Basic patterns in national health expenditure

Analysed in this paper are national health accounts estimates for 191 WHO Member States for 1997, using simple comparisons and linear regressions to describe spending on health and how it is financed. The data cover all sources - out-of-pocket spending, social insurance contributions, financing from government general revenues and voluntary and employment-related private insurance - classified according to their completeness and reliability. Total health spending rises from around 2-3% of gross domestic product (GDP) at low incomes (< 1000 US dollars per capita) to typically 8-9% at high incomes (> 7000 US dollars). Surprisingly, there is as much relative variation in the share for poor countries as for rich ones, and even more relative variation in amounts in US dollars. Poor countries and poor people that most need protection from financial catastrophe are the least protected by any form of prepayment or risk-sharing. At low incomes, out-of-pocket spending is high on average and varies from 20-80% of the total; at high incomes that share drops sharply and the variation narrows. Absolute out-of-pocket expenditure nonetheless increases with income. Public financing increases faster, and as a share of GDP, and converges at high incomes. Health takes an increasing share of total public expenditure as income rises, from 5-6% to around 10%. This is arguably the opposite of the relation between total health needs and need for public spending, for any given combination of services. Within public spending, there is no convergence in the type of finance - general revenue versus social insurance. Private insurance is usually insignificant except in some rich countries.     

The Current and Projected Taxpayer Shares of US Health Costs

Objectives. We estimated taxpayers’ current and projected share of US health expenditures, including government payments for public employees’ health benefits as well as tax subsidies to private health spending.Methods. We tabulated official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services figures on direct government spending for health programs and public employees’ health benefits for 2013, and projected figures through 2024. We calculated the value of tax subsidies for private spending from official federal budget documents and figures for state and local tax collections.Results. Tax-funded health expenditures totaled $1.877 trillion in 2013 and are projected to increase to $3.642 trillion in 2024. Government’s share of overall health spending was 64.3% of national health expenditures in 2013 and will rise to 67.1% in 2024. Government health expenditures in the United States account for a larger share of gross domestic product (11.2% in 2013) than do total health expenditures in any other nation.Conclusions. Contrary to public perceptions and official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates, government funds most health care in the United States. Appreciation of government’s predominant role in health funding might encourage more appropriate and equitable targeting of health expenditures.The United States has the world’s highest per capita health care costs—about double those of other wealthy nations.1 According to both official figures and public perception, most health care funding in the United States comes from private payers. For instance, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that federal, state, and local governments accounted for 43% of health expenditures in 2013.2These official figures reflect an accounting framework based on who wrote the final check as money flowed from households or employers to health care providers, and exclude many indirect government health expenditures. Thus, when government pays for veterans’ care, CMS classifies it as a public expenditure because government writes the checks that fund the Veterans Health Administration. But CMS classifies government-paid health benefits for senators or Federal Bureau of Investigation agents as “private” expenditures because a private insurer pays the claims. Moreover, the tax subsidies that fund a significant share of private health expenditures (e.g., private-employer spending) are not counted by CMS as government health spending, although the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) tabulates these subsidies as “tax expenditures” in official budget documents.3In a previous study, we estimated that the public share of US health spending—after inclusion of these tax subsidies and government payments for public employees’ health benefits—amounted to 59.8% of the total in 1999, nearly double the 1965 figure.4 The current study provides detailed estimates of direct and indirect government health spending in 2013, as well as projected figures through 2024.     

Public expenditures and health care in Africa.

Unfavorable economic conditions in most of Africa (in this paper Africa refers to Sub-Saharan Africa only) have meant public austerity and a deceleration in government health spending. Given the dominant role of government in providing health services in Africa there is a need to investigate the links between public spending and the provision of health care. Analyzing information from five Sub-Saharan African countries, namely Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia and Senegal, we investigate the impacts of shifting expenditure patterns and levels on the process of providing health services as well as on delivery of health care. The country analyses indicate that in addition to the level of public spending, the expenditure mix (i.e. salaries, drugs, supplies etc.), the composition of the health infrastructure (hospitals, clinics, health posts etc.), community efforts, and the availability of private health care all influence health care delivery. Consequently, per capita public expenditure (the most important indicator in a number of related studies) alone as a measure of the availability of health care and especially for cross-country comparisons is inadequate. Reductions in government resources for health care often result in less efficient mixing of resources and hence less health care delivery, in quality and quantity terms. With the recent trends in health care spending in Africa there should be greater effort to increase the efficient use of these increasingly scarce resources, yet the trend in resource mix has been in the opposite direction. Given the input to public health care of local communities, as well as the provision of private health care, it would seem that government spending on health care should be counter-cyclical, i.e. government health spending should accelerate during periods of economic down turns. Such counter-cyclical spending would tend to offset the difficulties facing local communities and the declining ability of individuals to pay for private health care. Recommending counter-cyclical health spending may seem wishful, but it points up the necessity of understanding what is likely to happen to health care in African countries in the face of economic difficulties, and particularly in the face of fiscal austerity.     

