The authority of states and localities to require vaccination is a bedrock principle of public health law. Since 1905, when the US Supreme Court upheld compulsory smallpox inoculations, there has been sustained judicial consensus that the Constitution “does not import an absolute right to be…wholly freed from restraint.” Otherwise, “organized society could not exist with safety to its members.” Until recently, objections to mandatory vaccinations were confined to a small minority of US residents. However, civic values eroded during the COVID-19 pandemic, creating a groundswell of resistance. With state legislatures now sharply limiting public health authority and a bevy of legal challenges mounted vaccination mandates—an old and highly effective public health tool—face legal uncertainty that only a few years ago seemed inconceivable.

Read Full Viewpoint

Do increases in medical spending improve health outcomes? To answer this question, analysts need to quantify the net value of medical spending and measure the productivity of medical care with the output of improvement in survival and quality of life, thereby deducing for what medical conditions the “bang for the buck” is greatest and for what conditions spending outstrips gains in health improvement.

This condition-specific, quality-adjusted net value approach to health spending is known as a “satellite account for health” because it “orbits around” the national income and product accounts that include aggregate health spending to provide a clearer picture of productivity in the health sector. Thus far, researchers have applied this account to the U.S. health sector only, but it would be highly beneficial for many economies. One notable beneficiary would be South Korea, one of the most rapidly aging societies globally. Now new research by Karen Eggleston, the director of APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program, studies the link between medical spending and health outcomes in South Korea, providing evidence on the productivity of medical spending over recent decades.

The research, published by the East-West Center, develops an estimate of the net value of Korean medical spending, which has outpaced most other countries in recent decades. To generate this estimate, Eggleston compares the gains in life expectancy at birth to the increases in medical spending for 2000–2019. Data comes from Korean lifetables and medical expenditures per capita, available from the Korean Statistical Information Services.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars' research updates >

Eggleston shows that, even with the most conservative assumptions ($50,000 per life-year and only 10 percent of health gains due to medical care), the net value of Korean medical spending is positive and substantial. Korean life expectancy at birth increased from 76 in 2000 to 83.3 in 2019, while lifetime medical spending increased by over $19,000. The value of 7.3 additional years of life far outweighs even this rapid increase in spending, implying substantial productivity growth in Korea’s health sector.

Moreover, evidence on condition-specific spending changes and health improvements suggests that Korea’s rapid spending increases yield significant net value. Eggleston’s research indicates that improvements in survival for key conditions afflicting Koreans, such as stroke and cancer, point to productivity gains. “Korea could be a pioneer in developing a national health account that accurately measures net value by medical condition,” she writes.

Condition-specific metrics of health gain per won spent on treatment can help to guide the allocation of investments to promote longer, healthier lives. In the future, analysts could also link condition-specific improvements in survival and morbidity to earnings. Such linkage would particularly benefit South Korea, where focusing on the productivity of older adult employment is crucial given its high labor force participation and relatively low income of older Koreans.

Eggleston advocates for the Korean government to develop a national satellite account for health that can provide valuable evidence for prioritizing investments to address the country’s most pressing health challenges so that productivity improvement will contribute to longer, healthier lives. “By linking National Health Insurance and health outcome data, Korea could develop an accurate measure of medical productivity and a more accurate measure of overall economic productivity, while pioneering development of ‘health satellite accounts’ for overall populations,” Eggleston argues.

As healthcare costs for patients with non-communicable diseases such as diabetes have risen, governments and healthcare providers have sought creative measures to align financial incentives with better patient outcomes. One incentive payment system known as “pay-for-performance” (P4P), in which providers are beholden to metric-driven outcomes, represents a potential path forward for healthcare providers to improve healthcare processes, resulting in higher quality and better patient health outcomes. The evidence on the effectiveness of P4P programs, however, is mixed.

To address this uncertainty, a new study, published in The European Journal of Healthcare Economics, assesses the effectiveness, in monetary terms, of a P4P program for patients with diabetes at a hospital system in Taiwan. 

The study coauthors, including APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program Director and FSI Senior Fellow Karen Eggleston, employed new patient-level data on clinical indicators, utilization, and expenditures, combined with data from the national death registry, to better understand the costs and benefits of the P4P program. Their results show that Taiwan’s implementation of the P4P program for diabetic care yielded positive results in terms of net value, defined as the value of life years gained minus the cost of care.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' research updates.

Assessing Net Value of Taiwan’s P4P

Taiwan’s Bureau of National Health Insurance (now National Health Insurance Administration) introduced P4P in 2001 and enhanced the program in 2006 with an incentive for pay-for-reporting of outcomes. Financial incentives were used to encourage continuity of care with metrics such as new patient enrollment, follow-up visits, and annual reports, each tied to a specific monetary value. The program’s features are common across P4P, so the study’s findings have implications in other settings that incorporate similar designs in their P4P programs.

The study compares two different groups of patients at a large regional hospital in Taiwan, one consisting of newly enrolled P4P patients and another using P4P patients who have been enrolled since the beginning of the program. The researchers leverage detailed clinical data not used in previous assessments of the P4P program to better identify both costs and longer-term clinical outcomes based on measured biomarkers and predicted mortality.

Using an economic cost-benefit analysis conducted from a budgetary perspective, the study is the first analysis of any P4P program that estimates changes in the quality-adjusted price index relative to usual care. The authors consider health benefits in terms of survival and predicted survival and convert them into monetary terms. This net value approach is especially useful for policymakers and healthcare administrators who implement value-based purchasing and monitor outcomes for any service delivery innovation over time.

The study finds that Taiwan’s P4P program provided a positive net value for payers and patients, ranging from $40,084 USD to $348,717 USD. These positive net value results are primarily derived from health outcomes as measured by lower mortality rates in the P4P versus non-P4P cohorts, across both newly enrolled and continuously enrolled groups of patients. According to the authors, “these encouraging findings of the positive value of quality improvement net of expenditures adds evidence to the literature that has found mixed results of P4P programs.” 

 This study develops a new model for assessing the net value of service delivery innovations like P4P programs that can be applied in other contexts globally, providing healthcare systems researchers with new tools to better understand an emergent option for incentivized care. With a more economically-translatable understanding of P4P programs, this research helps build the bridge between the oft-disparate worlds of healthcare and policy.