Health Affairs, 23, no. 1 (2004): 147-159 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.23.1.147 © 2004 by Project HOPE	New Online   Pay Cuts For Medicare Docs   Access To Care Woes   Public Coverage More Efficient   Empowering Consumers

This Article Abstract Figures Only Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (60) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Levit, K. Articles by the Health Accounts Team, . . Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Levit, K. Articles by the Health Accounts Team, . . Related Collections Health Spending

Health Tracking

TRENDS

Health Spending Rebound Continues In 2002

Abstract

 
U.S. health care spending climbed to $1.6 trillion in 2002, or $5,440 per person. Health spending rose 8.5 percent in 2001 and 9.3 percent in 2002, contributing to a spike of 1.6 percentage points in the health share of gross domestic product (GDP) since 2000. Hospital spending accounted for nearly a third of the aggregate increase. During the past three decades, per enrollee spending for a common benefit package has grown at a slightly slower average annual rate for Medicare than for private health insurance, with more pronounced growth differences recently reflecting legislated Medicare reimbursement changes and consumers’ calls for more loosely managed care.

From the health care provider perspective, spending growth also reflected a return to higher growth in hospital care. Hospitals’ contribution to aggregate spending has rebounded, as hospital spending growth rose from an average annual rate of 3.7 percent between 1993 and 2000, to 7.5 percent in 2001, and 9.5 percent in 2002. This service comprised 28 percent of the aggregate spending increase in 2001 and 32 percent in 2002 (Exhibit 3), approximately equal to its share of total spending. However, preliminary hospital employment data for 2003 indicate that demand for overall hospital services might be easing.²

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   EXHIBIT 3 Hospitals’ Share Of Annual Spending Increase And Of National Health Expenditures (NHE), 1997–2002

Sources Of Funds

Top Editor's Notes Sources Of Funds Spending By Service Summary And Concluding Comments Notes

 
In 2002 the share of spending paid through state and federal Medicaid programs (16 percent) nearly matched that of Medicare (17 percent). Medicaid’s share has increased slowly over time, by an average 0.5 percentage points per year since 1989, as programs expanded to cover larger portions of the uninsured population. Medicare’s share declined from a 19 percent peak in 1997 to 17 percent in 2002.

Medicare. Much of the variation in the public spending trend in recent years can be attributed to changes in Medicare, a federal program that accounted for $267 billion in payments to health care providers and for administrative costs in 2002 (Exhibit 4). Recent trends in Medicare spending have been volatile: The Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 contributed to a rapid deceleration of spending growth in 1998 and 1999, followed by a rebound as the provisions of the Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA) of 1999 and the Benefit Improvements and Protection Act (BIPA) of 2000 were implemented. These acts primarily affected hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies. Recent legislation had the effect of lowering coinsurance for hospital outpatient services, reducing out-of-pocket spending for Medicare eligibles as it correspondingly raised Medicare spending. Medicare’s most recent peak in growth occurred in 2001, as Medicare spending grew 9.5 percent (more than triple its average pace in 1997–2000) before slowing to 8.4 percent in 2002, when the formula for physician fee schedule payments was modified and provisions of BIPA expired.

Rapidly increasing Medicaid spending combined with states’ slow revenue growth has led forty-five states to institute measures aimed at controlling spending growth.⁷ These include provider rate freezes or reductions, cuts in discretionary benefits, and specific policies to contain the growth of prescription drug spending. Some states have made plans for higher Medicaid drug copayments or are imposing them for the first time.⁸

In recent years states have looked for fiscal relief. Among the mechanisms used were upper payment limit (UPL) arrangements and disproportionate-share hospital (DSH) payments, which shifted some spending from state to federal governments. Those UPL and DSH funds returned by hospitals and nursing homes to state budgets for other uses are not counted in this paper.⁹ New legislation will help lessen the burden of high Medicaid spending growth on states. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of 2003 raises the federal matching rate for states that maintain their eligibility criteria and thus lowers the percentage of Medicaid costs that states must pay. States that tighten eligibility standards and thus cut their Medicaid spending would then receive a smaller percentage of federal aid than those that do not, perhaps leading some states to safeguard Medicaid eligibility.¹⁰

Private insurance. Private health insurance covers approximately 70 percent of the noninstitutional population, but because it tends to cover a younger and less costly population, it accounts for a much smaller share of overall health care spending (35 percent).¹¹ Spending for benefits rose 9.6 percent in 2002, with 37 percent of the growth spent on hospital care, 32 percent on physician services, and 26 percent for prescription drugs.