Public health care funding modifies the effect of out-of-pocket spending on maternal,infant, and child mortality

Increased out-of-pocket (OOP) health care spending has been associated with increased maternal, infant, and child mortality, but the effect of public health care spending on mortality has not been studied. I identified a statistically significant interaction between public health care expenditure and OOP health care spending for maternal, infant, and child mortality. Generally, increases in public expenditure coincide with decreased rates of mortality, regardless of OOP spending levels. Specifically, higher levels of public expenditure with moderate levels of OOP spending may result in the lowest mortality rates. Increased public health care spending may improve health outcomes better than efforts to reduce OOP expenditure alone.     

Analysis of reproductive health expenditures in Mexico, 2003]

OBJECTIVES: To estimate reproductive health expenditures in Mexico during 2003; analyze how costs were distributed across the main programs, funding entities, and providers of health goods and services; and evaluate the relationship between reproductive health expenditures and economic indicators in different states, using health accounts methods. METHODS: We estimated reproductive health expenditures between January and December 2003, at the national and state level. We used health accounts methods adjusted for the particular characteristics of Mexico on the basis of information from public and private sources. Expenditures were calculated for the four main reproductive health programs (maternal-perinatal health, family planning, cervical and uterine cancer, and breast cancer) according to different funding entities, goods and services providers, and functions of health care, in both the public and private sector. We estimated public expenditures by state per beneficiary, and analyzed how these costs were related with pubic health care expenditures and annual per capita gross domestic product (GDP) for each state. RESULTS: The reproductive health expenditures in Mexico during the year 2003 were US$ 2.912 6 billion, a figure that represented 0.5% of the national GDP in 2003 and slightly more than 8% of the total health care expenditures. Costs were higher for public entities (53.5%) than for private entities (46.5%). The maternal-perinatal health program accounted for the highest costs, mainly from deliveries and complications; direct payments from households accounted for nearly 50% of the total figure. Costs for family planning were accrued mainly in the public sector, and represented 5.9% of the total expenditure. Of the total spending on reproductive health, 7.9% was devoted to cervical and uterine cancer and breast cancer programs. Mean public expenditures on reproductive health per beneficiary were US$ 680.03, and differences between states were associated with differences in public health expenditures (r=0.80; P<0.001) and per capita GDP (r=0.75; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The health accounts method allowed us to estimate reproductive health expenditures in Mexico in 2003. Enhancing reproductive health actions and programs by basing expenditure assignments on evidence and focusing on least-favored populations is an ethical, human rights, and developmental imperative.     

Rural health care in Vietnam and China: conflict between market reforms and social need.

China and Vietnam have adopted market reforms in the health sector in the context of market economic reforms. Vietnam has developed a large private health sector, while in China commercialization has occurred mainly in the formal public sector, where user fees are now the main source of facility finance. As a result, the integrity of China's planned health service has been disrupted, especially in poor rural areas. In Vietnam the government has been an important financer of public health facilities and the pre-reform health service is largely intact, although user fees finance an increasing share of facility expenditure. Over-servicing of patients to generate revenue occurs in both countries, but more seriously in China. In both countries government health expenditure has declined as a share of total health expenditure and total government expenditure, while out-of-pocket health spending has become the main form of health finance. This has particularly affected the rural poor, deterring them from accessing health care. Assistance for the poor to meet public-sector user fees is more beneficial and widespread in Vietnam than China. China is now criticizing the degree of commercialization of its health system and considers its health reforms "basically unsuccessful." Market reforms that stimulate growth in the economy are not appropriate to reform of social sectors such as health.     

