Details of its expenditure trends will be discussed more below.
This graph was basically provided by the Washington Post. It shows how states are allotting more of their funds to health care as oppose to spending on education in the long run. As it will be discussed below, spending by Medicaid increased from 2010 to 2012 due to decreased federal funds. Future trends will be emphasized below.
Discussion.
It should be noted that when Medicaid started, it went off in the pattern that most of the state-based programs go on. By 1971, the annual pending had reached about 6.5 billion where as the enrollment was about 16 million people. (Klemm 106) the enrollment growth and the coverage that the program would provide were underestimated to quite an extent. Therefore, this led to a rapid increase in the spending by the program. At that time, the total expenditure was about 52.3. In the period from 1972-176, the entire expenditure was about 17.9%. These expenditures were basically as a result of the amendments that were made to the social security act. The 1972 amendment therefore created the supplemental security income. This federalized the cash assist programs for the disabled and the aged. These amendments also led to most of the beneficiaries of the SSI to attain Medicaid as well. This caused the enrollment in the aged and elderly category to increase about 8% during that year. The time period from late 1970 to 198s was marked by medical inflation. (Klemm 107) This was a result of economy wide inflation and even higher medical costs. The inflation rose to about 8.4% during this time. Even though, there was no relevant expansion of the service, it was seen that other welfare programs were declining. Due to the increasing inflation, the Medicaid enrollment actually dropped by an average of 0.7.
Following this era, in the era of retrenchment, the congress and the federal government offered the option to state for reimbursing Medicaid benefits and for creating their own options. This allowed the states to take a break from the growing expenditures of Medicaid. This occurred mainly because the federal government had cut down the amount it would provide to the state. Thus, in order to help states with the reductions, the federal government offered these propositions. It was during this time that health maintenance organizations and other programs of the community were made. Medicaid started to alter its objective from paying claims to going for managing services and the cost of care as well. Following this era, the cost of Medicaid augmented annually at an average rate of 8% between 1981 and 1984.
Following that era, the congress basically focused on expanding the Medicaid more and more. This expansion went on to make an impact on enrollments from infants to pregnant women and to low income beneficiaries. During this period, there was also the enactment of pieces of legislation that went on to later affect the eligibility, coverage and reimbursement of Medicaid. (Klemm 109)
The time period from 1991 to 1992 was quite heavy on Medicaid. This mainly occurred due to previous mandates, increasing recession and increasing caseloads on the program. Thus, due to the change in policies and amendments, the strain on the program increased to such an extent that the average annual spending increased about 27% during this era. (Klemm 110) Following the explosion of the early nineties, Medicaid had gone to be altered in many reforms for the years ahead. The welfare reform not only occurred in the medical sector but the economy as a whole prospered during these years. This led to a drop of 0.4% per year in Medicaid spending.
Now we would take a jump to the current year and the statistics that Medicaid presents with today. The annual growth in spending on the program has slowed down significantly since the last year as the economy began to improve. (Goodnough) with the Affordable care act, more people will be eligible in 2014 as well. Goodnough feels that a major reason for increased expenditure on part of Medicaid was because of the shifting situation of the economy. When Americans lost their job and health insurance, Medicaid itself had more and more enrollment. This led to increased costs for the program.
However, last year in June, the total spending on Medicaid only augmented by 2%. (Goodnough) This is very less compared to the 10% increase that occurred in 2011. Many attribute this slowdown to not only more enrollment growth but also due to the cost cutting that many states have carried out. Diane Rowland, who is the executive vise president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, stated that the major reason for the decreasing spending is due to the reining in costs.
The major cuts that were made were to reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors. Also optional benefits like vision, dental and drug coverage was also cut down. (Goodnough) Out of fifty, about fort five states froze reimbursement rates the previous year. Similarly, many cut back on the benefits that it provided to the masses. The previous year, Medicaid spending increased about 27.5% since the extra federal Medicaid fund stopped coming. This in turn did put a lot of pressure on the state which caused it to cut down its cost as well. Thus, we should see that this is more of a viscous cycle that occurs. When the government stops giving funds to the state, the state cuts down some of the benefits and reimburses some of the funds. This in turn decreases the spending of the state and the entire Medicaid program for that matter. Therefore, it should be seen that the Medicaid spending over the years has not only been dependant on the inflow of enrollments but on the legislature and the policies that have been created overtime. Along with the aforementioned factors, it is obvious that the current state of the economy and the way other health programs are going will also have an impact on the spending.
Limitations
The analysis and conclusion that we came up with are subject to a number of limitations. Medicaid as a program has been applied differently in different states in the United States. As mentioned in the discussion, the Reagan administration allowed states to set their own rules for how much they want to cover and their own eligibility criteria. This therefore renders it difficult for us to assess the cost and apply these assessments to the entire Medicaid program. Medicaid program is split into different areas and thus one major conclusion will not be quite accurate. Furthermore, there have been changes in health care technology, drugs and further environment and social changes that have affected the general population as well. In simpler terms, it means that the funding alterations cannot be solely accredited to the policy changes or the changing political ideologies.
Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items
.816
.807
5
Item Statistics
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Hospitals
2.1744
.54361
Elderly
2.2752
.67303
Children.Funds
2.2093
.60498
Drugs
2.2287
.45931
Cost.of.Med.Aid
2.0853
.34017
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
Hospitals
Elderly
Children.Funds
Drugs
Cost.of.Med.Aid
Hospitals
1.000
.450
.678
.387
.083
Elderly
.450
1.000
.841
.484
.374
Children.Funds
.678
.841
1.000
.508
.425
Drugs
.387
.484
.508
1.000
.330
Cost.of.Med.Aid
.083
.374
.425
.330
1.000
Summary Item Statistics
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Range
Maximum / Minimum
Variance
N of Items
Item Means
2.195
2.085
2.275
.190
1.091
.005
5
Item Variances
.288
.116
.453
.337
3.914
.017
5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-Total Correlation
Squared Multiple Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted
Hospitals
8.7984
2.861
.543
.569
.799
Elderly
8.6977
2.218
.740
.742
.739
Children.Funds
8.7636
2.201
.885
.844
.682
Drugs
8.7442
3.067
.546
.303
.798
Cost.of.Med.Aid
8.8876
3.560
.374
.288
.837
ANOVA with Tukey's Test for Nonadditivity
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Between People
.831
Within People
Between Items
2.610
4
.653
Residual
Nonadditivity
9.909a
1
9.909
Balance
68.181
.133
Total
78.090
.153
Total
80.700
.156
Total
.290
Grand Mean = 2.1946
a. Tukey's estimate of power to which observations must be raised to achieve additivity = -9.529.
ANOVA with Tukey's Test for Nonadditivity
F
Sig
Within People
Between Items
4.278
.002
Residual
Nonadditivity
74.267
.000
Grand Mean = 2.1946
Hotelling's T-Squared Test
Hotelling's T-Squared
F
df1
df2
Sig
17.390
4.246
4
.003
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient
95% Confidence Interval
Intraclass Correlationa
Lower...
Type C intraclass correlation coefficients using a consistency definition -- the between-measure variance is excluded from the denominator variance.
b. The estimator is the same, whether the interaction effect is present or not.
c. This estimate is computed assuming the interaction effect is absent, because it is not estimable otherwise.
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient
F Test with True Value 0
Value
df1
df2
Sig
Single Measures
5.449
.000
Average Measures
5.449
.000
Two-way mixed effects model where people effects are random and measures effects are fixed.
Regression
Variables Entered/Removedb
Model
Variables Entered
Variables Removed
Method
1
Drugs, Hospitals, Elderly, Children.Fundsa
Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
Model Summaryb
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R. Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.537a
.288
.265
.29160
a. Predictors: (Constant), Drugs, Hospitals, Elderly, Children.Funds
b. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
Model Summaryb
Model
Change Statistics
R Square Change
F Change
df1
df2
Sig. F Change
Durbin-Watson
1
.288
12.550
4
.000
1.734
b. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
ANOVAb
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
4.268
4
1.067
12.550
.000a
Residual
10.544
.085
Total
14.812
a. Predictors: (Constant), Drugs, Hospitals, Elderly, Children.Funds
b. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
1
(Constant)
1.602
.142
11.268
.000
Hospitals
-.269
.068
-.430
-3.950
.000
Elderly
-.078
.075
-.155
-1.043
.299
Children.Funds
.422
.101
.750
4.180
.000
Drugs
.141
.066
.190
2.136
.035
a. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
Coefficientsa
Model
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
1
Hospitals
.485
2.061
Elderly
.260
3.839
Children.Funds
.178
5.607
Drugs
.722
1.384
a. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
Coefficient Correlationsa
Model
Drugs
Hospitals
Elderly
Children.Funds
1
Correlations
Drugs
1.000
-.109
-.148
-.105
Hospitals
-.109
1.000
.313
-.602
Elderly
-.148
.313
1.000
-.787
Children.Funds
-.105
-.602
-.787
1.000
Covariances
Drugs
.004
.000
.000
.000
Hospitals
.000
.005
.002
-.004
Elderly
.000
.002
.006
-.006
Children.Funds
.000
-.004
-.006
.010
a. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Model
Dimension
Variance Proportions
Eigenvalue
Condition Index
(Constant)
Hospitals
Elderly
1
1
4.884
1.000
.00
.00
.00
2
.054
9.529
.20
.01
.14
3
.035
11.851
.04
.54
.08
4
.019
15.910
.70
.01
.05
5
.008
25.185
.06
.44
.74
a. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Model
Dimension
Variance Proportions
Children.Funds
Drugs
1
1
.00
.00
2
.04
.06
3
.01
.13
4
.00
.81
5
.95
.00
a. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Predicted Value
1.5907
2.5293
2.0853
.18261
Residual
-.64876
1.24087
.00000
.28700
Std. Predicted Value
-2.708
2.432
.000
1.000
Std. Residual
-2.225
4.255
.000
.984
a. Dependent Variable: Cost.of.Med.Aid
Charts
Descriptives
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Std. Error
Hospitals
1.00
3.50
2.1744
.54361
-.178
.213
Elderly
1.50
4.00
