effectively ( 50 ).

We deploy visual analytics based on the belief that it offers an effective tool to comprehend healthcare expenditure at a national level and analyze its impact on economic performance. We now discuss the results of our analyses in the following section.

Analyses and Results

We analyzed the data for patterns and relationships between the indicators of healthcare spending and economic performance. Healthcare expenditure refers to aggregate healthcare spending in an economy, including expenditure relating to hospitals, home health agencies, prescription drugs, nursing facilities, and personal healthcare.

Distribution of Hospital Expenditure Per Capita by Hospitals

To get an idea of the state of hospital expenditure we looked at the distribution of expenditure by hospitals in the country ( Figure 1 ). Hospital expenditure includes all service provided to patients, including room, ancillary charges, physician services, in-patient pharmacy services, and nursing home and home care. In Figure 1 , the intensity of color of the bars depicts the number of hospitals such that the darker the color, the higher the number of hospitals with the expenditure. Clearly, the distribution is right-skewed. While the majority of the hospital expenditures per capita rank between $1,600 and $3,500, there are several outliers on the right side. Additionally, even though per capita hospital expenditure on average is within $3,500, there are still some hospitals where the average cost is higher.

Per capita hospital expenditure distribution.

Hospital Expenditure Per Capita and GDP Per Capita by State

We now looked to see if there was any association between the hospital expenditure per capita and the GDP rank of the state ( Figure 2 ). The figure depicts the per capita hospital expenditures by the intensity of the color (the darker the color, the higher the expenditures), and the state rank in terms of GDP per capita as a label in the state. We see that progressive states such as California with a high GDP rank have lower per person hospital expenditure; Nevada has a higher GDP rank than South Dakota but has a lower per capita hospital expenditure. In fact, the hospital expenditure in South Dakota is almost double that of Nevada. This suggests that the states that have higher economic performance (GDP) have legislative and innovative measures that support healthcare research, thereby resulting in lowered costs to the patients.

Per capita hospital expenditures and per capita GDP rank by state.

Population and Per Capita Healthcare Expenditure

Having compared the healthcare expenditure of a state with its GDP, we now wanted to see if there was any association with the population of a state ( Figure 3 ). In the bubble chart the size depicts the population of the state and the color depicts the healthcare expenditure (darker colors represent higher expenditures). Interestingly, we see that sparsely populated states such as District of Columbia (DC) have higher healthcare spending than densely populated states like Texas. On the other hand, states like New York have high population and high expenditure. Therefore, there appears to be no correlation between population size and total average per capita expenditure, proving that population qualifies as a control variable in our dataset.

Overview of population size and total per capita healthcare expenditure.

Association of Hospital Expenditure With GDP Per Capita and Changes in Multifactor Productivity Over Time

We wanted to study the pattern of growth of hospital expenditure with GDP and with changes in multifactor productivity, from 2003 to 2014 ( Figure 4 ). Both associations are shown side by side in Figure 4 .

Relationship of hospital expenditures with per capita GDP, and changes in multifactor productivity.

In Figure 4 , the circles represent the performance for a year, with the intensity of the color indicating the recency of the year. In terms of the graph showing average per capita GDP and average per capita hospital expenditure, we see that since 2003, as the average per capita GDP increases, so does the per capita hospital expenditure. The positive correlation between the average per capita GDP and average per capita hospital expenditure implies that, by proxy, healthcare has a positive effect on GDP (economic performance).

The other graph in Figure 4 shows the relationship of Multifactor Productivity (MFP) with hospital expenditure. MFP is a measure of economic performance that reflects the overall efficiency with which inputs are used to produce outputs. Figure 4 shows that since 2003, the average per capita hospital expenditure has been increasing, but there is no obvious pattern in association with the changes in multifactor productivity. Also, it is worth noting that the trend line shows that there is a slight negative correlation between the changes in multifactor productivity and average per capita hospital expenditure.