Aggregate private health insurance premiums rose 10.9 percent in 2002, compared to 10.3 percent in 2001, to reach $549.6 billion. Premiums per covered worker rose even more rapidly than aggregate premiums, because premiums calculated in this paper combine changes in the number enrolled—which fell during 2002—with changes in per worker rates. A few key factors have contributed to the rising trend in insurance premium costs, the most notable being the high rate of growth in claims and the rising net cost of insurance (the difference between private health insurance premiums earned and benefits incurred includes administrative costs and profits earned). Net cost totaled $70.2 billion in 2002, or 13 percent of private health insurance premiums, up from 12 percent in 2001.

In the aggregate, enrollment in employer-based coverage declined for the second year in a row. In both 2001 and 2002 enrollment in employer plans declined by about 1 percent, a consequence of lower employment, a shift in employment to smaller firms that offer insurance less frequently, and higher employee-paid costs, which might have reduced take-up rates.¹² Losses in job-based coverage might not be over, as employment declines continued into 2003.

Although employers’ spending for health benefits as a share of compensation held steady during the mid-1990s, it has crept upward since 1999. Data for 2003 reveal a health benefit share of compensation comparable to the 1993–1994 period, when rapidly rising health costs prompted employers to evaluate alternatives to conventional coverage more intensely.¹³ To counter the rising burden, some employers have shifted expenses to employees through higher premiums, copayments, or coinsurance; some have reduced benefits or dropped coverage altogether.¹⁴

Consumers are increasingly facing higher copayments and deductibles. In particular, workers are facing increased drug copays and more frequently are given incentives to select less costly drugs under tiered cost-sharing arrangements. More than half of covered workers were enrolled in three-tier plans by 2002, compared with 29 percent in 2000.¹⁵ In 2001 and 2002 more than half of the rise in aggregate out-of-pocket spending was related to increased drug spending, whose share of out-of-pocket spending was higher than that of most other health care services.

Employers’ efforts to shift increases in health care costs to consumers have slowed the relatively steady drop in the out-of-pocket share of spending.¹⁶ While this share declined from 21 percent in 1988 to 15 percent in 1994, it has fallen more slowly since then. In 2002 it was 13.7 percent, as aggregate out-of-pocket spending ($212.5 billion) grew 6.0 percent, its fastest pace since 1998. This faster pace of growth could reflect a rising uninsured population as well as rising copays and deductibles paid by the privately insured.¹⁷

Spending By Service

Top Editor's Notes Sources Of Funds Spending By Service Summary And Concluding Comments Notes

 
Growth in spending accelerated for most services. Retail prescription drug sales continued to grow at the fastest pace. Increases in the spending rate for the largest spending category—hospitals—caused its share of the spending increase in 2002 to exceed its share of total health spending for the first time since 1991 (Exhibit 6).

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   EXHIBIT 6 Providers’ Shares Of Health Spending And Of The Increase In Health Spending, 2002

Growth in hospital spending can be disaggregated into population, price, and a residual component that primarily includes changes in quantity and intensity of services consumed.¹⁹ In both 2001 and 2002, increases in prices played a dominant role in the escalation of hospital spending, although acceleration in the residual also occurred. Of the 7.5 percent and 9.5 percent increases in hospital spending in 2001 and 2002, price factors were responsible for 3.6 percent and 5.0 percent of the growth. Growth in quantity and intensity factors of 3.0 percent and 3.6 percent in 2001 and 2002, more rapid than in earlier years, also contributed to faster spending in the hospital sector, but to a lesser degree. Population growth accounted for the remaining 0.9 percent growth in each year.

