The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, healthy aging, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a nonpartisan foundation focused on improving the health of communities and entire populations.
April 15, 2015
View from Here
Sustainable Health Care Costs
Christopher F. Koller
Jul 18, 2022
Jul 11, 2022
Apr 13, 2022
Back to The View from Here
Welcome to health care’s economic wonderland:
“Health care costs are killing employers and the government budget.”“Health care jobs are the key to our economic recovery.”“We want to lure more high-paying biotech jobs into our community.”
“Health care costs are killing employers and the government budget.”
“Health care jobs are the key to our economic recovery.”
“We want to lure more high-paying biotech jobs into our community.”
These contradictory statements often peacefully coexist in the magical reality of this wonderland. When I was health insurance commissioner in Rhode Island, the same leaders who urged me to deny rate increases to insurers also championed any growth in health care jobs and vied to attend the next ribbon-cutting ceremony for a hospital expansion.
A few states, though, are trying to create a new reality, changing the way health care is provided and paid for. The strategies these states are employing differ in some fundamental ways, but implicit in each one is that health care is an economic activity to be measured. Reform efforts need to be assessed, and the value of health care spending evaluated, understood, and improved.
The Milbank Memorial Fund studied the total cost of care measurement activities in four states—Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Vermont. Their methods are summarized in a new report, “State Models for Health Care Cost Measurement: A Policy and Operational Framework.” The report brings a few lessons to mind:
Total cost of care measurement is part of a comprehensive and distinct health policy strategy in each state. Oregon’s focus is on Coordinated Care Organizations; Vermont has been implementing its Blueprint for Health. Maryland has revamped its all payer hospital rate-setting strategy, and Massachusetts is targeting the rate of cost growth as part of its Chapter 224 reforms. In each case, the cost measurement efforts studied here serve and reinforce systematic strategies.
It Is Hard
Attempting to measure one-fifth of one’s economy may be criticized as overly technocratic, but never as unambitious. The report identifies some daunting questions to be answered. With consumers, employers, and state and federal governments all paying for care, where does data come from? What is being counted and how? Who is being measured: the state as a whole? Different types of payers (Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers)? Newly accountable providers? What about the increasing portion of costs borne by consumers, directly and in benefit cost-sharing?
Once those questions are answered, what exactly is reported out to whom, in ways that promote understanding? Reports with dollar signs denote some people’s revenues and other’s expenses. They are subject to various interpretations—not all of them accurate and some selectively so.
It Is Important
In spite of the recent slowdown in health care cost growth in the United States, as described by Gail Wilensky in a recent Milbank Quarterly op-ed, it remains a vital policy issue. We pay more for our health care than any other country. Health care continues to chew up government budgets, and much of our slowdown has been accomplished by shifting costs to patients, as Drew Altman pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal Think Tank column.
A total cost of care approach is also consistent with an ethic of justice—of equal treatment regardless of a population’s ability to pay. It permits providers and policymakers alike to see the health care system as a whole, creates social solidarity, and reduces fragmented payer-specific views that often encourage price discrimination—when prices vary for the same service based on the market power of the provider or the payer.
Most importantly, local government and private sector stakeholders in these four states have decided they can’t have it both ways; that the marginal dollar for health care may be better spent elsewhere—in factors that determine health, in other services, or in savings for taxpayers and purchasers. A yardstick that measures total expenses on health care and rate of growth helps create this conversation.
The Fund commissioned this report for three reasons:
This report documents how each state’s yardstick is different in important ways—reflecting the distinct social values, political cultures, and health care system characteristics in the state, and the exploratory nature of this work. Time and evidence will determine the efficacy of the states’ strategies and their measurement efforts. Other states will use total cost of care yardsticks in new and different ways.
But regardless of their applications, yardsticks are not magical. They have one reality. Only after assessing something’s cost can you compare its value to other uses. All four of these state “policy pioneers” are showing us how to do that. We need to take note of their work and learn from it.
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund
An endowed operating foundation that engages in nonpartisan analysis, collaboration, and communication, with an emphasis on state health policy.