US health spending reached $3.3 trillion in 2016, or $10,348 per capita, and accounted for 17.9% of gross domestic product (GDP). Health spending slowed somewhat in 2016, following the coverage expansions of 2015 and 2014. National health spending increased 4.3% in 2016, down from 5.8% in 2015 and 5.1% in 2014. Despite this slowdown, 2016 health spending grew 1.5 percentage points faster than the economy (GDP grew at a rate of 2.8%).
Looking ahead, health spending is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.5% per year (1.0 points faster than the economy) between 2017 and 2026. At this rate, health care would consume a growing portion of the economy, totaling $5.7 trillion and accounting for one-fifth of GDP by 2026.
Per capita health spending increased 3.5% in 2016 and crossed the $10,000 per capita threshold for the first time.
Prescription drug spending declined dramatically from 8.9% in 2015 to 1.3% in 2016, driven in part by fewer new medications on the market, slower brand-name drug spending, and reduced spending on generic drugs.
Households and the federal government each accounted for 28% of health spending in 2016.
As ACA coverage expansion matured in 2016, the rate of increase in federal spending slowed to 3.9%, lower than private business (5.0%) or households (4.6%).
Federal subsidies for ACA marketplace (individual coverage) premiums and cost sharing totaled $33 billion, accounting for 3.5% of federal health spending and 3.0% of private health insurance spending.
Public health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, paid the largest share of spending (41%) in 2016. Private health insurance paid for a third of health spending and consumers’ out-of-pocket spending accounted for 11%.
The full report, a quick reference guide, and all of the charts found in the report are available under Related Materials. Also available are the datafiles and previous years’ reports. These materials are part of CHCF’s California Health Care Almanac, an online clearinghouse for key data and analyses describing the state’s health care landscape.
Over the past 56 years, there have been major shifts in how we pay for hospital care, physician services, long-term care, prescription drugs, and other health care services and products in the US. In 1960, Medicare and Medicaid did not yet exist. Only half of hospital care was covered by insurance, with the rest paid out of pocket and by a patchwork of sources, both private and public.
In 1960, almost all (96%) spending on prescription drugs came out of the consumer’s pocket, but a dramatic rise in private insurance, coupled with the implementation of Medicare drug coverage in 2006, dropped the out-of-pocket spending share to 14% in 2016.
This interactive graphic uses data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to show national spending trends from 1960 to 2016 for health care by payer. (Figures presented refer to personal health care, which, as defined by CMS, includes goods and services such as hospital care and eyeglasses but excludes administration, public health activity, and investment.)
The data visualization below is a companion to Health Care Costs 101, part of CHCF’s California Health Care Almanac.
Between the fiercely competitive midterm elections and ongoing upheaval over the Trump administration’s immigration policies, 2018 was no less politically tumultuous than 2017. The same was true for the world of health care. Republicans gave up on overt attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through legislation, but the administration’s executive actions on health policy accelerated. Several states took decisive action on Medicaid and some of the struggles over the ACA made their way to the courts. Drug prices remain astronomically high, but public outrage prompted some announcements to help control them. At the same time, corporate behemoths made deeper inroads into health care delivery, including some new overtures from Silicon Valley. Here’s a refresher on some of the most notable events of the year.
1. The ACA under renewed judicial assault
Texas v. Azar, a suit brought by Texas and 19 other Republican-led states, asked the courts to rule the entire ACA unconstitutional because Congress repealed the financial penalty associated with the individual mandate to obtain health insurance that was part of the original law. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, creating confusion at the end of the ACA’s open enrollment period, and setting up what may be a years-long judicial contest (yet again) over the constitutionality of the ACA. To learn more about the legal issues at stake, see Timothy S. Jost’s recent To the Point post.
2. Turnout for open enrollment in health insurance marketplaces surged at the end of the sign-up period
The federal and state-based marketplaces launched their sixth enrollment season on November 1 for individuals seeking to buy health coverage in the ACA’s individual markets for 2019. Insurer participation remained strong and premiums fell on average. While some states have extended enrollment periods, HealthCare.gov, the federal marketplace, closed on December 15. After lagging in the early weeks, enrollment ended just 4 percent lower this year than in 2017.
