Introduction #
Health care economics and policy represent critical domains within Health Systems Science that address the efficient allocation of resources, financial sustainability of health systems, and equitable access to care [1,2]. These disciplines integrate principles from economics, public health, and policy analysis to understand how health care systems function, how resources are distributed, and how policy interventions can improve population health outcomes while managing costs [3]. As health care expenditures continue to rise globally, understanding the economic and policy frameworks that shape health care delivery has become increasingly essential for physicians, policymakers, and health system leaders [4].
Fundamental Concepts in Health Economics #
Health economics examines the production, distribution, and consumption of health care services, focusing on efficiency, effectiveness, value, and behavior in relation to health and health care [5]. Unlike traditional economic markets, health care markets exhibit unique characteristics including information asymmetry between providers and patients, the presence of third-party payers, and the unpredictability of health care needs [6]. These market failures necessitate government intervention and regulation to ensure optimal outcomes.
The concept of opportunity cost is fundamental to health economics, recognizing that resources allocated to one intervention cannot be used elsewhere. This principle underlies the importance of comparative effectiveness research and economic evaluation in health care decision-making [7]. Health economists also emphasize the distinction between technical efficiency (producing outputs at minimum cost) and allocative efficiency (producing the optimal mix of outputs given societal preferences and resource constraints) [8].
Health Care Financing Mechanisms #
Health care financing encompasses the methods by which health care services are funded and paid for within a population. The primary financing mechanisms include tax-based systems, social health insurance, private health insurance, and out-of-pocket payments [9]. Most countries achieving universal health coverage utilize a mix of these mechanisms, with the specific combination reflecting national contexts, political priorities, and economic capacity [10,11].
Tax-based systems, exemplified by the Beveridge model in countries like the United Kingdom and Spain, finance health care through general taxation and provide services to all citizens [12]. Social health insurance systems, following the Bismarck model in Germany and other European nations, rely on mandatory payroll contributions from employers and employees to fund health coverage [13]. The United States represents a hybrid system with multiple payers including Medicare, Medicaid, employer-sponsored insurance, and individual market plans, resulting in higher administrative costs and coverage gaps [14,15].
Recent evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that health financing mechanisms significantly impact system resilience and equity. Countries with stronger public financing mechanisms and universal coverage were better positioned to absorb pandemic-related shocks and maintain service delivery [16,18]. Fiscal capacity for health can be enhanced through increased domestic revenues, innovative taxation mechanisms, budget reprioritization toward health, and efficiency gains [16].
Universal Health Coverage #
Universal health coverage aims to ensure that all people receive essential health services without experiencing financial hardship [19,20]. The World Health Organization defines UHC through three dimensions: population coverage (who is covered), service coverage (which services are covered), and financial protection (what proportion of costs are covered) [15,19]. Achieving UHC requires addressing both the breadth and depth of coverage while ensuring quality and accessibility of services.
No country has achieved universal coverage through voluntary insurance as the primary financing mechanism due to adverse selection and exclusion of vulnerable populations [13,15]. Successful UHC implementation requires compulsory participation through taxation or mandates, progressive financing where the wealthy contribute proportionally more, and risk pooling across large populations to spread financial risk [20]. Countries like Thailand and Brunei have made substantial progress toward UHC through high political commitment, comprehensive benefit packages, and minimal cost-sharing requirements [20].
The path to universal coverage must prioritize vulnerable populations including informal sector workers, migrants, and low-income families [16,18,20]. Government subsidization for disadvantaged groups has proven effective in expanding coverage and reducing out-of-pocket expenditure, which globally pushes approximately 100 million people below the poverty line annually [20].
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Health Technology Assessment #
Cost-effectiveness analysis represents a systematic approach to comparing the costs and health outcomes of different interventions, providing a framework for rational resource allocation [21,22]. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) has emerged as the primary outcome measure in cost-utility analysis, combining both quantity and quality of life into a single metric [22,27]. The QALY allows comparison across diverse interventions and disease areas, facilitating priority-setting in resource-constrained environments.
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) quantifies the additional cost per additional unit of health gain (typically per QALY) when comparing a new intervention to current practice [22,28]. Willingness-to-pay thresholds, ranging from $50,000 to $200,000 per QALY in the United States, provide benchmarks for determining whether interventions represent good value for money [23,28]. However, these thresholds remain controversial, with ongoing debate about their theoretical foundation and appropriateness across different contexts [21,23].
Health technology assessment (HTA) integrates cost-effectiveness analysis with broader considerations including clinical effectiveness, safety, ethical implications, and organizational impact [21,26]. Organizations like the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) in the United States use systematic HTA processes to inform coverage decisions and price negotiations [26,30]. Despite methodological challenges, cost-effectiveness analysis has become increasingly influential in health care decision-making globally [29].