Association of Personal Healthcare Costs With Average Hours Per Day Spent on Purchasing Goods and Services, and With Changes in Multifactor Productivity (MFP)

Personal healthcare expenditure determines the out-of-pocket costs incurred by the population. Figure 5 represents two associations of hospital expenditure side by side—with general purchases of the population, and with changes in MFP. In the association of hospital expenditure with general purchases of the population, we estimated the purchasing power of the population using the average hours spent per day on purchasing goods and services. The figure shows a negative relationship such that as personal healthcare costs increase, the average time spent on purchases declines. This is because as personal healthcare costs increase, the amount of available money for spending decreases, affecting the time spent on buying goods and services. Figure 5 also shows the association between hospital expenditure and changes in MFP. The line chart/trend line in the figure indicates that there is no obvious correlation between personal healthcare costs and percent change in MFP. This is consistent with the analysis of hospital expenditure which also had no association with MFP. One can infer that that a change in healthcare costs does not affect the economic cycle.

Relationship of personal healthcare costs with average hours per day spent on purchasing goods and services, and changes in multifactor productivity.

Association of Healthcare Expenditure With Per Capita Personal Income

In looking for associations between healthcare expenditure and personal income ( Figure 6 ) we see that between 2003 and 2014, personal income mostly increased while total healthcare spending has increased as a percentage of income. This confirms two trends—Americans spend more on healthcare over time; and personal income increases faster than that of healthcare expenditure in terms of dollar amount.

Association between per capita healthcare spending and personal income.

Association of Hospital and Physician Expenditures With Labor Productivity

Physician expenditure and hospital expenditure are components of overall healthcare costs of a state. We wanted to analyze if there was any association of labor productivity with physician expenditure and hospital expenditure ( Figure 7 ). The scatterplot in the figure shows that spending in physician or hospital costs is positively correlated with an increase in labor productivity. It appears that healthcare spending has a positive relationship with labor productivity in the United States.

Correlation between labor productivity and hospital and physician expenditures.

Association of Per Capita Healthcare Expenditure With Labor Productivity and With GDP

In terms of healthcare expenditure, the above analysis revealed that physician and hospital expenditure were positively associated with labor productivity. We next explored if total healthcare expenditure which is an aggregate of all components is also associated with labor productivity, and with per capita GDP, both shown side by side ( Figure 8 ). The figure shows that as the total healthcare expenditure increases, labor productivity also increases. There is a positive correlation between total per capita healthcare expenditure and labor productivity. Thus, by increasing healthcare expenditure, the health status of Americans will improve, increasing labor productivity. Figure 8 also shows the association of total healthcare expenditure with an alternate measure of economic performance, namely the GDP. The figure depicts a chart with a trend line that shows that as total healthcare expenditures increase, GDP also increases. Healthcare expenditure of a state has a positive relationship with the GDP of the state.

Relationship between total per capita healthcare expenditures and labor productivity.

Associations Between Personal Healthcare Expenditure, Hospital Expenditure, Nursing Expenditure, and Average Weekly Hours Worked

It is important to see the relationship between average hours worked (weekly) as a measure of economic performance and healthcare expenditure comprising personal healthcare, nursing, and hospital costs ( Figure 9 ). From the figure we can see that as each of the health costs increases, there is no obvious change for average weekly hours. There appears to be no correlation between health costs and average weekly hours, which indicates there is no effect on productivity.

Relationship between personal health, hospital, nursing costs, and average weekly hours.

Association of Personal Healthcare Expenditure With Per Capita GDP

Figure 10 shows the association between personal healthcare expenditure and GDP per capita.

Correlation between per capita personal healthcare expenditure and per capita GDP.

In the figure the bar graph depicts the GDP and the trend line represents the personal healthcare expenditure. The last 2 years, which have a lighter color, represent the forecasted result. The chart shows that personal expenditure costs have steadily risen over the years, while the GDP does not show large fluctuations. A correlation is hard to establish between personal healthcare costs and GDP; it is possible that there may be extraneous types of healthcare expenditure that have an influence on the GDP.

