As I read you some statements about AIDS, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with each one….In general, it’s people’s own fault if they get AIDS.

Agree

40%

Disagree

55

Don’t know/Refused

4

Survey by Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Washington Post, Harvard University. Methodology: Conducted June 13-June 23, 2002 and based on telephone interviews with a national adult with oversamples of minority groups (see note) sample of 1,603. The sample included an oversample of 100 African Americans and 101 Latinos. Results were weighted to be representative of a national adult population. Interviews were conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

(I am going to read some statements about AIDS. As I read each statement, please say whether you agree or disagree with it.)… In general, it’s people’s own fault if they get AIDS.

Agree

40%

Disagree

57

Don’t know

3

Survey by Cable News Network, USA Today. Methodology: Fieldwork conducted by Gallup Organization, October 3-October 5, 1997 and based on telephone interviews with a national adult sample of 872. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

(As I read off some statements about AIDS, would you tell me whether you agree or disagree with each one?)… (Rotated) In general, it’s people’s own fault if they get AIDS

Agree

33%

Disagree

63

Don’t know

4

Methodology: Conducted by Gallup Organization, May 2-May 5, 1991 and based on telephone interviews with a national adult sample of 1,014. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

(As I read off some statements about AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), would you tell me whether you agree or disagree with each one?)… In general, it’s people’s own fault if they get AIDS

Agree

51%

Disagree

44

No opinion

5

Methodology: Conducted by Gallup Organization, October 23-October 26, 1987 and based on personal interviews with a national adult sample of 1,569. Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

Methodology

Data provided in this presentation and accompanying report were collected and analyzed as part of collaborative effort among UNAIDS, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and CSIS.

Data were collected from multiple sources. The research team obtained bilateral assistance data directly, using standard protocols, from the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, and from the European Commission during the first half of 2006. Data for the U.S. were also derived from Congressional appropriations legislation and other official documents. While bilateral data from the U.K. were obtained directly from the U.K government, they are considered preliminary only, based on analysis of prior-year expenditure figures. In addition, U.K. policy is not to disaggregate resources for HIV/AIDS from sexual and reproductive health activities; these activities were reviewed and included if there was a substantial portion focused on HIV/AIDS, and further analysis is being conducted. Bilateral data for the Netherlands differ from those presented in official government annual reports, owing to exclusion of TB and Malaria funding, imputed multilateral funding, and indirect administrative costs in figures used here. Bilateral data for all other members of the

DAC, including Italy and Japan, were estimated based on 2004 data provided to UNAIDS and the OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS). Data on UNAIDS contributions were collected directly from donors and from UNAIDS. Data on Global Fund contributions were collected directly from donors and from the Global Fund’s web-based databases. Included in bilateral funding were any earmarked (HIV designated) multilateral amounts, such as donor contributions to UNAIDS. Not included in totals is funding for international HIV/AIDS research.

All Global Fund contributions were adjusted to represent 57% of the total, reflecting the Fund’s reported grant approvals for HIV/AIDS to date. Contributions made by donors to the Global Fund in a given year are considered to be disbursed by donors in full, although these funds are not necessarily disbursed by the Global Fund to programs in that same year.

Data are by the fiscal year (FY) period, as defined by the donor, and fiscal years vary by donor. The U.S. FY runs from October 1-September 30. In some cases, therefore, data obtained directly from donors on their FY 2005 contributions to the Global Fund may differ from amounts reported on the Global Fund’s website, which are by calendar year.

Other than contributions provided by governments to the Global Fund, UNAIDS, or to a UN agency for an HIV/AIDS specific purpose, general contributions to UN entities are not identified as part of a donor government’s HIV/AIDS assistance even if the multilateral organization in turn directs some of these funds to HIV/AIDS. Rather, they are counted as HIV/AIDS funding provided by the multilateral organization, as in the case of the World Bank’s efforts.

All data are expressed in US dollars (USD). See report for more detailed methodology.

Health Care Spending in the United States and OECD Countries 

Health spending is rising faster than incomes in most developed countries, which raises questions about how these countries will pay for future health care needs.  The issue may be particularly acute in the United States, which not only spends much more per capita on health care than any other country, but which also has had one of the fastest growth rates in health spending among developed countries.  Despite this higher level of spending, the United States does not achieve better outcomes on many important health measures.  This paper uses information from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ¹ to compare the level and growth rate of health care spending in the United States with other OECD countries.  In an increasingly competitive international economy, policymakers in the United States will need to be aware of how the health spending and spending growth in the United States compares to that of other nations.