The determinants of the public-private mix in Canadian health care expenditures: 1975-1996

The health care policy issue regarding the balance between public and private health spending is examined. An empirical model of the determinants of the public-private mix in Canadian health care expenditures over the period 1975-1996 is estimated for total health care expenditures as well as separate expenditure categories such as hospitals, physicians and drugs. The results find that the key determinants of the split are per capita income, government transfer variables and the share of individual income held by the top quintile of the income distribution. Much of the public-private split is determined by long term economic forces. However, the importance of the federal health transfer variables and the variables representing shifts in fiscal transfer regimes suggest the increase in the private share of health spending since 1975 is also partly the result of the policy choice to reduce federal health transfers.     

National health expenditures: a global analysis.

As part of the background research to the World development report 1993: investing in health, an effort was made to estimate public, private and total expenditures on health for all countries of the world. Estimates could be found for public spending for most countries, but for private expenditure in many fewer countries. Regressions were used to predict the missing values of regional and global estimates. These econometric exercises were also used to relate expenditure to measures of health status. In 1990 the world spent an estimated US$ 1.7 trillion (1.7 x 10(12) on health, or $1.9 trillion (1.9 x 10(12)) in dollars adjusted for higher purchasing power in poorer countries. This amount was about 60% public and 40% private in origin. However, as incomes rise, public health expenditure tends to displace private spending and to account for the increasing share of incomes devoted to health.     

Labelled drug-related public expenditure in relation to gross domestic product (gdp) in Europe: A luxury good?

"Labelled drug-related public expenditure" is the direct expenditure explicitly labelled as related to illicit drugs by the general government of the state. As part of the reporting exercise corresponding to 2005, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction's network of national focal points set up in the 27 European Union (EU) Member States, Norway, and the candidates countries to the EU, were requested to identify labelled drug-related public expenditure, at the country level. This was reported by 10 countries categorised according to the functions of government, amounting to a total of EUR 2.17 billion. Overall, the highest proportion of this total came within the government functions of Health (66%), and Public Order and Safety (POS) (20%). By country, the average share of GDP was 0.023% for Health, and 0.013% for POS. However, these shares varied considerably across countries, ranging from 0.00033% in Slovakia, up to 0.053% of GDP in Ireland in the case of Health, and from 0.003% in Portugal, to 0.02% in the UK, in the case of POS; almost a 161-fold difference between the highest and the lowest countries for Health, and a 6-fold difference for POS. Why do Ireland and the UK spend so much in Health and POS, or Slovakia and Portugal so little, in GDP terms? To respond to this question and to make a comprehensive assessment of drug-related public expenditure across countries, this study compared Health and POS spending and GDP in the 10 reporting countries. Results found suggest GDP to be a major determinant of the Health and POS drug-related public expenditures of a country. Labelled drug-related public expenditure showed a positive association with the GDP across the countries considered: r = 0.81 in the case of Health, and r = 0.91 for POS. The percentage change in Health and POS expenditures due to a one percent increase in GDP (the income elasticity of demand) was estimated to be 1.78% and 1.23% respectively. Being highly income elastic, Health and POS expenditures can be considered luxury goods; as a nation becomes wealthier it openly spends proportionately more on drug-related health and public order and safety interventions.     

Physician numbers as a driver of provincial government health spending in Canadian health policy

Physician spending is one of the fastest growing Canadian public sector health categories of recent years but despite their recent growth physician numbers are a relatively small contributor to the increases in total provincial government health expenditure. Regression models of the determinants of provincial government health spending are estimated and show physician numbers are a positive and significant driver of provincial government health care spending after controlling for other factors though the overall contribution is relatively small. From 1975 to 2009, the increases in physician numbers accounted for a range of 3.2–13.3 percent of the increase in real per capita total provincial government health expenditures ranging from a low of 1.9 to 7.6 percent for Manitoba to a high of 5.3 to 18.3 percent for Quebec. These are modest contributions to total health spending but vary more substantially across provinces when hospital and physician spending alone are considered particularly for Quebec and British Columbia. Nevertheless, these results suggest that physician numbers alone are a modest policy concern when it comes to restraining health costs and other factors such as utilization and fees are more important.     