A large share of hospital-specific price inflation could be tied to payroll and other input costs. In the hospital sector, compensation is estimated to account for 62 percent of operating expenses.²⁰ Growth in compensation costs per hour worked for civilian hospital employees grew rapidly in 2001 and 2002 at 6.4 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively, compared with average annual compensation growth of 2.7 percent during 1994–2000.²¹ Rising wages associated with the nursing shortage, benefit cost increases, and rising malpractice costs absorbed by hospitals in certain areas have contributed to larger increases in hospital prices over the past few years.²² Additionally, hospitals have regained market power since the mid-1990s, improving their negotiating power and ability to secure rate increases from private insurance plans.

Some of the recent growth in hospital spending reflects increases in hospital volume, as measured through admissions and average length-of-stay. Hospital inpatient days declined 23 percent during 1990–2000, mostly through reductions in length-of-stay. Following this decline, inpatient days rose 1 percent in 2001 because of stabilization in days per stay as admissions continued to increase.²³ More recent indications of growing demand for hospital services come through hospital employment, which grew 2.5 percent in 2002 compared with an average of 0.6 percent in 1994–2001. Through July 2003, however, growth in employment moderated, perhaps signaling slower growth in utilization.²⁴

Physicians. Spending growth for physician services rose by 7.7 percent in 2002, decelerating slightly from 8.6 percent growth in 2001 and reaching $339.5 billion. While Medicare accounted for only 20 percent of payments to physicians ($68.8 billion), it was the primary driver behind decelerating spending in 2002 (Exhibit 7). Under the Medicare payment formula that was recently revised by the BBA, weak economic growth coupled with rapid growth of previous years’ spending for physician services caused the factor used to update physician fee schedule payments to decline by 4.8 percent.²⁵ Despite the large payment reduction, Medicare physician spending grew by 5.8 percent, a 3.8-percentage-point deceleration from Medicare’s 2001 spending growth of 9.6 percent, because of sizable growth in the volume and intensity of services delivered. On a per enrollee basis, Medicare spending for physician services grew 5.6 percent between 1990 and 2002, slightly slower than growth in per enrollee private health insurance spending (7.4 percent).

Other factors that could have contributed to slowing aggregate growth included fewer new drugs entering the market (only seventeen in 2002, compared with an average of twenty-five per year in the 2000–2001 period and thirty-five in 1999); a shift in prescriptions toward more generic drugs; continued growth of tiered copayment plans; and a slight decline in direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising.²⁷ These factors were somewhat offset by continued growth in demand.²⁸

While private spending for prescription drugs grew at nearly the same rate in 2002 (15.4 percent) as in 2001 (15.2 percent), out-of-pocket spending rose more rapidly and private health insurance spending less rapidly than in 2001. Out-of-pocket spending for prescription drugs accelerated by 3.5 percentage points to 14.4 percent in 2002, while private health insurance spending slowed by 2.1 percentage points to 16.1 percent. Faster growth in out-of-pocket spending and slower growth in private health insurance likely reflect changes in coverage among Medicare+Choice and employer-sponsored plans as well as the moderating impact that increasing copays have on prescription drug consumption.

Home health. Spending for freestanding home health agency services grew by 7.2 percent in 2002, the second consecutive year of expansion, driven mostly by Medicare. Industry growth is beginning to stabilize following a period of changes to Medicare policies. These policies led to a substantial $4.6 billion drop in Medicare spending between 1997 and 1999 that has been partially offset by an increase of $2.9 billion in Medicare spending since then. This rebound in Medicare, the largest single payer for home health services, has been driven by the implementation of the PPS in October 2000. Medicare spending for home health services grew only 0.6 percent in 2000, compared with 17.6 percent in 2001 and 13.3 percent in 2002. Recent rapid growth in Medicare is partly a result of a change in the interpretation of "homebound" that expanded the number of beneficiaries eligible for services. Countering double-digit growth in Medicare spending, slowing Medicaid spending contributed to the seven-percentage-point deceleration in overall public funding for home health in 2002.²⁹

While public spending growth for home health agencies decelerated rapidly in 2002, the downward trend in private spending appears to be subsiding. Private spending grew by 1.0 percent in 2002 in comparison to a decline of 7.4 percent in 2001. To some extent, the industry’s labor crisis has contributed to the loss of private customers in recent years. Private payers might be seeking alternative care through assisted living facilities or private-duty nurses. In 2002 the weakening economy aided home health agencies’ capacity to deliver services as the availability of aides grew, allowing agencies to fill more vacancies.