3. The administration continues efforts to hobble ACA marketplaces
While the reasons behind lower enrollment cannot be decisively determined, executive action in 2018 may have contributed. The Trump administration dramatically cut back federal investments in marketplace advertising and consumer assistance for the second year in a row. The federal government spent $10 million on advertising for the 34 federally facilitated marketplaces this year (the same as last year but an 85 percent cut from 2016) and $10 million on the navigator program (down from $100 million in 2016), which provides direct assistance to hard-to-reach populations.
4. Insurers encouraged to sell health plans that don’t comply with the ACA
Another tactic the Trump administration is using to undercut the ACA is increasing the availability of health insurance products, such as short-term health plans, that don’t comply with ACA standards. Short-term plans, previously available for just three months, can now provide coverage for just under 12 months and be renewed for up to 36 months in many states. These plans may have gaps in coverage and lead to costs that consumers may not anticipate when they sign up. By siphoning off healthy purchasers, short-term plans and other noncompliant products segment the individual market and increase premiums for individuals who want to — or need to — purchase ACA-complaint insurance that won’t discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, for example.
5. Medicaid expansion in conservative states
Few states have expanded Medicaid since 2016, but in 2018, a new trend toward expansion through ballot initiatives emerged. Following Maine’s citizen-initiated referendum last year, Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah passed ballot initiatives in November to expand Medicaid. Other red states may follow in 2019. Medicaid expansion not only improves access to care for low-income Americans, but also makes fiscal sense for states, because the federal government subsidizes the costs of newly eligible Medicaid enrollees (94 percent of the state costs at present, dropping to 90 percent in 2020).
6. Red states impose work requirements for Medicaid
A number of states submitted federal waivers to make employment a requirement for Medicaid eligibility. Such waivers were approved in five states — Arkansas, Kentucky, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Indiana — and 10 other states are awaiting approval. At the end of 2018, lawsuits are pending in Arkansas and Kentucky challenging the lawfulness of work requirements for Medicaid eligibility. About 17,000 people have lost Medicaid in Arkansas as a result of work requirements.
7. Regulatory announcements respond to public outrage over drug prices
Public outrage over prescription drug prices — which are higher in the U.S. than in other industrialized countries — provided fodder for significant regulatory action in 2018 to help bring costs under control. Of note, the Food and Drug Administration announced a series of steps to encourage competition from generic manufacturers as well as greater price transparency. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in October announced a proposed rule to test a new payment model to substantially lower the cost of prescription drugs and biologics covered under Part B of the Medicare program.
8. Corporations and Silicon Valley make deeper inroads into health care
The annual report on National Health Expenditures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimates that in 2017, health care spending in the U.S. grew 3.9 percent to $3.5 trillion, or $10,739 per person. After higher growth rates in 2016 (4.8%) and 2015 (5.8%) following expanded insurance coverage and increased spending on prescription drugs, health spending growth has returned to the same level as between 2008 to 2013, the average predating ACA coverage expansions.
10. Drug overdose rates hit a record high
Continuing a tragic trend, drug overdose deaths are still on the rise. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 70,237 fatalities in 2017. Overdose deaths are higher than deaths from H.I.V., car crashes, or gun violence, and seem to reflect a growing number of deaths from synthetic drugs, most notably fentanyl. 2018 was the first year after President Trump declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency. National policy solutions have so far failed to stem the epidemic, though particular states have made progress.
As we slip into 2019, expect health care issues to remain front and center on the policy agenda, with the administration continuing its regulatory assault on many key ACA provisions, Democrats harassing the executive branch with House oversight hearings, both parties demanding relief from escalating pharmaceutical prices, and the launch of health care as a 2020 presidential campaign issue.
It has been well documented that a small portion of Medicare patients — just 10 percent — account for more than half the program’s spending in any given year. But how many of these patients continue to incur high costs over time? Using three years of Medicare claims data (2012–2014), Commonwealth Fund–supported researchers sought to determine the share of patients with persistently high costs, as well as the key traits that differentiate them from those who incur high costs in only one or two years — or never.
What the Study Found
More than one-quarter (28%) of patients who had high costs in 2012 remained persistently high-cost over the subsequent two years, while 72 percent were transiently high-cost — for one or two years.
