1 / 38

Thomas M. Selden, Ph.D. Division of Modeling & Simulation

Medical Expenditure Burdens: The Impact of Tax Subsidies, Within-Year Expenditure Concentration, and More. Thomas M. Selden, Ph.D. Division of Modeling & Simulation Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends. What is a “High Burden”?. Out-of-pocket expenditures

posy
Download Presentation

Thomas M. Selden, Ph.D. Division of Modeling & Simulation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Medical Expenditure Burdens: The Impact of Tax Subsidies, Within-Year Expenditure Concentration, and More Thomas M. Selden, Ph.D. Division of Modeling & Simulation Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends

  2. What is a “High Burden”? Out-of-pocket expenditures ------------------------------------- > threshold (e.g., 20%) Resources (income) • Various terminology: • “Catastrophic expenditures” • “High expenditure cases” • “High expenditures relative to income” • “High burdens”

  3. Why Study Burdens? • Most families healthy in given year • Illness, however, is a fact of life • Medical bills pour in just when families must grapple with illness, seeking care, and possibility reduced earnings • Accurate burden measurement a key ingredient for sound public policy

  4. Overview of Talk • Data • 2 refinements to conventional results • Impact of tax subsidies • Intra-year burdens • Neither previously studied • Burden of uncompensated care (time permitting)

  5. Data • Medical Expenditure Panel Survey • Sponsored by AHRQ & NCHS • ≈ 30K persons each year • Civilian noninstitutionalized population • “Narrow” family definition • <65 population • MCR Part D likely to affect senior burdens • Simulated tax subsidies • Edited event and job data

  6. Conventional Results: 10% and 20% Burden Frequency (OOPMED+OOPPREM) by Poverty Level, 02&03

  7. Impact of Tax Subsidy

  8. Tax Subsidies • Itemized deduction for out-of-pocket spending • ESI premiums excluded from federal income, federal payroll, and state income taxes • Retiree ESI coverage exemption • Sales tax exemption • Self-employment premium deduction from federal and most state income taxes

  9. Tax Subsidies • Tax subsidies total 16.3% of all spending on health care (across all ages) • Nearly TWICE this share of private spending • Ignoring subsidies leads to overstated burdens • How large is effect? • Whose burdens are reduced?

  10. Family Tax Subsidies on OOPMED and OOPPREM, by Poverty Level, 02&03 Average Subsidy Subsidy Rate

  11. Impact of Tax Subsidy on 20% Burden Frequency (OOPMED+OOPPREM) by Poverty Level, 2002&2003

  12. Impact of Tax Subsidy on OOPMED+OOPPREM Burdens > 20%, by Poverty Level, 02&03

  13. Bias from Ignoring Subsidies • Conventional studies ignore subsidies • But reported spending is de facto net of sales taxes that would have been paid absent the exemption • Thus, conventional measures are between pre-subsidy and post-subsidy measures • Can one “safely” ignore subsidies?

  14. Conventional* vs. Subsidy-Adjusted 20% Burden Frequency (OOPMED+OOPPREM) by Poverty, 02&03 *I.e., based on published MEPS data

  15. Expanding Burden Definition to Include Wage Offset from Employer Contributions: Family Tax Subsidies, by Poverty, 02&03 Average Subsidy Subsidy Rate

  16. Expanding Burden Defn to Include Wage Offset from Employer Contributions: Impact of Tax Subsidy on 20% Burden Frequency, by Poverty, 02&03

  17. Expanding Burden Defn to Include Wage Offset from Employer Contributions: Impact of Tax Subsidy on Burdens > 20%, by Poverty Level, 02&03

  18. Summary • Tax subsidies modestly reduce out-of-pocket burdens • Larger impact on burdens inclusive of cash wage offsets for employer contributions • Little benefit for poor • Middle income groups benefit more • Conventional OOP burden estimates that ignore subsidies are fairly accurate • OOP spending measured net of sales tax exemption (hence conventional measures already post-subsidy to a degree)

  19. Do Annual 20% Burdens Tell the Whole Story? The Impact of Within-Year Expenditure Concentration

  20. 20% Burden Frequency vs. Self-Reported “Bill Problems” Adults Age 19-64 in 2004 28% 7.7%

  21. “Bill Problem” Responses Might Reflect Lower Thresholds, Adults 2004 CMWF

  22. Within-Year Burdens? • Precautionary savings are low • 24% of bottom quintile have no liquid assets • Median among those with assets=$600 • Expenditures HIGHLY concentrated within year • Earnings dip when expenditures spike?

  23. Within-Year Family Expenditure Concentration, 2003&2004 Note: Families with zero expenditures excluded

  24. Peak Month as Percentage of Annual Total, by Poverty and Expenditure

  25. Quarterly vs Monthly Concentration • Peak out-of-pocket month: 44.5% • Peak out-of-pocket quarter: 60.5% • For poor: 76.2% of OOP occurs in a single quarter

  26. Does Income Fall as Medical Expenditures Peak? • Among poor families: P(ΔY < -.333) in peak month = 23.6% P(ΔY > .333) in peak month = 10.7% P(ΔY < -.333) in low month = 16.6% P(ΔY > .333) in low month = 15.6% Diff-in-Diff = 12.1% (p<.1) Calculated for families with $1000 in earnings and $5000 in medical expenditures – half of which occurred in single month

  27. Does Income Fall as Medical Expenditures Peak? • Among poor families: P(ΔY < -.333) in peak quarter = 19.7% P(ΔY > .333) in peak quarter = 9.6% P(ΔY < -.333) in low quarter = 11.5% P(ΔY > .333) in low quarter = 17.5% Diff-in-Diff = 16.1% (p<.05) Calculated for families with $1000 in earnings and $5000 in medical expenditures – half of which occurred in single month

  28. 20% Burdens among Nonelderlyby Poverty Level, 03&04 43.6 34.6 27.0 21.5 16.7 6.9 1.1

  29. Spending Distribution in High-Burden Month by Poverty, 03&04 *Conditional on having 20% monthly burden

  30. 20% Burdens by Family Coverage, 03&04

  31. Spending in High-Burden Month by Family Coverage, 03&04 *Conditional on having 20% monthly burden

  32. Within-Year Burden Conclusions • >40% poor have high monthly burden • Income dips play small role • Monthly burden rate for poor: 41.3% vs 43.6% • Spikes in expenditures more important • RX plays key role for poor and families with public coverage • Monthly measure for adults in 2003 only slightly less than “bill problem” frequency (26.9% vs. 28%)

  33. Burden of Uncompensated Care

  34. Uncompensated Care • CWF “bill problem” includes inability to pay • UC can indeed be burdensome • Medical debt • Credit problems • Access problems • Stigma • All ignored by conventional burden analyses • Not observed, but… • WTP(avoid UC burden) < UC

  35. Bounding 20% Annual Burdens for Uncompensated Care

  36. Monthly Burdens (20%)

  37. UC Conclusions • Modest increase in prevalence • Concentrated among poor and pub/unin • Families “pay until it hurts” • Importance of measuring medical debt • Monthly UC-adjusted burdens approximately same as “bill problem” frequency

  38. Conclusions • Tax subsidies modestly reduce burdens • Little goes to poor • Narrowing “budget window” from annual to quarter/month greatly increases burden prevalence, especially among poor • Conventional measures relatively robust to inclusion/exclusion of uncompensated care • More detailed analysis may help solve discrepancy between burden vs bill problem frequencies

More Related