Value-Based Payment Models #
Value-based payment (VBP) models aim to align financial incentives with improved patient outcomes, quality of care, and cost efficiency, contrasting with traditional fee-for-service payment that rewards volume over value [31,32]. Key VBP models include pay-for-performance, bundled payments, capitation, and shared savings arrangements. These models typically combine global base payments with explicit quality incentives to promote cost-consciousness and care coordination across the continuum of care [36].
Accountable care organizations (ACOs) represent a prominent form of value-based care, bringing together groups of providers who accept shared responsibility for quality and costs for a defined patient population [37,38]. Medicare’s Shared Savings Program has enrolled over 11 million beneficiaries (approximately 20% of traditional Medicare enrollees) in ACOs, though financial savings have been modest, ranging from 0.2% to 0.3% annually [33,34,40]. Evidence suggests ACOs have achieved some success in reducing unnecessary hospitalizations and improving care coordination, though impacts on overall costs remain limited [38,39].
Implementation of value-based care faces several challenges including inadequate risk adjustment for socially complex patients, administrative burden on providers, and difficulty measuring long-term outcomes [33,34]. Primary care physicians are more likely to participate in value-based arrangements compared to specialists, with rural and safety-net providers facing particular barriers to participation [39,40]. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services aims to have all Medicare beneficiaries in accountable, value-based care arrangements by 2030, though achieving this goal will require addressing persistent implementation challenges [37,40].
Health Disparities and Social Determinants of Health #
Social determinants of health—the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age—exert more influence on health outcomes than genetic factors or access to health care services [42,44,45]. These nonmedical factors include socioeconomic status, education, employment, housing, food security, neighborhood environment, and social support networks [47,48]. Income inequality within countries has nearly doubled over the past two decades and serves as a major driver of health inequities, with the top 10% of individuals earning 15 times more than the bottom 50% across 201 countries [41].
Health disparities—preventable differences in health and health care across population groups—persist along lines of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geography, and other dimensions [43,46]. In the United States, racial and ethnic minorities experience higher rates of chronic diseases, maternal mortality, and premature death compared to white populations, driven largely by structural racism and unequal distribution of social and economic resources [46,50]. Black infants face infant mortality rates more than twice those of white infants, with disparities widening in recent years [50].
Addressing social determinants requires multi-sectoral approaches extending beyond the health care system [42,48]. Place-based initiatives that coordinate across education, housing, employment, and health sectors show promise in improving community-level outcomes [48]. Health systems are increasingly implementing screening for social needs and connecting patients to community resources, though evidence on effectiveness of such interventions remains limited [48]. Achieving health equity necessitates addressing root causes including income inequality, structural discrimination, and inadequate investment in social protection systems [41,49].
Pharmaceutical Pricing and Policy #
Pharmaceutical expenditures represent a significant and rapidly growing component of health care costs globally, with high drug prices threatening affordability and access to essential medicines [51,52]. Countries employ diverse pricing policies including price controls, reference pricing, value-based pricing, reimbursement restrictions, and promotion of generic competition [51,52,58]. The World Health Organization emphasizes that pharmaceutical pricing policies should explicitly focus on achieving affordable and equitable access to quality-assured products while maintaining supply security and value for money [52].
In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced the first federal drug price negotiation for Medicare, marking a fundamental shift from the previous free-pricing market [54,60]. The legislation authorizes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to negotiate prices for high-expenditure drugs lacking generic competition, with initial negotiations covering ten drugs [54,60]. While projected to reduce costs for Medicare beneficiaries, stakeholders have raised concerns about potential impacts on pharmaceutical innovation and development priorities [60].
International evidence demonstrates that price regulation can reduce drug costs and improve affordability, though concerns persist about effects on research and development [57,59]. Generic competition represents the most effective mechanism for price reduction, with generic prices typically 20-90% lower than originator products [59]. Accelerating generic and biosimilar approvals, particularly for “first generic” applications, can substantially reduce costs while maintaining therapeutic access [57]. Pooled procurement across multiple purchasers has proven effective in lowering prices, with benefits particularly pronounced in settings with lower institutional quality or higher corruption [58].
Policy Implications and Future Directions #
Sustainable health care financing requires balancing multiple objectives including universal coverage, financial protection, quality improvement, and cost containment [10,11]. As countries pursue universal health coverage, progressive taxation and increased public health expenditure will be essential to reduce reliance on out-of-pocket payments that impoverish millions annually [16,20]. Digital health technologies offer opportunities to enhance efficiency and access, though attention to equity is critical to avoid exacerbating existing disparities [10].