Persistently high-cost patients were younger (66.4 years) than either the transiently high-cost (73.3 years) or never high-cost (70.5 years) patients. They were also more likely to be members of racial and ethnic minorities, eligible for Medicaid in addition to Medicare, and qualify for Medicare because of end-stage renal disease.
On average, in the first year, persistently high-cost patients spent $64,434, compared with $45,560 for the transiently high-cost and $4,538 for the never high-cost.
Persistently high-cost patients spent more in all categories of spending. Notably, they spent more than four times as much as transiently high-cost patients did in outpatient settings ($16,148 v. $4,020) and on drugs ($15,467 v. $3,841).
The Big Picture
The 28 percent of Medicare beneficiaries with persistently high costs represent slightly less than 3 percent of the overall Medicare population but account for nearly 20 percent of Medicare spending for the three years studied. Only 5 percent of their total spending was related to potentially preventable hospitalizations, suggesting that it may be of little benefit to focus efforts on reducing such incidents.
The Bottom Line
Medicare patients who incur high costs over several years spend more on outpatient care and medications than those with lower costs. Targeting interventions on those two areas could help reduce overall spending.
As high health costs squeeze employers, managed care is making a comeback.
Nineties throwbacks have swept through music, television and fashion. Some startups want to bring a bit of that vintage feel to your workplace health insurance plan.
Health maintenance organizations drove down costs but were painted as villains in that decade for limiting patient choice, rationing care and leaving consumers to grapple with high bills for out-of-network services. But some features of the plans are regaining currency. Companies reviving the model say that new technology and better customer service will help avoid the mistakes of the past.
Rising health-care costs and dissatisfaction with high-deductible plans that ask workers to shoulder more of the burden are pushing employers to consider new ways of controlling spending—and to rethink the trade-offs they’re willing to make to save money.
Medical costs have increased roughly 6 percent a year for the past half-decade, according to PwC’s Health Research Institute, outpacing U.S. economic growth and eroding workers’ wage gains. Some employers, such as Amazon.com Inc., Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.—wary of asking workers to pay even more—are trying to rebuild their health programs.
Barry Rose, superintendent of the Cumberland School District in northern Wisconsin, went shopping recently for a new health plan for the district’s 290 employees and family members after its annual coverage costs threatened to top $2 million.
“How do we provide quality, affordable and usable health care for employees,” said Rose. “I can’t keep taking money out of their paychecks to spend on health insurance.”
The company he picked, called Bind, is part of a new generation of health plans putting a tech-savvy spin on cost controls pioneered by HMOs.
Bind, started in 2016, ditches deductibles in favor of fixed copays that consumers can look up on a mobile app or online before heading to the doctor. Another upstart, Centivo, founded in 2017, uses rewards and penalties to nudge workers to get most of their care and referrals for specialists from primary-care doctors.
For many years, employers offered health plans that paid the bills when workers went to see just about any doctor, imposing few limits on care. The companies themselves usually paid much or all of the premiums.
Confronted with rising costs in the 1990s, many employers switched to HMOs or other forms of what became known as managed care. The switch worked, helping hold health costs down for much of the decade.
Soon, however, consumer and physician opposition grew amid horror stories of mothers pushed out of the hospital soon after childbirth, or patients denied cancer treatments. States and the federal government passed laws to protect consumers, and, in 1997, then-President Bill Clinton appointed a panel to create a health consumers’ Bill of Rights.
“The causes of the backlash are much deeper than the specific irritations or grievances we hear about,” Alain Enthoven, the Stanford health economist who helped pioneer the idea of managed care, said in a 1999 lecture. “They are first, that the large insured employed American middle class rejects the very idea of limits on health care because they don’t see themselves as paying for the cost.”
Workers would soon bear the cost, though. By the end of the decade, employers had moved away from these limited health plans. In their wake, costs skyrocketed, giving rise to a new cost-containment tool: high deductibles.
Centivo co-founder Ashok Subramanian spent the past decade trying to figure out how to offer better health insurance at work. His first startup, Liazon, helped workers pick from a big menu of coverage options. He sold it for some $215 million to Towers Watson in 2013, but he said it didn’t fix the bigger problem: Workers had lots of options, but none of them were very good.