Historical analysis of the development of health care facilities in Kerala State, India

Kerala's development experience has been distinguished by the primacy of the social sectors. Traditionally, education and health accounted for the greatest shares of the state government's expenditure. Health sector spending continued to grow even after 1980 when generally the fiscal deficit in the state budget was growing and government was looking for ways to control expenditure. But growth in the number of beds and institutions in the public sector had slowed down by the mid-1980s. From 1986-1996, growth in the private sector surpassed that in the public sector by a wide margin. Public sector spending reveals that in recent years, expansion has been limited to revenue expenditure rather than capital, and salaries at the cost of supplies. Many developments outside health, such as growing literacy, increasing household incomes and population ageing (leading to increased numbers of people with chronic afflictions), probably fueled the demand for health care already created by the increased access to health facilities. Since the government institutions could not grow in number and quality at a rate that would have satisfied this demand, health sector development in Kerala after the mid-1980s has been dominated by the private sector. Expansion in private facilities in health has been closely linked to developments in the government health sector. Public institutions play by far the dominant role in training personnel. They have also sensitized people to the need for timely health interventions and thus helped to create demand. At this point in time, the government must take the lead in quality maintenance and setting of standards. Current legislation, which has brought government health institutions under local government control, can perhaps facilitate this change by helping to improve standards in public institutions.     

Financing health care in Bangladesh: Policy responses and challenges towards achieving universal health coverage

Bangladesh has attained notable progress in most of the health indicators, but still, health system of the country is suffering badly from poor funding. Issues like burden of out‐of‐pocket expenditure, low per capita share in health, inadequate service facilities, and financial barriers in reducing malnutrition are being overlooked due to inadequacy and inappropriate utilization of allocated funds. We aimed to review the current status of health care spending in Bangladesh in response to national health policy (NHP) and determine the future challenges towards achieving universal health coverage (UHC). National health policy suggested a substantial increase in budgetary allocation for health care, although government health care expenditures in proportion to total public spending plummeted down from 6.2% to 4.04% in the past 8 years. Overall, 67% of the health care cost is being paid by people, whereas global standard is below 32%. Only one hospital bed is allocated per 1667 people, and 34% of total posts in health sector are vacant due to scarcity of funds. The country is experiencing demographic dividend with a concurrent rise of aged people, but there seems no financial protection schemes for the aged and working age populations. Such situation results in multiple obstacles in achieving financial risk protection as well as UHC. Policy makers must think effectively to develop and adapt systems in order to achieve UHC and ensure health for all.     

基于GM(1,1)模型的北京市卫生总费用及构成变化趋势预测分析

目的 对北京市2020—2026年未来7年卫生总费用及构成的变化情况进行科学预测。方法 基于北京市2011—2019年卫生总费用相关数据构建灰色GM(1，1)预测模型。结果 模型的精确度均达93%以上，模型的精度较高。2020—2026年，北京市卫生总费用将从3195.31亿元增加到6511.04亿元，年均增长率为12.60%，其中政府和个人卫生支出占比分别从21.44%、13.55%下降至17.75%、9.25%，社会卫生支出将从65.02 %上升至72.80%。结论 北京地区仍需科学合理地配置卫生资源，有效减轻人民的就医负担，，满足新时代人民的健康生活需要，让人民共享经济发展成果。     

Value for the money spent? Exploring the relationship between expenditures, insurance adequacy, and access to care for publicly insured children

This study examines the relationship between total state Medicaid spending per child and measures of insurance adequacy and access to care for publicly insured children. Using the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health, seven measures of insurance adequacy and health care access were examined for publicly insured children (n = 19,715). Aggregate state-level measures were constructed, adjusting for differences in demographic, health status, and household characteristics. Per member per month (PMPM) state Medicaid spending on children ages 0-17 was calculated from capitated, fee-for-service, and administrative expenses. Adjusted measures were compared with PMPM state Medicaid spending in scatter plots, and multilevel logistic regression models tested how well state-level expenditures predicted individual adequacy and access measures. Medicaid spending PMPM was a significant predictor of both insurance adequacy and receipt of mental health services. An increase of $50 PMPM was associated with a 6-7 % increase in the likelihood that insurance would always cover needed services and allow access to providers (p = 0.04) and a 19 % increase in the likelihood of receiving mental health services (p < 0.01). For the remaining four measures, PMPM was a consistent (though not statistically significant) positive predictor. States with higher total spending per child appear to assure better access to care for Medicaid children. The policies or incentives used by the few states that get the greatest value--lower-than-median spending and higher-than-median adequacy and access--should be examined for potential best practices that other states could adapt to improve value for their Medicaid spending.     