Distribution of Various Types of Healthcare Expenditures Across Years

It is important to explore the different types of healthcare expenditure and their distribution over the years ( Figure 11 ). Personal healthcare expenditure (includes private and public insurance) has the highest average of the types of spending in the years 2003 to 2014. This is followed by hospital and physician expenditure. The rise in personal healthcare expenditure has led to a high demand for reasonably priced private health insurance across the United States. The government needs to increase the affordability of public insurance to increase the reach and benefit more people.

Distribution of various types of healthcare expenditures across years.

Association Between Personal Healthcare Expenditure Per Capita and Total Hours Worked

Figure 12 shows the relationship between personal healthcare expenditure and total hours worked for the years 2003 to 2014. The growth of expenditure costs is not proportional to the rate of change in working hours. There appears to be no correlation between expenditure and working hours; however, from the other analyses, we know that healthcare expenditure has a positive correlation with income.

Relationship between hours worked and per capita personal healthcare expenditure.

Association Between Personal Healthcare Expenditure and Other Personal Expenditure

The relationship between personal healthcare expenditure and other personal expenditure is shown in Figure 13 . The scatterplot shows the personal health expenditure having a positive correlation with the other personal expenditure. The ratio between them basically stays the same, which shows that an increase in personal health care expenditure does not impose a burden, significant enough to cause a reduction in other personal spending.

Relationship between personal health expenditure and other personal expenditure.

Important Healthcare Expenditure Predictors of Per Capita GDP

We wanted to explore which type of healthcare expenditure has the most significant influence on GDP. Figure 14 shows a machine learning based neural network model to analyze which type of healthcare spending affects the per capita GDP the most. The bars indicate to what extent the associated variable is determined by the target variable, namely per capita GDP. Among the different types of healthcare spending, hospital expenditure affects the per capita GDP the most, followed by personal healthcare. It confirms the fact that the effect of healthcare spending in the different care areas will have differential effects on the economy.

Importance of healthcare expenditure predictors for per capita GDP.

Our research offers several important findings that have implications for policy. While healthcare expenditure is negatively associated with multi-factor productivity, it is positively associated with labor productivity, personal spending, and GDP. However, this is not a causal relationship, and our inference is limited. Nevertheless, the research establishes, within the scope of the study, that an increase in healthcare expenditure has a positive relationship with economic performance. There are also variations across states that justify further research. Building on this and prior research, policy implications include that the good health of citizens indeed results in overall better economy. Therefore, investing carefully in various healthcare aspects would boost income, GDP, and productivity, and alleviate poverty. In light of these potential benefits, universal access to healthcare is something that warrants further research. Also, research can be done in countries with single-payer systems to see if a link to productivity exists there. Our results support arguments against our current healthcare system's structure in a limited way.

Scope And Limitations

Our research has a few limitations. First, economic events such as recession may affect the validity of our results. Also, this research uses several proxies for productivity. Ideally, we should also track the hours of time spent being sick, which will affect both attendance and productivity; however due to unavailability of data this was not feasible. This research studies the data at a state level while other studies may drill down further to county and city level. Our research uses secondary data and is therefore subject to the limitations posed by the secondary source in terms of availability and veracity. Finally, the effects of healthcare spending on a different group (such as varying age groups) within a state were not studied. Nevertheless, the study offers a window into the relevance of healthcare expenditure in overall economic performance at a national level.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that, in general, there is a positive association between healthcare spending and the economic indicators of labor productivity, personal income, per capita GDP, and other spending. Also, personal healthcare spending adversely impacts time spent on purchases of goods and services. There is no association between healthcare spending and change in multi-factor productivity (MFP) or working hours. Different states require varied investment in personal health expenditure, even if they have the same level of labor productivity. Overall, the study contributes to the growing literature on healthcare expenditure and economic performance. It outlines how the government can allocate healthcare expenditure in key dimensions that can stimulate economic growth while also improving the well-being of the population. It is also critical that policy makers implement appropriate policies at the macroeconomic level—targeted at public health expenditure and economic development. Overall, in light of the potential benefits of healthcare to the economy, universal access to healthcare is an area that warrants further research.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

Since this study uses aggregated national data, both ethical approval and written informed consent from the participants were not required for this study in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

VR and WR contributed equally to all parts of manuscript preparation and submission.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Jump to navigation

Search form

2nd health economics conference.

