|
Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend
Paez
et al.
Health Affairs
28, no. 1 (2009): 15
Erratum
A programming error resulted in incorrect estimates in Exhibit 5. These
changes do not effect the conclusions. The exhibit and surrounding text
have been corrected online. The text corrections are explained below.
In the results section (page 22 on the PDF), the second and third full
paragraphs have been revised, to correct some language regarding chronic
disease prevalence that was not accurate. The txt now reads as follows:
An out-of-pocket
expenditure index (EI) was created to measure the overall increase in
out-of-pocket spending comparing 2005 to 1996 spending, holding disease
prevalence constant (Exhibit 5). The change seen is due solely to
increasing out-of-pocket spending. The EI for the overall population was
1.19, indicating that expenditures were 19 percent higher in 2005 than
in 1996, when chronic condition prevalence was held constant. The
younger-old had the greatest increase, with an EI of 1.30, followed by
young adults, those in midlife, and the old-old.
All insurance categories, including Medicaid recipients, had a sizable
increase in out-of-pocket spending over the ten-year period. The largest
increase was experienced by those in the "other public" insurance
category, followed by the uninsured and Medicare-only beneficiaries.
Although smaller, the EI for Medicaid recipients was substantial when
controlling for rising chronic condition prevalence.
In the summary section, beneath the subheading "Rising prevalence and
spending," the third sentence should read as follows: "Overall,
out-of-pocket spending increased by 39.4 percent per person over the
ten-year period." The fifth sentence should read: "Spending increases
were 19 percent higher overall when holding the rising prevalence of
chronic conditions constant, with the greatest increases among those in
early old age, the 'other public' insured, the uninsured, Medicare
beneficiaries, the poor, and people who take prescription drugs."
The authors and Health Affairs regret the errors and any confusion they
may have caused.
|