安徽省卫生总费用筹资来源测算结果分析

利用卫生总费用筹资来源法对安徽省卫生总费用进行测算。结果表明：1995－1998年间安徽省卫生总费用快速增长,且快于国民经济的增长幅度,政府预算卫生支出和社会卫生支出所占比例逐年下降,政府财政支出增长率快于政府预算卫生支出增长率;城乡居民个人卫生支出比例逐年上升,城乡居民个人卫生支出增长明显快于人均收入和人均生活消费支出的增长。建议控制过快增长的卫生总费用,降低居民个人医疗费用负担,加大政府卫生投入,完善卫生总费用核算体系。     

National health expenditure projections: modest annual growth until coverage expands and economic growth accelerates

For 2011-13, US health spending is projected to grow at 4.0 percent, on average--slightly above the historically low growth rate of 3.8 percent in 2009. Preliminary data suggest that growth in consumers' use of health services remained slow in 2011, and this pattern is expected to continue this year and next. In 2014, health spending growth is expected to accelerate to 7.4 percent as the major coverage expansions from the Affordable Care Act begin. For 2011 through 2021, national health spending is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.7 percent annually, which would be 0.9 percentage point faster than the expected annual increase in the gross domestic product during this period. By 2021, federal, state, and local government health care spending is projected to be nearly 50 percent of national health expenditures, up from 46 percent in 2011, with federal spending accounting for about two-thirds of the total government share. Rising government spending on health care is expected to be driven by faster growth in Medicare enrollment, expanded Medicaid coverage, and the introduction of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for health insurance exchange plans.     

Public health spending in 2008: on the challenge of integrating PHSSR data sets and the need for harmonization

In recent years, state and local public health department budgets have been cut, sometimes drastically. However, there is no systematic tracking of governmental public health spending that would allow researchers to assess these cuts in comparison with governmental public health spending as a whole. Furthermore, attempts to quantify the impact of public health spending are limited by the lack of good data on public health spending on state and local public health services combined. The objective of this article is to integrate self-reported state and local health department (LHD) survey data from 2 major national organizations to create state-level estimates of governmental public health spending. To create integrated estimates, we selected 1388 LHDs and 46 states that had reported requisite financial information. To account for the nonrespondent LHDs, estimates of the spending were developed by using appropriate statistical weights. Finally, funds from federal pass-through and state sources were estimated for LHDs and subtracted from the total spending by the state health agency to avoid counting these dollars in both state and local figures. On average, states spend $106 per capita on traditional public health at the state and local level, with an average of 42% of spending occurring at the local level. Considerable variation exists in state and local public health funding. The results of this analysis show a relatively low level of public health funding compared with state Medicaid spending and health care more broadly.     

Nongovernment Philanthropic Spending on Public Health in the United States

The objective of this study was to estimate the dollar amount of nongovernment philanthropic spending on public health activities in the United States.Health expenditure data were derived from the US National Health Expenditures Accounts and the US Census Bureau.Results reveal that spending on public health is not disaggregated from health spending in general. The level of philanthropic spending is estimated as, on average, 7% of overall health spending, or about $150 billion annually according to National Health Expenditures Accounts data tables. When a point estimate of charity care provided by hospitals and office-based physicians is added, the value of nongovernment philanthropic expenditures reaches approximately $203 billion, or about 10% of all health spending annually.The role of nongovernment philanthropic organizations in supporting public health is widely recognized, but there is doubt about their level of contribution. None of the surveys or data abstractions to date provide estimates of the level of philanthropic spending on public health.Each year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ National Health Expenditures Accounts (NHEA) produce overall estimates of dollar amounts for all health care consumed in the United States. These estimates, available through the NHEA since 1960, are a valuable resource for assessing trends in health care spending on public health, health care goods and services, government administration, health insurance, and other investments related to health care.1–4The role of government in public health is obvious because federal, state, and local governments bear prime responsibility for the public health enterprise: prevention, surveillance, and response to emergencies for the health of all. As noted by the Institute of Medicine, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), individuals, and private-sector entities play a supporting role:

