The Fund supports several networks of state health policymakers 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 on topics important to state health policymakers, particularly on issues related to state leadership, primary care, aging, and 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.
Tanya G.K. Bentley
Rachel M. Effros
Emmett B. Keeler
Sep 2, 2021
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Context: Health care costs in the United States are much higher than those in industrial countries with similar or better health system performance. Wasteful spending has many undesirable consequences that could be alleviated through waste reduction. This article proposes a conceptual framework to guide researchers and policymakers in evaluating waste, implementing waste-reduction strategies, and reducing the burden of unnecessary health care spending. Methods: This article divides health care waste into administrative, operational, and clinical waste and provides an overview of each. It explains how researchers have used both high-level and sector- or procedure-specific comparisons to quantify such waste, and it discusses examples and challenges in both waste measurement and waste reduction. Findings: Waste is caused by factors such as health insurance and medical uncertainties that encourage the production of inefficient and low-value services. Various efforts to reduce such waste have encountered challenges, such as the high costs of initial investment, unintended administrative complexities, and trade-offs among patients’, payers’, and providers’ interests. While categorizing waste may help identify and measure general types and sources of waste, successful reduction strategies must integrate the administrative, operational, and clinical components of care, and proceed by identifying goals, changing systemic incentives, and making specific process improvements. Conclusions: Classifying, identifying, and measuring waste elucidate its causes, clarify systemic goals, and specify potential health care reforms that-by improving the market for health insurance and health care-will generate incentives for better efficiency and thus ultimately decrease waste in the U.S. health care system.
Author(s): Tanya G.K. Bentley; Rachel M. Effros; Kartika Palar; Emmett B. Keeler
Keywords: health care waste; health care inefficiency; quality of care; health care reform; administrative; operational; clinical waste
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 86, Issue 4 (pages 629–659) DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00537.x Published in 2008
Get the Latest from the Milbank Memorial Fund
The Milbank Quarterly’s multidisciplinary approach and commitment to applying the best empirical research to practical policymaking offers in-depth assessments of the social, economic, political, historical, legal, and ethical dimensions of health and health care policy.