2.2692
.67386
1.702
.212
Children.Funds
1.50
4.00
2.2077
.60291
1.145
.212
Drugs
1.50
3.50
2.2269
.45797
1.183
.212
Cost.of.Med.Aid
1.25
3.75
2.0846
.33894
2.130
.212
Valid N (listwise)
Descriptive Statistics
Kurtosis
Statistic
Std. Error
Hospitals
-.477
.423
Elderly
2.122
.422
Children.Funds
.695
.422
Drugs
.553
.422
Cost.of.Med.Aid
6.714
.422
Frequencies
Statistics
Hospitals
Elderly
Children.Funds
Drugs
Cost.of.Med.Aid
N
Valid
Missing
1
0
0
0
0
Mean
2.1744
2.2692
2.2077
2.2269
2.0846
Median
2.0000
2.0000
2.0000
2.0000
2.0000
Mode
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
Std. Deviation
.54361
.67386
.60291
.45797
.33894
Variance
.296
.454
.364
.210
.115
Skewness
-.178
1.702
1.145
1.183
2.130
Std. Error of Skewness
.213
.212
.212
.212
.212
Kurtosis
-.477
2.122
.695
.553
6.714
Std. Error of Kurtosis
.423
.422
.422
.422
.422
Minimum
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.25
Maximum
3.50
4.00
4.00
3.50
3.75
Frequency Table
Hospitals
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.00
6
4.6
4.7
4.7
1.50
23
17.7
17.8
22.5
2.00
39
30.0
30.2
52.7
2.50
43
33.1
33.3
86.0
3.00
17
13.1
13.2
99.2
3.50
1
.8
.8
Total
99.2
Missing
System
1
.8
Total
Elderly
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.50
14
10.8
10.8
10.8
2.00
77
59.2
59.2
70.0
2.50
22
16.9
16.9
86.9
3.00
3
2.3
2.3
89.2
4.00
14
10.8
10.8
Total
Children.Funds
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.50
24
18.5
18.5
18.5
2.00
63
48.5
48.5
66.9
2.50
26
20.0
20.0
86.9
3.50
16
12.3
12.3
99.2
4.00
1
.8
.8
Total
Drugs
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.50
6
4.6
4.6
4.6
2.00
87
66.9
66.9
71.5
2.50
13
10.0
10.0
81.5
3.00
20
15.4
15.4
96.9
3.50
4
3.1
3.1
Total
Cost.of.Med.Aid
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
1.25
1
.8
.8
.8
1.50
1
.8
.8
1.5
1.75
17
13.1
13.1
14.6
2.00
84
64.6
64.6
79.2
2.25
6
4.6
4.6
83.8
2.50
15
11.5
11.5
95.4
3.00
2
1.5
1.5
96.9
3.25
3
2.3
2.3
99.2
3.75
1
.8
.8
Total
Bar Chart
This 53% change is caused by the variables included in the research and the remainder 47% variance in the social phenomenon is caused by other factors.
Hence this research covers a major part of the variables which cause the change in the data whereas other aspects could be social, economical, and demographic or otherwise which cause the 47% variation. The model fitness is good since the major percentage change is…
The issue of grey and black markets often arose as a result of the shortages of experienced health care personnel. The system could not adapt to a flexible environment as it was led by rigid official procedures and the mentality of the people who controlled it was commanding, their vision short-sighted and hardly beneficial in such a situation (Barr and Mark, 1996). The breaking up of Soviet Union which brought
reputed "health crisis" currently facing Americans. The author explores several aspects of the health care crisis and analyzes the validity of those claims. The author presents an argument that there really is not a health care crisis and it is a fallacy. There were six sources used to complete this paper. Why do People Believe the Crisis is Real? What Evidence is There That it is Not Real? What are some of
Health Care Policy on Nurses' Delivery of Patient Care Health care policy is usually developed and enacted in order to address various issues relating to health care delivery with the aim of improving patient outcome. These policies are usually centered on addressing health care cost, quality or access, or a combination of these three factors. Given the nature of their interactions with patients, nurses are health care professionals who are
Health care economics can be understood in terms of a number of different economic concepts. One of the most basic economic concepts is supply and demand. Essentially, supply is how much of something available that there is in a market, and demand is how much that people want. The concept reflects the idea that where there are no constraints, supply and demand will be roughly the same. In the real
Health Care Delivery Systems The structure and organization of the resources that make it possible to provide health care services to target populations is referred to as a health care system. The variety of health care systems is very wide with strong evolutionary histories tied to the governments, religious organizations, charitable organizations, labor unions, and for-profit market participants. Five Health Care Delivery Systems Reid set out around the world to study healthcare systems
Healthcare Challenges Technology is one of the main drivers of change in healthcare, and it is up to healthcare organizations to join the rest of the world in adopting new technologies to run their industry better. In most industries, something like electronic record keeping has been done for decades and nobody was wringing their hands about it. It is absurd that this is even an issue for healthcare companies. The best