Agencies that have made progress building mission-critical capacities appear to use a wide variety of funding sources to support these investments, including flexible funds from local government, flexible funds from state government, cross-subsidization from reimbursement- and fee-based services, categorical program funds, and private-sector grants from philanthropic organizations, health system partners, and corporate foundations.5^(p184)

One example of the significance of private-sector funding is the Turning Point Initiative sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which has supported state and local public health agencies in their capacity-building efforts. Another example is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Multi-State Learning Collaborative, which has contributed to capacity improvements among state public health agencies.Nongovernment philanthropic entities also provide new direction and creative approaches to emerging public health concerns when the government sector cannot quickly tackle these issues, as was the case with the support provided by NGOs to expand the capacity of public health laboratories. As another example, the CDC Foundation benefits from the contributions of NGOs to expand the prevention and disease surveillance efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As noted, however, as of yet none of the surveys or data abstractions of the NHEA, the US Census Bureau, or the Giving USA Foundation (which produces The Annual Report on Philanthropy) have provided estimates of the level of philanthropic spending on public health.There is uncertainty about levels of public health investments made by philanthropies because of lack of data:

The combination of [the] historical circumstance in funding, a lack of national standards in recording and reporting funding and expenditure data, and variations in the definitions of public health challenges any attempt to obtain accurate expenditure estimates.5^(p76)

Well-known philanthropic organizations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation have a frontline presence in their work with federal government agencies and local health departments. These foundations are engaged in activities such as public health preparedness, immunization programs at the local level, and workplace wellness programs. The Grantmakers in Health nonprofit organization lists 240 organizations that are active in the areas of health and public health. However, data on these nongovernment public health activities and spending are not as organized as those of the government sector.My goal here is to use available data on public health spending to answer a basic research question: what are the precise or approximate estimates of the dollar contributions of nongovernment philanthropies to public health? I discuss the data available from the NHEA and the Census Bureau.     

Health care financing and utilization of maternal health services in developing countries

BACKGROUND: The Millennium Development Goals call for a 75% reduction in maternal mortality between 1990 and 2015. Skilled birth attendance and emergency obstetric care, including Caesarean section, are two of the most important interventions to reduce maternal mortality. Although international pressure is rising to increase donor assistance for essential health services in developing countries, we know less about whether government or the private sector is more effective at financing these essential services in developing countries. METHODS: We conducted a cross-national analysis to determine the association between government versus private financing of health services and utilization of antenatal care, skilled birth attendants and Caesarean section in 42 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. We controlled for possible confounding effects of total per capita health spending and female literacy. FINDINGS: In multivariable analysis, adjusting for confounders, government health expenditure as a percentage of total health expenditure is significantly associated with utilization of skilled birth attendants (P = 0.05) and Caesarean section (P = 0.01) but not antenatal care. Total health expenditure is also significantly associated with utilization of skilled birth attendants (P < 0.01) and Caesarean section (P < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Greater government participation in health financing and higher levels of health spending are associated with increased utilization of two maternal health services: skilled birth attendants and Caesarean section. While government financing is associated with better access to some essential maternal health services, greater absolute levels of health spending will be required if developing countries are to achieve the Millennium Development Goal on maternal mortality.     

Paying for national health insurance--and not getting it

The threat of steep tax hikes has torpedoed the debate over national health insurance. Yet according to our calculations, the current tax-financed share of health spending is far higher than most people think: 59.8 percent. This figure (which is about fifteen percentage points higher than the official Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS] estimate) includes health care-related tax subsidies and public employees' health benefits, neither of which are classified as public expenditures in the CMS accounting framework. U.S. tax-financed health spending is now the highest in the world. Indeed, our tax-financed costs exceed total costs in every nation except Switzerland. But the sub rosa character of much tax-financed health spending in the United States obscures its regressivity. Public spending for care of the poor, elderly, and disabled is hotly debated and intensely scrutinized. But tax subsidies that accrue mostly to the affluent and health benefits for middle-class government workers are mostly below the radar screen. National health insurance would require smaller tax increases than most people imagine and would make government's role in financing care more visible and explicit.