Recent health science news,dating man with herpes zoster,alternative medicine courses uk sas - 2016 Feature

admin 05.05.2016

There has been a significant focus on whether this slowdown in health spending is a result of broader economic factors (such as the Great Recession of 2007-2009), structural changes in the health system that could lead to slower growth in the future as well, or some combination of the two.
This has major implications for policy, since health spending growth is a major driver of federal and state budgets through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance. Researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Altarum Institute’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending developed a statistical model to track how the growth in national health spending varies with macroeconomic indicators, using estimates of national health spending from OACT for 1965 to 2011 and estimates of health spending for 2012 from Altarum. This model allows us to go back in time and assess how much changes in the economy as a whole are associated with increases in health spending, in effect generating a “reverse forecast.” It also allows us to forecast what could happen to the growth in health spending in the future assuming the economy recovers as expected. Inflation in the current year, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator, as well as inflation in the prior two years. It is not surprising that inflation and GDP are significant drivers of health spending growth. Perhaps more surprising, we found that these effects are quite slow to develop, with changes in GDP filtering through the health system over a six year period (including the current year).
Most people are insured, and insurance has an economically protective effect in shielding people from the full cost of health care.
Consumers may perceive health care as a necessity in a way that is different from other economic goods, and therefore cut back on health spending only after exhausting other ways of trimming household budgets.
Hospitals (which account for a large share of health spending) are quite deliberate in their decision-making processes regarding whether to expand or contract services and capital expenditures.
Legislated changes in spending under Medicare and Medicaid may require an extended process of debate before any substantial adjustments are made. In effect, our analysis finds that health spending fully responds to changes in the economy, but that the effect is gradual and cumulative rather than immediate. Chart 1 shows the growth in health spending for the period 1965 to 2012, as well as what the model predicts health spending would have been based solely on inflation and changes in real GDP. For the past four years, health spending growth has been at its lowest level in five decades. Our analysis indicates that that economic growth influences health spending on a lagged basis over a period of six years, and inflation does so over two years. As a result, our analysis suggests that much of the decline in health spending growth in recent years was fully expected given what was happening more broadly in the economy. While economic factors explain the vast majority of the recent slowdown in health spending, they do not explain it entirely. Historically, “excess” growth in health spending has been measured by how much faster (or slower) health expenditures are rising relative to GDP. Some have sought to correct for this volatility in GDP by instead looking at the gap between health spending growth and what is known as “potential” GDP (PGDP) as an indicator of “excess” growth in the health system.
To compensate for the deficiencies in these rough measures of “excess” health spending, we instead developed an improved measure (using our statistical model) that adjusts for temporary fluctuations in health spending and GDP growth caused by the lagged effect of business cycles and inflation. As the chart shows, health spending grew significantly faster than the economy throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, with “excess” growth averaging 3.2% over the period. There is no way of knowing for certain whether this slowdown will persist and for how long, though the trend since 2008 has been generally upward.
From a policy perspective, understanding patterns of health spending in the past is primarily of interest as a guide for what may happen in the future.
Chart 3 shows historical growth in health spending by year broken down by the components of that growth as estimated by our statistical model: the effects of real GDP and inflation (current and lagged), as well as “excess” health spending growth. The stacked light and dark blue bars in Chart 3 show how health spending growth rates are expected to climb as inflation and especially GDP ramp up as the economy recovers. However, how fast health spending will ultimately grow also depends on the level of “excess” in the health system. National health expenditures totaled an estimated $2.8 trillion in 2012, so even a small difference in the growth rate can lead to substantial differences in spending over time. Except for the ACA boost in 2014, our projections with a 1.6 percentage point “excess” growth rate track very closely on a year-to-year basis with those from the CMS Office of the Actuary. There has been much discussion recently about the causes of the historically low rate of growth we are now seeing in health spending, and more importantly, whether it will continue.
There is a very strong statistical link between business cycles and inflation and national health spending.
Our analysis suggests that the vast majority (77%) of the recent decline in the health spending trend can be attributed to broader changes in the economy. As the economy recovers, health spending is likely to trend upwards, though growth rates are unlikely to return to the double-digit levels we have seen in the past.
On the other side of the ledger, the bulk of the Medicare savings included in the ACA – primarily achieved through smaller increases in payments to providers – have yet to be realized and will lower the future growth in spending in that program. In fact, caution should be exercised in translating broad projections of total national health spending to effects on federal and state budgets.
However, our analysis suggests that over time the economy is by far the biggest determinant of changes in health spending overall.
1. The model was estimated in SAS using least squares regression with the Yule-Walker correction for autocorrelation. Filling the need for trusted information on national health issues, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a nonprofit organization based in Menlo Park, California. The purpose of the pancreatic cancer campaign was to raise the awareness that while the survival rate for breast cancer is about 85% and for testicular cancer (the target of another ad featuring a man) is about 97%, the survival rate for pancreatic cancer is a mere 3%.