“Yes, we were increasing choice, yes we were enabling personalization, but the choices themselves were not that good,” Subramanian said in an interview. “The choices themselves were predicated on a system in which the fundamental incentives in health care are broken.”
Tony Miller, Bind’s founder, helped give rise to health plans with high out-of-pocket costs. He sold a company called Definity Health that combined health plans with savings accounts to UnitedHealth Group Inc. for $300 million in 2004. He now says high-deductible plans failed to deliver on their promises.
“There’s a fever pitch of frustration at employers,” he said. “They’re tired of using the same levers that they’ve been using for the past 20 years.”
UnitedHealth, the biggest U.S. health insurer, helped create Bind with Miller’s venture capital firm and is an investor in the company, which has raised a total of $82 million. Bind is also using UnitedHealth’s network of doctors and hospitals as well as some of its technology.
Centivo has raised $34 million from investors including Bain Capital Ventures.
Centivo and Bind both promise to reduce costs for patients and employers while making it easier to find doctors and check coverage. They say they’ll reduce costs by making sure patients get the care they need, keeping them healthy and avoiding emergencies or unnecessary treatment.
In most cases, workers who follow the rules of Centivo’s plans won’t face a deductible. When signing up, employees pick a primary-care doctor, who’s responsible for managing their care and making decisions on whether they need to see a specialist. Care provided or directed by that primary physician is free, as is some treatment for chronic diseases such as diabetes, depending on how employers choose to set up the coverage.
The goal is to ensure workers get the care they need, while avoiding low-value treatments. Those who go to an emergency department in cases that aren’t true emergencies, for example, could face high costs.
“The big question is: Is the market ready for it?” said Mike Turpin, who advises employers on their health benefits as an executive vice president at USI Insurance Services. “The American consumer just has it built into their head that access equals quality.”
Bind bundles its coverage so consumers don’t get billed for lots of charges for services that are part of the same treatment. In Rose’s district, the copay for an emergency room visit is $250, while the cost of a hospital stay is capped at $1,000. Office visits are $35; preventive care is free.
Bind also offers what it calls on-demand insurance. Coverage for planned procedures such as knee surgery, tonsil removal or bariatric surgery must be purchased before the operation. That gives Bind a chance to push customers toward a menu of lower-cost alternatives or cheaper providers.
A patient who looks up knee arthroscopy, for instance, would also be offered physical therapy. The patient’s cost for the surgery ranges from $800 at an outpatient center to more than $6,000, in an example used by Miller. Surgeries in hospitals are typically more costly. Bind also charges more for providers who tend to be less efficient or have worse outcomes.
The ability to view costs upfront is part of what appealed to Rose, the Wisconsin superintendent. “Each of my employees knows exactly what they’re paying for, and they have choice in it,” he said.
Rose said the switch to Bind will save his district several hundred thousand dollars, depending on how much health care his workers need over the next year.
Lawton R. Burns, director of the Wharton Center for Health Management and Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, recently authored a paper with his colleague Mark Pauly arguing that it’s probably impossible to simultaneously improve quality, lower costs and achieve better health outcomes. The ideas now being pushed forward, he writes, are similar to ideas tested in the 1990s.
“It’s deja vu all over again,” he said. “It’s not clear to me, this is just me talking, that people have learned the lessons of the 1990s.”
Value-based payment (VBP) models are an effort to rein in the growth of health care costs and improve quality. However, it’s unclear what overall impact VBP models are having on health care costs. Even though health care is provided at the local level, most evaluations examine health care spending at the national level. To address this disconnect, we conducted quantitative and qualitative market-level assessments. Our goals were to examine the impact of population-based, value-based care within a market; identify what measurable factors were associated with differing costs; and understand how business leaders are thinking about value-based care and cost reduction.
Leavitt Partners, the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA), and McManis Consulting, with participation from Mark McClellan at Duke University, conducted three mixed-methods studies:
Based on data from 2015, there was no association between an increase in population-based VBP and slowing of health care costs in a given market. Our study did not include episode-based payments.
Health care leaders across markets believe further changes to payment and delivery models are coming. Less clear is what, or who, will be the catalyst to push further change.