June 19–20, 2024

Room Auditorium A3 JJ Laffont and Auditorium A4

Together, the  Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)  and the TSE Health Center are organizing the 2 nd Health Economics Conference, on June 19 th and 20 th , 2024, in Toulouse.

This conference aims to explore recent contributions in understanding the organization and regulation of healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors . It provides a platform for exchanging views on research findings that offer valuable insights for shaping health policies, particularly in connection with health investment and innovation.

Organizing committee

Pierre Dubois  (TSE, CEPR) Jean Tirole  (TSE, CEPR)

Keynote speakers

Jérôme Adda  (Bocconi University) and  A riel Stern  (Harvard Business School).

Call for papers (closed)

The organizing committee warmly thanks all applicants for their submissions. The selected publications will be presented at the conference.

• Conference venue

Toulouse School of Economics 1, Esplanade de l'Université Auditoriums 3 & 4 31080 Toulouse Cedex 06 France

Useful information

• Start on the morning of Wednesday, June 19 th  and conclude on the evening of Thursday, June 20 th
• In person conference in Toulouse.
• Attendance is free but registration is mandatory.
• Registration to the conference will be possible within the limit of available seats.
• We kindly request participants who need to cancel to inform us as soon as they know

Conference secretariat: Marie-Hélène Dufour & Magali Bouley E-mail: [email protected]

We thank the "Investment for the Future Program" (Bpifrance for ARPEGE) as well as the partners of the TSE Health Center for their support.

• Registration
• List of hotels
• 1st Health Economics Conference
• Video: 1st Health Economics Conference
• TSE Health Center
• Smartphone calendar

• Latest News

Paper Wins Top 10 Clinical Research Achievement Award

Clinical Research Forum

A paper written by three CHIBE-affiliated members and their colleagues was recognized by a Top 10 Clinical Research Achievement Award by the Clinical Research Forum.

“ The effects of cash transfers on adult and child mortality in low- and middle-income countries ” was written by Aaron Richterman , Christophe Millien, Elizabeth F. Bair , Gregory Jerome, Jean Christophe Dimitri Suffrin, Jere R. Behrman and Harsha Thirumurthy.

The paper, published in Nature , found that cash transfer programs in low- and middle-income countries are associated with a 20% reduced risk of death in adult women and an 8% reduced risk in children younger than 5 years old.

“These award-winning studies exemplify major advances resulting from the nation’s investment in research to benefit the health and welfare of its citizens, and reflect the influential work being conducted by investigators at nearly 60 research institutions and hospitals across the United States, as well as at partner institutions from around the world. The Top 10 were selected based on the degree of innovation and novelty involved in the advancement of science; contribution to the understanding of human disease and/or physiology; and potential impact upon the diagnosis, prevention, and/or treatment of disease,” the Clinical Research Forum stated on its site.

Read the full article

CHIBE Experts

• Aaron Richterman, MD, MPH
• Harsha Thirumurthy, PhD
• Lizzie Bair, MS

Research Areas

• Global Health

You might also be interested in...

Exemplars News: New Research Finds Cash Transfers Reduce Mortality

New york times: how to lower deaths among women give away cash., bbc sounds: psychological nudges for hiv treatment, politico: obesity is becoming a worldwide problem, new york times: h.i.v. infections remain persistently high, u.n. reports, the better india: indian with world’s 1st patent for ‘digital vaccines’ for kids explains how they work, penn today: in peru and the u.s., considering the factors that drive public health, penn today: access to hiv self-tests in kenya, penn development research initiative launches, mit: research proves it: naps save you money, livemint: the strategic use of social ties to contain the spread of a disease, penn proposal advances to top 100 in macarthur foundation’s $100 million grant competition, sign up for our healthy nudge newsletter.