It is reasonably well known that for some time the United States has spent more per capita on health care than other countries.  What may be less well known is that the United States has had one of the highest growth rates in per capita health care spending since 1980 among higher income countries.  Health care spending around the world generally is rising at a faster rate than overall economic growth, so almost all countries have seen health care spending increase as a percentage of their gross domestic product (GDP) over time.  In the United States, which has had both a high level of health spending per capita and a relatively high rate of real growth in that spending, the share of GDP devoted to health grew from 8.8% of GDP in 1980 to 15.2% of GDP in 2003 (Exhibit 5).  This almost 7 percentage-point increase in the health share of GDP is larger than increases seen in other high-income countries. 

This paper analyzes data on health spending and national income from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with above-average per capita national income.  We exclude countries with relatively low per capita income because they have fewer resources to devote to health care and other necessities and do not provide a reasonable comparison for spending in higher income countries.²  We have provided footnotes where the OECD data show a break in series, indicating that the OECD data may not be comparable over the entire period that is being analyzed; Germany is excluded from the time series exhibits because its data are not comparable over the time periods due to reunification.³ The level of total health expenditure per capita is shown in U.S. dollars, adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP).⁴  Data on growth rates and health care as a percentage of GDP are based upon the national currency of each country, with growth rates adjusted to remove the impact of general inflation. ⁵

Exhibit 1: Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003

Exhibit 1 shows per capita health expenditures for 2003 in U.S. dollars purchasing power parity.  Health spending per capita in the United States is much higher than in other countries – at least 24% higher than in the next highest spending countries, and over 90% higher than in many other countries that we would consider global competitors.  Exhibit 2 shows that per capita health expenditures in the United States also were considerably higher than in the other analyzed countries in 1990.  Looking back further, however, while health spending per capita in the United States was higher than most other countries in 1970 and 1980, this was not as uniformly true as in the later period: Switzerland and Denmark ⁶ had spending levels comparable to the U.S. in the earlier period.⁷

^{Exhibit 2: Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries,1970, 1980, 1990, 2003}

1970

1980

1990

2003

Australia

$252*

$691

$1,306

$2,886

Austria

193

770

1,328

2,958

Belgium

148

636

1,341

3,044^

Canada

299

783

1,737

2,998

Denmark

384*

927

1,522

2,743^

Finland

191

590

1,419

2,104

France

205

697

1,532

3,048

Iceland

163

703

1,593

3,159

Ireland

117

519

794

2,455

Italy

NA

NA

1,387

2,314

Japan

149

580

1,116

2,249^e

Luxembourg

163

640

1,533

4,611^

Netherlands

NA

755

1,435

2,909^e

Norway

141

665

1,393

3,769

Sweden

312

944

1,589

2,745

Switzerland

351

1,031

2,029

3,847

United Kingdom

163

480

987

2,317^

United States

352

1,072

2,752

5,711

*Value shown is for 1971. 

^Break in series; see “Comparability over time” at http://www.irdes.fr/ecosante/OCDE/411.html. ^eOECD estimate.

NA:  Not available.

Notes:  Amounts in U.S. $ PPP.  Germany is not included on this table because its data are not comparable over the time period due to reunification. 

Source:  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD Health Data 2006, from the OECD Internet subscription database updated October 10, 2006.  Copyright OECD 2006, http://www.oecd.org/health/healthdata.

This fact sheet summarizes the key changes West Virginia has approved for its Medicaid program as a result of the new flexibility available through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. West Virginia will change the benefit package for children and parents, parents will sign a member agreement for themselves and on behalf of their children to access certain benefits, and providers and managed care plans will monitor and report to the state their patients’ status with regard to meeting the member agreement responsibilities. Parents and children will continue to be covered for mandatory services, and the state must continue to provide Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment services to children.

Fact Sheet (.pdf)

This fact sheet summarizes the key changes Kentucky has approved for its Medicaid program as a result of the new flexibility available through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Kentucky uses new options related to benefits, cost sharing and long-term care.

Fact Sheet (.pdf)

The Vermont Choices for Care Long-Term Care Plan: Key Program Changes and Questions

This fact sheet summarizes Vermont’s Section 1115 waiver to make fundamental changes to its Medicaid program that provides long-term services and supports to eligible, low-income state residents. The waiver was designed to increase access to home and community-based services (HCBS), reduce use of institutional services and control overall costs for long-term services spending. The state hopes to achieve these goals by limiting access to nursing facility care and increasing the availability of HCBS. The program is subject to available funding under a global cap.

Fact Sheet (.pdf)

This report illustrates through case examples the experiences and challenges of low- and modest-income people who rely on Medicaid to pay for nursing home expenses. These case examples were developed through in-person interviews with nursing home residents and their families in three states: Georgia, Kansas and Virginia. The first section of the report summarizes the themes and issues shared across the interviews Kaiser conducted, while the second section presents the individual stories of a subset of those Kaiser interviewed.

Report (.pdf)