Some stakeholders expressed stronger support for other types of VBP models, including episode-based models and models that address the needs of specific patient groups.
The question of “what type of competition” in a market may be more important than “how much” competition. Lower-cost markets featured competition among a few health systems with well-aligned physician practices and geographic coverage across their market.
Lower-cost markets appear to benefit from organized mechanisms, including state-sponsored or endorsed reporting agencies, for more transparent sharing of information on provider quality and costs.Based on quantitative and qualitative evidence, the studies contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of competition, integration, and transparency on health care costs in a market. Below, we summarize findings from the three mixed-method studies and provide some policy implications.
Population-Based VBP Models Are Not Lowering Market-Level Health Care Costs … Yet
Given the growth of VBP, we wanted to examine whether, in the first few years following the ACA, these models were influencing the total cost of care. We used Medicare data from 2012 to 2015 and commercial data from 2012 to 2014 to assess the early impact of these models. We restricted our study to population-based VBPs, which included models with upside risk only (shared savings), both upside and downside risk, and global budgets, but excluded episode-based (bundled) payments.
We did not find a statistical relationship between the level of penetration of population-based VBPs in a market and a decline in health care costs for Medicare or commercial payers. Nor did we find an improvement in quality. When we limited our analysis to just those markets with higher levels of population-based VBP penetration (at least 30 percent), our results suggested a very modest, not statistically significant, market-level decrease in cost growth. Despite this null finding, our results provide an important baseline for future research.
There are several potential explanations for the null findings. For one, our study period (2012–15) may simply have been too early to see signs of population-based VBP lowering health care costs. Although today 561 MSSP accountable care organizations (ACOs) (the largest of Medicare’s ACO programs) cover 10.5 million beneficiaries, at the beginning of our study period in 2012 and 2013, only 220 MSSP ACOs covered 3.2 million beneficiaries. Many interviewees told us not enough lives were covered under VBP. Indeed, in some markets, less than 1 percent of lives were part of a VBP arrangement.
Second, although participation in population-based VBP models is growing, few models involve the provider taking on downside risk. As of 2018, the majority (82 percent) of MSSP ACOs were in the non-risk-bearing Track 1, which means they share in savings if they spend less money than their assigned benchmark, but they will not incur financial losses if they spend more than the benchmark. Our site visits found that although different markets had varying levels of population-based VBP activity, no market had significant numbers of providers participating in downside risk. Several interviewees stressed the need to take incremental steps to more risk.
Fee-for-service payment remains quite profitable for many providers and health systems. Even for those that have begun to take on risk-based contracts, fee-for-service payment represents the majority of total revenue. As long as the status quo remains lucrative, it’s difficult to make the business case for why a provider should undertake the effort to switch to a value-based focus that may lead to a reduction in use and total revenue.
Still, several interviewees said they believed the move toward paying for value would continue, even if there’s some uncertainty over whether Medicare or private payers will lead the movement. It’s possible that when VBP models outweigh fee-for-service payments in a market, we’ll reach a “tipping point” and health care cost growth will decline. Many interviewees expressed enthusiasm for other VBP models, such as those based on episodes of care (bundled payments) and those designed for specific populations (for example, the frail elderly). These models may make more sense for specialty providers who perform a certain type of procedure or care for a certain type of patient.
Other Market Factors
If these initial population-based VBPs results don’t show a relationship to health care cost growth, then which market-level factors do correlate? For our second quantitative analysis, we used a variety of public and private data sources to examine the relationship among several market-level factors beyond value-based payment and Medicare costs and cost growth between 2007 and 2015. All the factors together explained 82 percent of variation in baseline Medicare costs (Exhibit 1).
The prevalence of chronic diseases was the most influential predictor of market costs, accounting for 41.5 percent of the variance. Hospital quality metrics, market socioeconomic status, and the concentration of hospitals and insurers also helped explain market-level costs.
Using these same factors to predict Medicare cost growth was less fruitful, explaining only 27 percent of the variation in Medicare cost growth—substantially less than the 82 percent of baseline costs. As Exhibit 2 shows, a much weaker association exists between chronic disease prevalence and Medicare cost growth. Significant additional research should be done to identify factors that predict cost growth.