Nursing homes. Spending for services provided by freestanding skilled nursing care facilities continued at a moderate growth rate of 4.1 percent, slightly slower than the 5.7 percent rate in 2001. This correlates with slow growth in nursing facility capacity and a deceleration in the costs of supplies and services used in the provision of care.³⁰ Despite a deceleration of 0.8 percentage points in public spending for nursing homes in 2002, the public share of payments rose to 64 percent of overall payments, with Medicaid paying 49 percent. States also are seeking to shift more patients from nursing homes and other institutions to community-based settings as they comply with the Olmstead interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act that encourages the treatment of people with disabilities in less restrictive community settings.³¹

Summary And Concluding Comments

Top Editor's Notes Sources Of Funds Spending By Service Summary And Concluding Comments Notes

 
The continued acceleration in health care spending growth has posed financial challenges for government, businesses, and individuals alike. Compared with economic growth of 3.6 percent, growth in health spending of 9.3 percent pressures employers to cut other spending increases, possibly through reducing jobs, wage gains, or health benefits or through shifting more costs to employees. State and federal governments face the same dilemma of costs rising more rapidly than revenues, leading every state to scrutinize discretionary Medicaid benefits as the number eligible for coverage continues to grow.³²

Forty-four percent of spending growth was attributed to economywide and medical-specific inflation as the personal health care deflator rose 3.9 percent in 2002, compared with 8.8 percent growth in personal health care spending. Recent health care price inflation is affected by a shortage of health care workers, which is expected to continue to propel higher-than-average increases in payroll costs. Hospitals’ improved negotiating power has also led to higher rate increases from private insurance plans.

Factors fueling growth in health spending are already showing signs of dissipating in 2003. Preliminary data indicate that hospital use has eased and that wage growth in the health sector has decelerated slightly. Furthermore, Medicare givebacks have expired, and states have begun plans to curtail Medicaid spending growth. Finally, as consumers share more of the increases in cost, the value of health services will be more closely weighed against other purchases, underscoring the considerable value of some services and the discretionary nature of others.

Editor's Notes

Top Editor's Notes Sources Of Funds Spending By Service Summary And Concluding Comments Notes

 
Katie Levit is director of the National Health Statistics Group, Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in Baltimore. Cynthia Smith, Cathy Cowan, Art Sensenig, and Aaron Catlin are economists in that office.

The authors thank Rick Foster, Mark Freeland, Sharman Stephens, and John Shatto at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and anonymous peer reviewers for their helpful comments. In addition to the authors, the National Health Accounts team includes Anne Martin, Lekha Whittle, Mark Zezza, Ben Washington, Nate Singer, Carolyn Donham, and Anna Long. The opinions expressed here are the authors’ and not necessarily those of the CMS.

Notes

Top Editor's Notes Sources Of Funds Spending By Service Summary And Concluding Comments Notes

 