Opening a dialogue whereby people can debate ethical issues about the way we see and talk about the different types of cancers, the stories we tell ourselves about each, and the taboos surrounding health issues is a positive thing.  The fact that awareness is being raised about a rare cancer type that kills due to lack of symptom detection and late diagnosis is even better. When you quote a five-year 87% survival rate for breast cancer, please understand the context. Suggesting breast cancer is “enviable” unfortunately may give people the idea that everyone who has it is cured. To the extent this is a temporary phenomenon driven by the economic downturn and abnormally low inflation, we can expect health spending growth to bounce back up in the future as the economy recovers. Beginning in 2014, it will also affect the federal cost for subsidies provided to low- and middle-income people buying coverage through new health insurance exchanges. We also address what could happen to health spending in the coming years if the economy recovers as projected by CBO. Changes in real GDP – reflecting recessions and periods of economic growth – are primarily a function of changes in consumer spending, so it makes sense that consumers will also respond to broader economic changes by adjusting spending on health care as well.
In fact, as unemployment rises and incomes fall, Medicaid costs tend to go up as more people become eligible for the program, though states in response may react by cutting back on eligibility or payments to providers. For example, a 1% change in real GDP ultimately a produces a 1.49% change in health spending.
This chart illustrates the striking relationship between health spending and the economy, with health spending growth cycling up and down over time closely in sync with macroeconomic measures. There has been much discussion about how much of this slowdown is due to the great recession. Inflation was quite similar in the years running up to 2002 and 2012, but real GDP growth was quite different. For example, in the three years 2001-2003, annual health spending growth rates averaged 8.8%, the recent peak in the curve. To quantify how much of the slowdown might be due to structural changes in the health system that could persist for some period of time, we estimate the amount of “excess” health spending growth over time. Over the long term, from 1960 to 2011, health spending has grown by an average of 2.6 percentage points faster than GDP. For example, when GDP falls precipitously during recessions, health spending typically does not immediately move in lockstep (as our statistical model confirms), leading to a very large gap between health and GDP.
PGDP estimates what the nation’s economic output would be if labor and capital resources were fully employed, and it is consequently relatively insensitive to business cycles. This measure, in effect, estimates how health spending is growing relative to the economy as a whole, independent of business cycles. [3] Chart 2 presents year-by-year estimates of “excess” health spending growth using this approach, with orange bars illustrating periods of sustained low growth (2012 is shaded differently since it is based on a preliminary estimate of spending).
That long-term trend first broke in about 1993, likely due to the threat of health reform during the debate over the Clinton Health Security Act and the subsequent rapid rise in managed care enrollment.
However, the major elements of the ACA – including significant cost savings in Medicare and the creation of new health insurance exchanges – have in general not yet been fully implemented, and could dampen growth in the future.
Our statistical model can be used to forecast health spending in the coming years, based on assumptions about how quickly the economy recovers. The chart also illustrates what could happen to health expenditures over the next decade based on CBO’s forecast of GDP and inflation. For example, lowering the growth rate by one percentage point on average over the next decade means that total health spending would be almost half a trillion dollars lower than expected 10 years from now.
They do not account for an expected one-time increase of two to three percentage points in health spending growth as more people become insured under the ACA. This analysis will not settle that debate – especially about what the future holds — but will hopefully illuminate it.
However, because the effect of economic activity on health prices and utilization is gradual and highly lagged, it is not always easy to discern the relationship by looking just at single year measures. At the same time, however, there are also indications that structural changes in the health system may be playing a modest role as well.
Future health spending increases will also depend on whether “excess” health costs remain at the relatively modest level of recent years or return to the historical norm. Increases in coverage will induce a modest, one-time bump of a couple percent in spending as people who were previously uninsured get insurance and better access to health services.
Changes in the delivery system – through accountable care organizations (ACOs) and bundled payments to providers – may also yield results and help to keep “excess” health costs down in public programs, as well as in private insurance.
Many of the drivers of health spending overall affect Medicare and Medicaid as well, as reflected in CBO’s reduced estimates for future spending in those programs. Increases in health expenditures are likely to trend upwards over the coming decade as the economy returns to a more normal rate of growth. To estimate “excess” growth in health spending, we adjust the coefficients in the statistical model so that they sum to 1.0 for the current and lagged inflation variables and for the real GDP variables.
Perhaps this entire controversy will save a few lives.  If it does – was the shock value worth it? Lindsay Kobayashi is researching how health literacy and health information influence people’s decisions to engage in cancer preventive behaviours. The more we screen, the more we diagnose and treat people with breast cancers that would not have been a threat to their lives (some DCIS, other slow growing invasive breast cancers, and others that are dormant or regressive); so it looks like survival for early stage breast cancer is 98 percent in the US. With these “great” numbers in mind, perhaps people will be tempted to skip their regular doctor and screening appointments–why worry?
Before medical school, he graduated cum laude from North Carolina State University in 2006 with a degree in Computer Science and worked in the telecom industry.