These findings matter for several reasons. First, they reinforce efforts currently underway to contain costs, including strategies to prevent and better manage chronic conditions, reduce hospital readmissions, and reduce the number of individuals without insurance. Second, although we know less about what drives health care cost growth in a market, meaningfully reducing spending in a market relies on developing strategies that target cost growth, instead of baseline costs. More research that focuses on what’s driving cost growth is needed.
The Role Of Competition And Transparency On Costs
The interviews we conducted add insights into these market-level findings. We identified two distinguishing characteristics of higher- and lower-cost markets: type of competition in the market and degree of transparency in the market. We recognize that while there are some common lessons, health care markets differ significantly and their approaches to care, costs, and VBP models will vary.
We know competition can help drive down costs and increase quality in health care markets. However, how much competition, and what type, seems to make a difference. For example, we found that the lower-cost markets in our nine site visits had at least one integrated delivery system. Consolidation in these markets had resulted in two to four health systems with geographic coverage across the market. In these markets, physicians were generally employed by the health system or worked in close alignment with it. Health plan competition matters as well, particularly with respect to innovation in new payment and care delivery models. Portland, Oregon, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, two of the lowest-cost markets, both had competitive health plan landscapes.
Conversely, the markets we visited with less integration and seemingly more provider competition actually had higher costs. These included Los Angeles, California (which had higher Medicare costs only), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. One reason for this may be that there is less focus on addressing unnecessary use in these markets.
Transparency is often cited as a strategy that will help contain costs. Similar to competition, the type of transparency effort matters. We found that some lower-cost markets seemed to benefit from organized transparency mechanisms, including state-sponsored or endorsed reporting agencies and employer coalitions that made information on provider quality and costs publicly available. For example, in 2005, the Minnesota Medical Association and health plans in the state together formed MN Community Measure, a nonprofit organization tasked with the collection and dissemination of data on the quality and cost of providers across the state. Today, providers are required to submit data to the organization. Our interviewees expressed optimism but acknowledged more work is needed to optimize consumer-oriented transparency tools, which research has so far shown to have had only minimal use.
Our research led us to three primary policy recommendations to help improve health care quality and lower costs (for additional ones, see the fullstudies).
Continue movement toward payment models that increase financial incentives to manage total cost of care and closely monitor the impact of doing so because our findings show that the majority of payments in a market continue to flow through fee-for-service, instead of value-based arrangements. Experiments should continue with population-based VBP models but should not be confined exclusively to these models. Episode-based payment models, for example, may be better suited to certain types of providers who perform a certain procedure (for example, a knee replacement) instead of care for a general population of patients.
Balance the benefits of competition with the benefits of integration. The lower-cost markets we studied had competition among two and four systems with well-organized provider networks that had been developed through vertical integration or strong alignment of physician practices. Most of the lower-cost markets also had an integrated delivery system—with vertically integrated health plan, hospital, and physician capabilities—as a competitor in the market.
Support more transparent sharing of information on health care cost and quality within markets. Lower-cost markets in the qualitative study had organized mechanisms for the sharing of information on health care cost and quality, whether through employer coalitions, statewide reporting agencies, or both.
Although differences exist among each health care market, all markets can act to improve quality and reduce costs. Our studies suggest several actions different stakeholders in each market can take to improve care for their populations.
Ambulatory healthcare and hospitals saw biggest March gains in within the sector.
The latest employment numbers released by the federal government indicate that healthcare remains among the major industry sectors driving jobs growth.
More than 22,000 healthcare jobs were added in March, keeping roughly in line with the average number of healthcare jobs added for each of the past 12 months, according to data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Within healthcare, the largest gains were among ambulatory healthcare services (16,000 jobs) and hospitals (10,000 jobs). Nursing and residential care facilities, meanwhile, lost nearly 4,000 jobs in March.
These overall numbers are not surprising. Healthcare occupations were projected to grow by 18%, or 2.4 million jobs, from 2016 to 2026, according to BLS analysis. The strength of the healthcare sector is attributed largely to the aging U.S. population, which drives demand for services.
But this rising demand coincides also with rising healthcare spending, which is projected to grow by 5.5% each yearthrough 2026, outpacing American spending in other sectors.