1. "Other private funding" includes privately funded construction for health facilities, industrial in-plant services, and nonpatient revenues including philanthropy.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics (sum of federal, state, local, and private hospital employment), www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm (12 August 2003).
3. M. O’Grady, Testimony for the Joint Economic Committee, "Health Insurance Spending Growth—How Does Medicare Compare?" 10 June 2003, jec.senate.gov/studies/JEC%20HI%20Growth%20Rate%20report_final_.pdf (8 October 2003).
4. M. Moon and C. Boccuti, "Comparing Medicare and Private Insurers: Growth Rates in Spending over Three Decades," Health Affairs (Mar/Apr 2003): 230–237; M. Moon et al., "Data Concerns in Out-of-Pocket Spending Comparisons between Medicare and Private Insurance," 2003, www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900615_HPOnline_4.pdf (8 October 2003); and J. Antos, Testimony before the Senate Committee on Aging, "The Role of Market Competition in Strengthening Medicare," 6 May 2003, www.aei.org/news/newsID.17131,filter./news_detail.asp (8 October 2003).
5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2003 CMS Statistics (Baltimore: CMS, June 2003).
6. J. Holahan et al., Medicaid Spending Growth: What Factors Contributed to the Growth between 2000 and 2002 (Washington: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, September 2003).
7. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Medicaid Spending Growth: Results from a 2002 Survey (Washington: Kaiser Commission, 2002).
8. Ibid.
9. UPL programs allow states to reimburse hospitals and nursing homes owned by county and municipal governments at "enhanced" rates. Federal matching funds on state Medicaid spending for nursing homes are collected by the states; nursing homes then remand a portion of the UPL funds back to the state governments, which may use these funds for other purposes. DSH works similarly by providing additional payments to state and county hospitals serving a disproportionate share of low-income people. T. Coughlin and S. Zuckerman, States’ Use of Medicaid Maximization Strategies to Tap Federal Revenues: Program Implications and Consequences, June 2002, www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310525_DP0209.pdf (20 October 2003).
10. L. Ku, "State Fiscal Relief Provides an Opportunity to Safeguard Medicaid Budgets," June 2003, www.cbpp.org/6-4-03mcaid.htm (12 September 2003).
11. For data on the privately insured, see Bureau of the Census, "Historical Health Insurance Tables," www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/historic/hihistt1.html (20 October 2003).
12. Ibid. See also J. Holahan, "Changes in Employer-Sponsored Coverage," September 2003 (Washington: Urban Institute, 2003), www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310849 (2 October 2003).
13. BLS, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation," data.bls.gov/labjava/outside.jsp?survey=cc, selecting (1) health insurance, (2) all workers, and (3) all civilian to retrieve data (20 October 2003).
14. Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust, Employer Health Benefits, 2002 Annual Survey, September 2002, www.kff.org/content/2002/3251/3251.pdf (20 October 2003); and L. Levitt et al., and "Job-Based Health Benefits in 2002: Some Important Trends," Health Affairs (Sep/Oct 2002): 143–151. Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) show that the percentage of workers with employer coverage remained steady for 1997–2000, at 57–58 percent, but fell to 55 percent in 2001 because of declines in the percentage of workers offered coverage and the percentage offered coverage who take it. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, "MEPS, Index of Insurance Component Tables," September 2003, meps.ahrq.gov/Data_Pub/IC_Tables.htm (30 September 2003).
15. Kaiser/HRET, Employer Health Benefits.
16. The National Health Accounts include premiums paid by employees in private health insurance spending, not out-of-pocket spending.
17. The number of uninsured rose by 2.4 million in 2002. U.S. Census Bureau, "Numbers of Americans with and without Health Insurance Rise, Census Bureau Reports," Press Release, 30 September 2003, www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-154.html (20 October 2003).
18. B.C. Strunk and P.B. Ginsburg, "Tracking Health Care Costs: Trends Stabilize but Remain High in 2002," 11 June 2003, www.healthaffairs.org/WebExclusives/Strunk_Web_Excl_061103.htm (20 October 2003).
19. The residual includes changes in service mix, in technology used to deliver services, and in the age-sex mix of the population and miscalculations in measuring overall spending and prices.
20. CMS, "Health Care Indicators, Table 10: Quarterly Index Levels and Four-Quarter Moving Average Percent Change in the CMS Prospective Payment System Hospital Input Price Index Using DRI-WEFA Forecast Assumptions, by Expense Category: 2001–2004," 18 June 2003, cms.hhs.gov/statistics/health-indicators/t10.asp (20 October 2003).
21. BLS, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation," data.bls.gov/labjava/outside.jsp?survey=cc, selecting (1) total compensation, (2) hospitals, and (3) all civilian to retrieve data (17 September 2003). Data listed as annual for years prior to 2002 represent results from the March survey and should be compared with first-quarter entries for 2002 and beyond when the survey began collecting data for each quarter of the year.
22. PricewaterhouseCoopers, "Cost of Caring: Key Drivers of Growth in Spending on Hospital Care," 19 February 2003 (Prepared for the American Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals), pwchealth.com/cgi-local/hcregister.cgi?link=pdf/caring.pdf (20 October 2003).
23. American Hospital Association, Hospital Statistics, 2003 Edition (Chicago: AHA, 2003).
24. BLS, Current Employment Statistics.
25. CMS, "CMS Announces Physician Pay Changes for 2002," Press Release, 31 October 2001, cms.hhs.gov/media/press/release.asp?Counter=310 (29 July 2003).
26. Kaiser Commission, Medicaid Spending Growth. See also National Conference of State Legislatures, "Recent Medicaid Prescription Drug Laws and Policies," 9 October 2003, www.ncsl.org/programs/health/medicaidrx.htm (20 October 2003).
27. P. Kuman and A. Zaugg, "IMS Review: Steady but Not Stellar," Medical Media and Marketing (May 2003): 50–63; and IMS Health, "Total U.S. Promotional Spend by Type," 2003, www.imshealth.com/ims/portal/front/articleC/0,2777,6599_41551570_41718516,00.html (20 October 2003).
28. Kuman and Zaugg, "IMS Review."
29. Excluding Medicaid home and community-based waivers, which are counted as other personal health care services.
30. CMS, "Health Care Indicators, Table 11: Quarterly Index Levels and Four-Quarter Moving Average Percent Changes in the CMS Prospective Payment System Skilled Nursing Facility Input Price Index Using DRI-WEFA Assumptions, by Expense Category: 2001–2004," 18 June 2003, cms.hhs.gov/statistics/health-indicators/t11.asp (20 October 2003). For data on nursing home capacity, see NCSL, "Trends in LTC Bed Supply, 1990–2001," www.ncsl.org/programs/health/Harrington/sld006.htm (20 October 2003).
31. W. Fox-Grage, D. Folkemer, and J. Lewis, The States’ Response to the Olmstead Decision: How Are States Complying? February 2003, www.ncsl.org/programs/health/forum/olmsreport.htm (20 October 2003).
32. National Association of State Budget Officers, Medicaid and Other State Healthcare Issues: Current Trends (Washington: NASBO, 2003), 1–2.

