Comments on: Wishful Thinking Has No Limits

By: Bart Ingles

Bart Ingles — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:33:08 +0000

I wonder if the flat part merely reflects the dot-com boom. It may just mean that GDP grew at an unusually fast rate, matching the growth in health spending.

More interesting than total spending would be price inflation for a basket of health-related goods and services.

By: Devon Herrick

Devon Herrick — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:36:02 +0000

Keep in mind that using the benchmark OECD expenditures (as percent of GDP) for 30 countries biases the median by using many less-developed countries with standards of living far below ours. I also don’t believe anything proposed during the Clinton Administration could possibly have reduced spending by 3.5 percentage points. I certainly don’t know of any serious proposals during the Carter and Nixon Administrations that would have resulted in spending curves of 10.5% to 11.5%.

It’s easy to have 20/20 hindsight when there is no way to be proven wrong.

By: Linda Gorman

Linda Gorman — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:15:32 +0000

Interesting that the flat part of the curve from 1995-2000 is roughly the same time that Medicaid expenditures (temporarily) flattened out according to the 2008 HHS Medicaid Actuarial Report.

Medicaid expenditures grew at an average rate of 6.2 percent per year FY 1994-1999. But states spent the period of slower growth and economic epansion expanding eligibility. So, from FY 2000 through FY 2005, Medicaid expenditure growth increased at an average rate of 8.9 percent per year. It peaked at 9.3 percent in FY 2002.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:01:06 +0000

If you compare this chart with what was predicted and then what actually happened with Medicare, this chart is really quite funny.

By: Paul P.

Paul P. — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:55:05 +0000

The Commonwealth Fund is a joke.

By: Brian Williams.

Brian Williams. — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:41:33 +0000

What the Commonwealth Fund predicts will happen in theory is much different than what happens in reality.