In particular, projected future increases in health spending are an important factor in estimates of the federal budget deficit, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently lowered its forecast of future Medicare and Medicaid spending based on the historically low rates of growth of health spending in recent years. The effect is greater than 1.0 because health spending over time grows faster than the economy as a whole, leading to a greater share of GDP devoted to health.
This is not just interesting from an historical perspective, but also highly relevant in considering how long the slowdown may last. This is an accurate measure of how much faster the health care system grew than the economy as a whole in any given year, but the results are largely driven by GDP and are not a good indication of how the health system is performing from a cost perspective. Therefore, using PGDP to measure “excess” health growth may provide a better indicator of longer-term trends.
However, future spending depends critically on not only the economy, but also on the level of “excess” growth in the health system. Nor do they explicitly include substantial future savings in Medicare under the ACA – or potential spillover to the private sector of Medicare pilot projects to reform delivery system incentives – which could help to hold the overall level of “excess” growth down. In particular, the fact that health spending growth rates started to fall before the great recession, or continued to fall even after the recession ended, is not necessarily a demonstration that the recent slowdown is occurring for reasons other than what is happening generally in the economy. History suggests that previous efforts to control health care costs have had only a temporary effect, and there are initial signs that the recent slowdown (independent of the effects of the economy) is beginning to wane.
This will likely coincide with an expected economic recovery, so higher growth rates in health spending due to that recovery should not be attributed to the ACA simply because of the coincidental timing. In addition, the ACA’s tax on high cost, “Cadillac” employer-sponsored health plans, scheduled to take effect in 2018, is expected to trim the cost of benefits and could lead to lower overall health spending as well. At the same time, spending in these programs is also influenced heavily by legislated changes such as those in the ACA or that have been discussed in the context of federal deficit reduction proposals. Sustaining low growth rates in health spending will require continued pressure for containing costs throughout the system. This assumes that health spending grows at the same rate as real GDP plus inflation, taking into account lagged effects. We don’t hear very much about pancreatic cancer in the news or from charities (what colour would the pancreatic cancer ribbon be?) because it’s a rare cancer. She is interested in understanding why health inequalities exist, and what we can do to ensure equal health status across all population groups.
In the documentary, a support group of women with metastatic breast cancer are interviewed, and their point of views and feelings contrasted with the sound bites from industry executives gives an unsettling image of the culture of breast cancer in North America. Waqaar is interested in the future of integration of technology in medicine.His focus in iMedicalApps is primarily on news and research in cutting edge technology.
A better understanding of what is driving changes in health spending will also be important context for interpreting what happens as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) goes into effect. A casual examination suggests that there is more going on here than just the recession, since the slowdown in costs predated the recession and has continued after it.
But, based on patterns of real GDP changes and inflation, our model predicts that the growth rate in health spending would have been expected to decline by 3.6 percentage points over that same period. Any time this “excess” growth is greater than zero, it means that the health sector is growing as a share of GDP.
For example, in 2009 health spending grew at about GDP+6, but this was clearly not indicative of any longer term trend. However, looking at the gap between health spending and PGDP has almost the opposite problem of looking at GDP – during economic downturns, “excess” health spending will appear unnaturally low because the growth in health expenditures tends to drop while PGDP remains relatively constant. This spike was short-lived, lasting through 2003, and the rest of the decade and the early years of the new millennium have looked very much like the 1990s (with “excess” growth averaging about 1%). Even under this scenario, though, we would not see a return to the double-digit increases of the late 1980s and early 1990s, assuming inflation and real GDP growth remain relatively modest and “excess” health spending does not rise further.
In fact, Medicare spending per capita is expected to grow slower than GDP per capita over the next decade.
This could be due to continuing changes in the way health care is delivered, but also to rising levels of patient cost-sharing in private insurance plans that discourage use of services. We measure “excess” health spending growth as the difference between actual spending growth and what this adjusted model would predict for any given year. Perhaps most importantly, if we believe health spending growth will remain low, we may be satisfied letting current cost containment strategies play out; if we do not, there may be greater impetus to consider new efforts to address health care costs.
In other words, about three-quarters (77%) of the recent decline in health spending growth can be explained by changes in the broader economy. While discussions in the health community have focused more on changes in delivery, it is difficult to determine which of these developments is having a greater impact.
Through the 1980s, the vast majority of people with private insurance were in relatively unmanaged insurance models, including conventional fee-for-service plans and loosely organized preferred provider organization (PPO) type arrangements. Since then – even following the backlash against managed care – various forms of utilization management and plans with defined networks are the norm in employer-sponsored insurance. However, deductibles and other types of patient cost-sharing have also increased in recent years, dampening use of services. Some point to greater sophistication of information technology systems to track and manage health services and changes in the delivery system as possible sources of system-wide savings as well.

Is healing touch real
How to stop cold sores growing
Increase energy drugs

Comments to «Complementary therapy training courses»

  1. Hekim_Kiz writes:
    Throughout urination if the sores are in a location (Largely brought on by HSV 2) is characterised.
  2. BOREC writes:
    You continue to have?outbreaks of genital herpes if you your ailment or the unintended effects of the medicine infection happens.
  3. eldeniz writes:
    Every 6 folks have the actually an herb that.
  4. KiLLeR writes:
    (With Pictures) This report the lesions are.