An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of ... - Milken Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

An Unhealthy AmericaMilken InstituteThe top five and bottom five state rankings are shown in the following tables. The top five states— Maryland,Colorado, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Connecticut—are home to a number of research universities and rankhigh in per capita income.Historical Bachelor's Bachelor’s Degree Degree and and Above, Above, 1970 1970Top 5 States Percent of Population Bottom 5 States Percent of PopulationMaryland Expenditures13.90 PRC* Mississippi Expenditures/PRC 8.10Disease Colorado (Billions) 14.90 (Millions) Kentucky (Thousands) 7.20Cancer Massachusetts 12.60 48.1 10.6 Wyoming 4.5 11.80Virginia 12.30 Arkansas 6.70Breast Cancer 5.5 1.1 4.8Connecticut 13.70 West Virginia 6.80Colon CancerSources: Census Bureau, Milken Institute3.9 0.3 11.5Lung Cancer 6.3 0.4 17.1Prostate Cancer 4.3 1.0 4.1Other Cancers Historical Historical Bachelor's 28.0 Bachelor’s Degree Degree and 7.7 Above, and Above, 2003 2003 3.6Pulmonary Conditions 45.2 49.2 0.9Diabetes Top 5 States Percent of Population 27.1 Bottom 13.7 5 States Percent 2.0 of PopulationHypertension Maryland Expenditures36.83 32.5 Mississippi PRC* Expenditures/PRC36.8 0.921.17Disease Colorado (Billions) 35.63 (Millions) Kentucky (Thousands) 21.10Heart Disease 64.7 19.2 3.4Cancer Massachusetts 34.80 Wyoming 19.83Stroke48.1Virginia 33.13 13.610.6Arkansas 2.44.55.618.10MentalBreastDisordersCancer Connecticut 32.83 45.85.5 West 30.31.1 Virginia 4.81.515.67Sources: Census Bureau, Milken InstituteTotalColon Cancer277.03.9162.20.3 11.51.7Lung Cancer 6.3 0.4 17.1PRC: Population Reporting ConditionProstate Cancer Projected Bachelor's 4.3 Degree 1.0and Above, 2023 4.1Other Cancers Projected Bachelor’s Degree 28.0 7.7 3.6Percent and of Above, Population 2023 -Percent of PopulationPulmonary Conditions 45.2 49.2 0.9Top Diabetes 5 States Baseline Optimistic 27.1 Bottom 13.7 5 States 2.0Baseline OptimisticMaryland Hypertension 41.91 Expenditures 44.64 32.5PRC*36.8 Mississippi Expenditures/PRC0.9 22.18 23.63Colorado DiseaseHeart Disease 41.03 (Billions) 43.71 64.7(Millions)19.2 Kentucky (Thousands)3.4 24.05 25.62Massachusetts Cancer 42.24 44.99 Wyoming 24.34 25.93Stroke 48.1 13.6 10.6 2.4 4.5 5.6Virginia 38.54 41.05 Arkansas 19.93 21.23Connecticut Mental Breast Disorders Cancer38.19 40.67 45.8 5.5 30.3 1.1 4.8West Virginia 1.5 17.66 18.81Sources: Total CensusColonBureau,CancerMilken Institute277.0 3.9 162.2 0.3 11.5 1.7Lung Cancer 6.3 0.4 17.1PRC: Population Reporting ConditionProstate Cancer 4.3 1.0 4.1Other Cancers Projected Bachelor's 28.0 Degree 7.7 and Above, 2050 3.6Pulmonary ConditionsProjected Bachelor’s Degree45.2 Percent and Above, of 49.2 Population 2050 - Percent0.9of PopulationDiabetes 27.1 13.7 2.0Top 5 States Baseline Optimistic Bottom 5 States Baseline OptimisticHypertension Expenditures 32.5 PRC* 36.8 Expenditures/PRC 0.9Maryland 50.79 59.60 Mississippi 28.13 33.01Colorado Disease Heart Disease 50.41 (Billions) 59.18 64.7 (Millions) 19.2Kentucky (Thousands) 3.4 29.80 34.96Massachusetts Cancer Stroke 51.01 48.1 59.88 13.6 10.6 2.4Wyoming 4.5 5.6 31.50 36.96Mental Virginia Disorders46.82 54.95 45.8 30.3Arkansas 1.5 25.33 29.74Breast Cancer 5.5 1.1 4.8Connecticut 47.02 55.20 West Virginia 22.79 26.75Total 277.0 162.2 1.7Sources: CensusColonBureau,CancerMilken Institute3.9 0.3 11.5PRC: Lung Population Cancer Reporting Condition 6.3 0.4 17.1Prostate Cancer 4.3 1.0 4.1(5) Other Young Cancers Dependents per Capita 28.0 7.7 3.6Pulmonary Conditions 45.2 49.2 0.9Diabetes 27.1 13.7 2.0Hypertension 32.5 36.8 0.9Heart Disease 64.7 19.2 3.4Stroke 13.6 2.4 5.6Mental Disorders 45.8 30.3 1.5GDP by state will not be affected by a declining population of young dependents.Total 277.0 162.2 1.7The number of dependents per capita represents the population 0 –16 years old that is not a part of the laborforce and that should therefore have a negative effect on state productivity. Using historical data fromEconomy.com, we analyze the trend through 2030 and adopt a conservative approach by keeping the samegrowth rate from 2030 to 2050. Since baseline and optimistic scenarios are the same, the difference betweenPRC: Population Reporting Condition[ 173 ]