Economics of Health

Researchers affiliated with the Economics of Health Program study the economic determinants of health, the operation of health care markets, and the financing of health care with particular emphasis on public and private insurance. Core topics of interest include the determinants of "health capital" and the consequences of unhealthy behaviors such as substance abuse, the role of market failure in health care and health insurance markets, and the impact of public policies on health care delivery, expenditures, financing, and innovation. The program is the successor to the Health Care and Health Economics Programs, which merged in July 2023.

Codirectors

Christopher "Kitt" Carpenter is the E. Bronson Ingram Chair and Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University, where he also holds courtesy appointments in the schools of law and medicine. His research focuses on the effects of public policies on health and family outcomes. He has been an NBER affiliate since 2005.

Amy Finkelstein is the John and Jennie S. MacDonald Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the co-founder and Co-Scientific Director of the Jameel Poverty Action Lab-North America.  Her research interests focus on public finance and health economics, particularly market failures and government intervention in insurance and health care markets. She has been an NBER affiliate since 2001.

Featured Program Content

• Authors: Amitabh Chandra , Maurice Dalton & Douglas O. Staiger

• Authors: Jonathan Gruber , Kathleen M. McGarry & Charles Hanzel

• Share full article

There’s an Explosion of Plastic Waste. Big Companies Say ‘We’ve Got This.’

Big brands like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé say a new generation of plants will help them meet environmental goals, but the technology is struggling to deliver.

Recycled polypropylene pellets at a PureCycle Technologies plant in Ironton, Ohio. Credit... Maddie McGarvey for The New York Times

Supported by

By Hiroko Tabuchi

• Published April 5, 2024 Updated April 8, 2024

By 2025, Nestle promises not to use any plastic in its products that isn’t recyclable. By that same year, L’Oreal says all of its packaging will be “refillable, reusable, recyclable or compostable.”

And by 2030, Procter & Gamble pledges that it will halve its use of virgin plastic resin made from petroleum.

To get there, these companies and others are promoting a new generation of recycling plants, called “advanced” or “chemical” recycling, that promise to recycle many more products than can be recycled today.

So far, advanced recycling is struggling to deliver on its promise. Nevertheless, the new technology is being hailed by the plastics industry as a solution to an exploding global waste problem.

The traditional approach to recycling is to simply grind up and melt plastic waste. The new, advanced-recycling operators say they can break down the plastic much further, into more basic molecular building blocks, and transform it into new plastic.

PureCycle Technologies, a company that features prominently in Nestlé, L’Oréal, and Procter & Gamble’s plastics commitments, runs one such facility, a $500 million plant in Ironton, Ohio. The plant was originally to start operating in 2020 , with the capacity to process as much as 182 tons of discarded polypropylene, a hard-to-recycle plastic used widely in single-use cups, yogurt tubs, coffee pods and clothing fibers, every day.

But PureCycle’s recent months have instead been filled with setbacks: technical issues at the plant, shareholder lawsuits, questions over the technology and a startling report from contrarian investors who make money when a stock price falls. They said that they had flown a drone over the facility that showed that the plant was far from being able to make much new plastic.

PureCycle, based in Orlando, Fla., said it remained on track. “We’re ramping up production,” its chief executive, Dustin Olson, said during a recent tour of the plant, a constellation of pipes, storage tanks and cooling towers in Ironton, near the Ohio River. “We believe in this technology. We’ve seen it work,” he said. “We’re making leaps and bounds.”

Nestlé, Procter & Gamble and L’Oréal have also expressed confidence in PureCycle. L’Oréal said PureCycle was one of many partners developing a range of recycling technologies. P.&G. said it hoped to use the recycled plastic for “numerous packaging applications as they scale up production.” Nestlé didn’t respond to requests for comment, but has said it is collaborating with PureCycle on “groundbreaking recycling technologies.”