Value-based payment transformation must address implementation barriers including inadequate risk adjustment, administrative complexity, and uneven participation across provider types and geographies [40]. Future payment models should incorporate measures of health equity, ensure adequate resources for primary care and prevention, and provide technical assistance to safety-net providers [32,37]. Cost-effectiveness analysis will remain central to priority-setting, though methodologies must evolve to better capture distributional concerns and long-term population health impacts [21,26].
Addressing health disparities requires policy action beyond health care, including investment in education, housing, employment, and community infrastructure [48,49]. Health systems must integrate social needs screening with robust linkages to community resources and policy advocacy [42,50]. Pharmaceutical pricing reform should balance affordability with innovation incentives, utilizing value-based pricing frameworks and international reference pricing while accelerating generic competition [51,52,57].
Conclusion #
Health care economics and policy provide essential frameworks for understanding and improving health system performance. As health care costs continue to rise and inequities persist, evidence-based policy interventions guided by economic principles will be critical for achieving universal coverage, ensuring value for money, and promoting health equity. Physicians and health system leaders must engage with economic and policy perspectives to advocate effectively for patients and populations while stewarding scarce resources responsibly.
References #
[1] Zwack CC, Haghani M, de Bekker-Grob EW. Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals. Health Econ Rev. 2024;14:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-023-00471-6
[2] Colombo GL, Di Matteo S, Vinci M. What to expect in 2024: important health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) trends. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2023;15:799-809. https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S453171
[3] Al Meslamani AZ. Challenges in health economics research: insights from real-world examples. J Med Econ. 2024;27(1):215-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2024.2310466
[4] Shaw J, Glover W. The political economy of digital health equity: structural analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e46971. https://doi.org/10.2196/46971
[5] Al Meslamani AZ. Beyond implementation: the long-term economic impact of AI in healthcare. J Med Econ. 2023;26(1):1566-1569. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2023.2285186
[6] Fuchs VR. What every philosopher should know about health economics. Proc Am Philos Soc. 1996;140(2):186-96.
[7] Lakdawalla DN, Phelps CE. Health technology assessment with diminishing returns to health: the generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness (GRACE) approach. Value Health. 2020;24(2):244-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.003
[8] Ivanková V, Kotulič R, Gonos J, et al. Health care financing systems and their effectiveness: an empirical study of OECD countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(20):3839. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203839
[9] Fan VY, Savedoff WD. The health financing transition: a conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Soc Sci Med. 2014;105:112-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.014
[10] Kutzin J. A descriptive framework for country-level analysis of health care financing arrangements. Health Policy. 2001;56(3):171-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-8510(00)00149-4
[11] Alipouri Sakha M, Rashidian A, Bazyar M, et al. Health financing assessment and policy analysis toward universal health coverage: a systematic review of qualitative research. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:7312.
[12] Frenk J. The quest for universal health coverage: achieving social protection for all in Mexico. Lancet. 2012;380(9849):1259-1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61068-X
[13] McKeown T, Blumenthal D, Abrams MK. Envisioning a better U.S. health care system for all: coverage and cost of care. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(2_Supplement):S7-S32. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-2415
[14] Artiga S, Hinton E. Beyond health care: the role of social determinants in promoting health and health equity. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2018.
[15] Choudhury M, Sinha S, Acharya S. Universal health coverage—exploring the what, how, and why using realist review. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023;3(3):e0003330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0003330
[16] Chotchoungchatchai S, Patcharanarumol W, Chongsuvivatwong V, et al. Health financing policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for universal health care: a case study of 15 countries. Lancet Glob Health. 2023;11(12):e1772-e1782. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00448-5
[17] Prakongsai P, Sumalee H, Tosanguan J, Mills A. Promoting universal financial protection: how the Thai universal coverage scheme was designed to ensure equity. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-11-25
[18] Chotchoungchatchai S, Patcharanarumol W, Chongsuvivatwong V, et al. Health financing policies during the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for universal health care: a case study of 15 countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:1173. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10132-x
[19] Ebrahim S. The impact of health insurance schemes for the informal sector in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. World Bank Res Obs. 2012;28(2):236-266.
