Every time this stat is brought up I always think it doesn't convey the full context. Even though its in terms of per capita, it's still an absolute amount, I think a better data point to illustrate if the US was overspending compared to outcomes would be what % of disposable income is spent on healthcare vs outcomes.
For example, let's say the US spent 2x on healthcare as some country, but had 4x the disposable income, would this still be overspending or would it be more efficient given the amount relative to income? The closest I can find is health spending as % of GDP but that doesn't capture what a person's income, since it includes government spending too, so it obfuscates whether or not the inefficiency (if any) lies in private or public healthcare in the US.
Let's say the US spent 2x on healthcare as some country, but had 4x the disposable income, would this still be overspending or would it be more efficient given the amount relative to income?
Healthcare spending in $ per capita doesn't capture how much people earn in that country or how much of a burden it is relative to their income so its kinda meaningless without more context. It's like saying the US economy is better than 85% of the OECD because its in the top 5 gdp per capita.
There's a very consistent definition for what that means with plenty of papers and institutions that use use roughly the same definition. Here's one phrasing of it by the OECD[1]. Basically it's just income minus taxes, what part of that is remotely vague?
Discretionary income might be an even better measure but that has more wiggle room on defining what is a necessity and not.
I still don't see how that's a good metric, in any way, for judging health care costs. "Disposable income" takes nothing else into account such as other costs or predatory behaviors in the healthcare system
Its literally just money after taxes, and most people are living paycheck to paycheck
You say this like the profit seeking in the US is some sort of natural phenomenon that we can't avoid. We can adjust costs based in cost of living and local currency, profiteering is what sucks resources out of the system
Physicians in the US are protected, there's only a limited number of slots every year in med schools. This is fake scarcity
For example, let's say the US spent 2x on healthcare as some country, but had 4x the disposable income, would this still be overspending or would it be more efficient given the amount relative to income? The closest I can find is health spending as % of GDP but that doesn't capture what a person's income, since it includes government spending too, so it obfuscates whether or not the inefficiency (if any) lies in private or public healthcare in the US.