PureCycle’s woes are emblematic of broad trouble faced by a new generation of recycling plants that have struggled to keep up with the growing tide of global plastic production, which scientists say could almost quadruple by midcentury .

A chemical-recycling facility in Tigard, Ore., a joint venture between Agilyx and Americas Styrenics, is in the process of shutting down after millions of dollars in losses. A plant in Ashley, Ind., that had aimed to recycle 100,000 tons of plastic a year by 2021 had processed only 2,000 tons in total as of late 2023, after fires, oil spills and worker safety complaints.

At the same time, many of the new generation of recycling facilities are turning plastic into fuel, something the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t consider to be recycling, though industry groups say some of that fuel can be turned into new plastic .

Overall, the advanced recycling plants are struggling to make a dent in the roughly 36 million tons of plastic Americans discard each year, which is more than any other country. Even if the 10 remaining chemical-recycling plants in America were to operate at full capacity, they would together process some 456,000 tons of plastic waste, according to a recent tally by Beyond Plastics , a nonprofit group that advocates stricter controls on plastics production. That’s perhaps enough to raise the plastic recycling rate — which has languished below 10 percent for decades — by a single percentage point.

For households, that has meant that much of the plastic they put out for recycling doesn’t get recycled at all, but ends up in landfills. Figuring out which plastics are recyclable and which aren’t has turned into, essentially, a guessing game . That confusion has led to a stream of non-recyclable trash contaminating the recycling process, gumming up the system.

“The industry is trying to say they have a solution,” said Terrence J. Collins, a professor of chemistry and sustainability science at Carnegie Mellon University. “It’s a non-solution.”

‘Molecular washing machine’

It was a long-awaited day last June at PureCycle’s Ironton facility: The company had just produced its first batch of what it describes as “ultra-pure” recycled polypropylene pellets.

That milestone came several years late and with more than $350 million in cost overruns. Still, the company appeared to have finally made it. “Nobody else can do this,” Jeff Kramer, the plant manager, told a local news crew .

PureCycle had done it by licensing a game-changing method — developed by Procter & Gamble researchers in the mid-2010s, but unproven at scale — that uses solvent to dissolve and purify the plastic to make it new again. “It’s like a molecular washing machine,” Mr. Olson said.

There’s a reason Procter & Gamble, Nestlé and L’Oréal, some of the world’s biggest users of plastic, are excited about the technology. Many of their products are made from polypropylene, a plastic that they transform into a plethora of products using dyes and fillers. P.&G. has said it uses more polypropylene than any other plastic, more than a half-million tons a year.

But those additives make recycling polypropylene more difficult.

The E.P.A. estimates that 2.7 percent of polypropylene packaging is reprocessed. But PureCycle was promising to take any polypropylene — disposable beer cups, car bumpers, even campaign signs — and remove the colors, odors, and contaminants to transform it into new plastic.

Soon after the June milestone, trouble hit.

On Sept. 13, PureCycle disclosed that its plant had suffered a power failure the previous month that had halted operations and caused a vital seal to fail. That meant the company would be unable to meet key milestones, it told lenders.

Then in November, Bleecker Street Research — a New York-based short-seller, an investment strategy that involves betting that a company’s stock price will fall — published a report asserting that the white pellets that had rolled off PureCycle’s line in June weren’t recycled from plastic waste. The short-sellers instead claimed that the company had simply run virgin polypropylene through the system as part of a demonstration run.

Mr. Olson said PureCycle hadn’t used consumer waste in the June 2023 run, but it hadn’t used virgin plastic, either. Instead it had used scrap known as “post industrial,” which is what’s left over from the manufacturing process and would otherwise go to a landfill, he said.

Bleecker Street also said it had flown heat-sensing drones over the facility and said it found few signs of commercial-scale activity. The firm also raised questions about the solvent PureCycle was using to break down the plastic, calling it “a nightmare concoction” that was difficult to manage.