[20] Myint CY, Pavlova M, Thein KNN, Groot W. A systematic review of the health-financing mechanisms in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations countries and the People’s Republic of China: lessons for the move towards universal health coverage. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(6):e0217278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217278
[21] Garrison LP, Zamora B, Li M, Towse A. Controversy over using quality-adjusted life-years in cost-effectiveness analyses: a systematic literature review. Health Aff. 2022;41(5):618-626. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.00343
[22] Ramos IC, Santos Silva AV, Costa BD, et al. A review of cost-effectiveness analysis: from theory to clinical practice. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2023;69(9):e20230486. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20230486
[23] Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost-effectiveness — the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:796-797. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1405158
[26] Neumann PJ, Willke RJ, Garrison LP Jr. A health economics approach to US value assessment frameworks—introduction: an ISPOR Special Task Force report. Value Health. 2018;21(2):119-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.12.012
[27] Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 1):S5-S9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x
[28] Vanness DJ, Lomas J, Ahn H. Is the choice of cost-effectiveness threshold in cost-utility analysis endogenous to the resulting value of technology? A systematic review. MDM Policy Pract. 2024;9(1):23814683241227341. https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683241227341
[29] Robinson S. Cost-effectiveness analysis for clinicians. Aus Prescr. 2012;35(4):131-134. https://doi.org/10.18773/austprescr.2012.058
[30] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Assessing cost effectiveness. NICE Guideline Manual. 2012.
[31] van der Klauw D, Molema C, Grooten L, et al. The impact of value-based payment models for networks of care and transmural care: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:367. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09265-1
[32] American Academy of Family Physicians. Value-based payment models for primary care. AAFP Position Paper. 2024.
[33] Tufts Medical Center. Value-based healthcare payment models: a wolf in sheep’s clothing for patients and clinicians. Ann Med. 2024;56(1):2382948. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2024.2382948
[34] Kahn JG, Sullivan KR. Promise vs. practice: the actual financial performance of accountable care organizations. Health Aff Blog. 2022.
[36] Cattel D, Eijkenaar F, Schut FT. Value-based provider payment initiatives combining global payments with explicit quality incentives: a systematic review. Med Care Res Rev. 2020;77(6):511-537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558719856775
[37] Lewis C, Horstman C, Blumenthal D, Abrams MK. Value-based care: what it is, and why it’s needed. Commonwealth Fund. 2023. https://doi.org/10.26099/8fvj-9104
[38] National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Alternative payment models, value-based payments, and health disparities. NAIC Report. 2023.
[39] Patel KB, Turner K, Alishahi Tabriz A, Gonzalez BD. Who participates in value-based care models? Physician characteristics and implications for value-based care. Health Aff Scholar. 2024;2(8):qxae087. https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae087
[40] Hoagland GW, Kumar N, Hayford T, Dieguez G. The future of value-based payment: a road map to 2030. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania. 2023.
[41] World Health Organization. World report on social determinants of health equity. WHO. 2024.
[42] Chelak HR, Ramezani E, Nourozi R, et al. The role of social determinants of health in promoting health equality: a narrative review. Cureus. 2023;15(1):e33425. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.33425
[43] Radley DC, Shah A, Collins SR, Powe NR, Zephyrin LC. Advancing racial equity in U.S. health care: the Commonwealth Fund 2024 state health disparities report. Commonwealth Fund. 2024. https://doi.org/10.26099/vw02-fa96
[44] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Social determinants of health. CDC Priority Areas. 2024.
[45] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NCHHSTP. Social determinants of health. Health Equity Resources. 2025.
[46] Macias-Konstantopoulos WL, Collins KA, Duber HC, et al. Race, healthcare, and health disparities: a critical review and recommendations for advancing health equity. West J Emerg Med. 2023;24(5):906-918. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.58408
[47] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Social determinants of health. Healthy People 2030. 2024.
[48] Artiga S, Hinton E. Beyond health care: the role of social determinants in promoting health and health equity. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2018.
[49] World Health Organization. Social determinants of health. WHO Fact Sheet. 2024.
[50] Gilbert KL, Ransome Y, Dean LT, et al. Achieving the health equity agenda through transformative community-engaged strategies. Prev Chronic Dis. 2023;20:E77. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd20.230077
[51] Moorkens E, Vulto AG, Huys I, et al. Systematic reviews of ten pharmaceutical pricing policies—a research protocol. Syst Rev. 2020;9:165. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01420-4
[52] World Health Organization. WHO guideline on country pharmaceutical pricing policies. WHO. 2020.
[57] Thakor RT, Anaya N, Zhang Y, et al. Pharmaceutical price regulation and its impact on drug innovation: mitigating the trade-offs. Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2021;31(3):225-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/13543776.2021.1876029
[58] World Health Organization. Systematic reviews for the update of the WHO Guideline on country pharmaceutical pricing policies. WHO Technical Report. 2020.
[59] Leopold C, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Vogler S, et al. Determinants of drug prices: a systematic review of comparison studies. BMJ Open. 2021;11(7):e046917. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046917
[60] Fuller CJ, Mathis K, Woelfel S. Stakeholder perspectives of the Inflation Reduction Act’s (2022) impact on prescription drugs: a narrative review. Cureus. 2023;15(12):e50441. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.50441
7 min read