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Donohue Mental health in the medicare part d drug benefit: a new regulatory model? Health Aff., May 1, 2006; 25(3): 707 - 719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Kaushal, D. Blumenthal, E. G. Poon, A. K. Jha, C. Franz, B. Middleton, J. Glaser, G. Kuperman, M. Christino, R. Fernandopulle, et al. The Costs of a National Health Information Network Ann Intern Med, August 2, 2005; 143(3): 165 - 173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bodenheimer High and Rising Health Care Costs. Part 3: The Role of Health Care Providers Ann Intern Med, June 21, 2005; 142(12_Part_1): 996 - 1002. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bodenheimer High and Rising Health Care Costs. Part 2: Technologic Innovation Ann Intern Med, June 7, 2005; 142(11): 932 - 937. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bodenheimer High and Rising Health Care Costs. Part 1: Seeking an Explanation Ann Intern Med, May 17, 2005; 142(10): 847 - 854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. C. Robinson Consolidation And The Transformation Of Competition In Health Insurance Health Aff., November 1, 2004; 23(6): 11 - 24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Steinbrook The Cost of Admission -- Tiered Copayments for Hospital Use N. Engl. J. Med., June 17, 2004; 350(25): 2539 - 2542. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Blendon, C. Schoen, C. M. DesRoches, R. Osborn, K. Zapert, and E. Raleigh Confronting Competing Demands To Improve Quality: A Five-Country Hospital Survey Health Aff., May 1, 2004; 23(3): 119 - 135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. K. Iglehart The New Medicare Prescription-Drug Benefit -- A Pure Power Play N. Engl. J. Med., February 19, 2004; 350(8): 826 - 833. [Full Text] [PDF]