Samuel H. Zuvekas

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on selecting the most appropriate price index for adjusting health expenditures or costs for inflation. DATA SOURCES: Major price index series produced by federal statistical agencies. STUDY DESIGN: We compare the key characteristics of each index and develop suggestions on specific indexes to use in many common situations and general guidance in others. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Price series and methodological documentation were downloaded from federal websites and supplemented with literature scans. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The gross domestic product implicit price deflator or the overall Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index is preferable to the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) to adjust for general inflation, in most cases. The Personal Health Care (PHC) index or the PCE health-by-function index is generally preferred to adjust total medical expenditures for inflation. The CPI medical care index is preferred for the adjustment of consumer out-of-pocket expenditures for inflation. A new, experimental disease-specific Medical Care Expenditure Index is now available to adjust payments for disease treatment episodes. CONCLUSIONS: There is no single gold standard for adjusting health expenditures for inflation. Our discussion of best practices can help researchers select the index best suited to their study.

This article focuses on racial and ethnic disparities in health care, describing both absolute differences and relative changes in access to care and the use of health services among whites, blacks, and Hispanics over the past two decades. Using data from a series of three nationally representative medical expenditure surveys, the authors present descriptive statistics on disparities in access and use between minorities and whites over time. They also use multivariate analyses to isolate the extent to which health insurance and income explain those disparities. The authors find that disparities increased between 1977 and 1996, particularly for Hispanic Americans. Results also show that approximately one half to three quarters of the disparities observed in 1996 would remain even if racial and ethnic disparities in income and health insurance coverage were eliminated.

We examine the roles that insurance coverage, the delivery system, and external factors play in explaining persistent disparities in access among racial and ethnic groups of all ages. Using data from the 1996-1999 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys and regression-based decomposition methods, we find that our measures of health care system capacity explain little and that while insurance clearly matters, external factors are equally important. Employment, job characteristics, and marital status are key determinants of disparities in access to insurance but are difficult for health policy to affect directly. Much of existing disparities remains unexplained, presenting a challenge to developing policies to eliminate them.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the utilization of stimulant medications for the treatment of ADHD in U.S. children during the period 1996–2008 to determine trends by age, sex, race/ethnicity, family income, and geographic region. METHOD: The 1996–2008 database of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a nationally representative annual survey of U.S. households, was analyzed for therapeutic stimulant use in children age 18 and younger. The data for 1987 were also recalculated for reference. RESULTS: An estimated 3.5% (95% confidence interval=3.0–4.1) of U.S. children received stimulant medication in 2008, up from 2.4% in 1996. Over the period 1996–2008, stimulant use increased consistently at an overall annual growth rate of 3.4%. Use increased in adolescents (annual growth, 6.5%), but it did not significantly change in 6- to 12-year-olds, and it decreased in preschoolers. Use remained higher in boys than in girls, and it remained consistently lower in the West than in other U.S. regions. While differences by family income have disappeared over time, use of stimulants in ADHD treatment is significantly lower in racial/ethnic minorities. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, pediatric stimulant use has been slowly but steadily increasing since 1996, primarily as a result of greater use in adolescents. Use in preschoolers remains low and has declined over time. Important variations related to racial/ethnic background and geographic region persist, thus indicating a substantial heterogeneity in the approach to the treatment of ADHD in U.S. communities.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate disparities in mental health care episodes, aligning our analyses with decisions to start or drop treatment, and choices made during treatment. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed whites, blacks, and Latinos with probable mental illness from Panels 9-13 of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, assessing disparities at the beginning, middle, and end of episodes of care (initiation, adequate care, having an episode with only psychotropic drug fills, intensity of care, the mixture of primary care provider (PCP) and specialist visits, use of acute psychiatric care, and termination). FINDINGS: Compared with whites, blacks and Latinos had less initiation and adequacy of care. Black and Latino episodes were shorter and had fewer psychotropic drug fills. Black episodes had a greater proportion of specialist visits and Latino episodes had a greater proportion of PCP visits. Blacks were more likely to have an episode with acute psychiatric care. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in adequate care were driven by initiation disparities, reinforcing the need for policies that improve access. Many episodes were characterized only by psychotropic drug fills, suggesting inadequate medication guidance. Blacks' higher rate of specialist use contradicts previous studies and deserves future investigation. Blacks' greater acute mental health care use raises concerns over monitoring of their treatment.