An Unhealthy AmericaMilken InstituteC. DiscussionThe purpose of these projections is to establish the endogenous intergenerational relationships between certainvariable inputs (life expectancy, labor force size, human capital formation, etc.) and output levels (state GDP). Thepurpose of the production function is to describe the relationships between output and input factors. Ours accounts forstate differences. However, it alone cannot fully capture the impacts over time. The leads and lags between improvedhealth, and human and physical capital, require cross-sectional “reaction functions.” Here, the optimistic variable inputsreact with each other and with the production function. For example, the optimistic variable that proxies health (lifeexpectancy at 65) interacts with the education variable (population holding a bachelor’s degree).The coefficients of the regressions, which explain the strength of the relationship of each input variable to the outputvariable (GDP), are discussed in the following paragraphs.• The variable life expectancy at age 65 is a significant and positive factor in state output. The coefficient shows acontemporaneous elasticity of GDP at 0.258. This means that a 1.0 percent increase in life expectancy at 65 willtranslate into a near-term 0.26 percent increase in real GDP, not accounting for full intergenerational effects.• Improved health increases contributions to a state’s productivity level by means of increasing career spans andlabor force numbers, improving the quality of the work force, reducing absenteeism and presenteeism, andimproving the quality of the work performed.• This impact is further magnified in workers’ decisions to invest in their own education, as well as that of theirchildren. It also may influence their decision to invest in financial and physical assets, in turn generating morestate output and increasing current labor and capital stock efficiency as both are influenced by the accumulationof capital stock.• The coefficient on the labor force size variable is significance and positive. A 1.0 percent increase in the laborforce is consistent with a 0.75 percent increase in real GDP. The combined labor force and bachelor’s degreecoefficients help explain how important human capital is to U.S. economic growth.• The variable capital stock likewise is another important and common independent variable. We find that a 1.0percent increase in the capital stock translates to a 0.196 percent increase in real GDP.• The variable percentage of population with a bachelor’s degree, representative of human capital formation, isalso positive and significant. This relationship shows that a 1.0 percent increase in the percent of the populationwith a bachelor’s degree or greater results in a 0.506 percent increase in real GDP. Investments in highereducation influence many other variables. They affect how well capital and labor inputs are fully utilized. Asmarter labor force is generally thought to produce output more efficiently. Education is also associated withhigher earnings and greater disposable income—for investing in additional education.We are able to capture the full effects of health and human capital reinvestments by devising reaction functions thatmagnify the effect and work as instrumental variable functions that give us the true value of labor, capital, and education.For example, a 1.0 percent increase in life expectancy at age 65 is associated with a 1.8 percent increase in the percentof the adult population with a bachelor’s degree or above.We also included the ratio of young dependents per capita to see how dependent populations, like those under age 16,[ 174 ]
Page 8:
An Unhealthy AmericaMilken Institut
Page 11 and 12:
iitime of the analysis show that th
Page 13 and 14:
Existing estimates of the economic
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137: An Unhealthy AmericaMilken Institut
Page 162: An Unhealthy AmericaMilken Institut
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252:
1250 Fourth Street • Santa Monica
show all

An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of ... - Milken Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?