PureCycle is now being sued by other investors who accuse the company of making false statements and misleading investors about its setbacks.

Mr. Olson declined to describe the solvent. Regulatory filings reviewed by The New York Times indicate that it is butane, a highly flammable gas, stored under pressure. The company’s filing described the risks of explosion, citing a “worst case scenario” that could cause second-degree burns a half-mile away, and said that to mitigate the risk the plant was equipped with sprinklers, gas detectors and alarms.

Chasing the ‘circular economy’

It isn’t unusual, of course, for any new technology or facility to experience hiccups. The plastics industry says these projects, once they get going, will bring the world closer to a “circular” economy, where things are reused again and again.

Plastics-industry lobbying groups are promoting chemical recycling. At a hearing in New York late last year, industry lobbyists pointed to the promise of advanced recycling in opposing a packaging-reduction bill that would eventually mandate a 50 percent reduction in plastic packaging. And at negotiations for a global plastics treaty , lobby groups are urging nations to consider expanding chemical recycling instead of taking steps like restricting plastic production or banning plastic bags.

A spokeswoman for the American Chemistry Council, which represents plastics makers as well as oil and gas companies that produce the building blocks of plastic, said that chemical recycling potentially “complements mechanical recycling, taking the harder-to-recycle plastics that mechanical often cannot.”

Environmental groups say the companies are using a timeworn strategy of promoting recycling as a way to justify selling more plastic, even though the new recycling technology isn’t ready for prime time. Meanwhile, they say, plastic waste chokes rivers and streams, piles up in landfills or is exported .

“These large consumer brand companies, they’re out over their skis,” said Judith Enck, the president of Beyond Plastics and a former regional E.P.A. administrator. “Look behind the curtain, and these facilities aren’t operating at scale, and they aren’t environmentally sustainable,” she said.

The better solution, she said, would be, “We need to make less plastic.”

Touring the plant

Mr. Olson recently strolled through a cavernous warehouse at PureCycle’s Ironton site, built at a former Dow Chemical plant. Since January, he said, PureCycle has been processing mainly consumer plastic waste and has produced about 1.3 million pounds of recycled polypropylene, or about 1 percent of its annual production target.

“This is a bag that would hold dog food,” he said, pointing to a bale of woven plastic bags. “And these are fruit carts that you’d see in street markets. We can recycle all of that, which is pretty cool.”

The plant was dealing with a faulty valve discovered the day before, so no pellets were rolling off the line. Mr. Olson pulled out a cellphone to show a photo of a valve with a dark line ringing its interior. “It’s not supposed to look like that,” he said.

The company later sent video of Mr. Olson next to white pellets once again streaming out of its production line.

PureCycle says every kilogram of polypropylene it recycles emits about 1.54 kilograms of planet-warming carbon dioxide. That’s on par with a commonly used industry measure of emissions for virgin polypropylene. PureCycle said that it was improving on that measure.

Nestlé, L’Oréal and Procter & Gamble continue to say they’re optimistic about the technology. In November, Nestlé said it had invested in a British company that would more easily separate out polypropylene from other plastic waste.

It was “just one of the many steps we are taking on our journey to ensure our packaging doesn’t end up as waste,” the company said.

Hiroko Tabuchi covers the intersection of business and climate for The Times. She has been a journalist for more than 20 years in Tokyo and New York. More about Hiroko Tabuchi

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

“Buying Time,” a new series from The New York Times, looks at the risky ways  humans are starting to manipulate nature  to fight climate change.

Big brands like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé say a new generation of recycling plants will help them meet environmental goals, but the technology is struggling to deliver .

The Italian energy giant Eni sees future profits from collecting carbon dioxide and pumping it  into natural gas fields that have been exhausted.

New satellite-based research reveals how land along the East Coast is slumping into the ocean, compounding the danger from global sea level rise . A major culprit: the overpumping of groundwater.

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.

Advertisement