Health and dental care expenditures in the United States from 1996 to 2016.

INTRODUCTION: As total health and dental care expenditures in the United States continue to rise, healthcare disparities for low to middle-income Americans creates an imperative to analyze existing expenditures. This study examined health and dental care expenditures in the United States from 1996 to 2016 and explored trends in spending across various population subgroups.
METHODS: Using data collected by the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, this study examined health and dental care expenditures in the United States from 1996 to 2016. Trends in spending were displayed graphically and spending across subgroups examined. All expenditures were adjusted for inflation or deflation to the 2016 dollar.
RESULTS: Both total health and dental expenditures increased between 1996 and 2016 with total healthcare expenditures increasing from $838.33 billion in 1996 to $1.62 trillion in 2016, a 1.9-fold increase. Despite an overall increase, total expenditures slowed between 2004 and 2012 with the exception of the older adult population. Over the study period, expenditures increased across all groups with the greatest increases seen in older adult health and dental care. The per capita geriatric dental care expenditure increased 59% while the per capita geriatric healthcare expenditure increased 50% across the two decades. For the overall US population, the per capita dental care expenditure increased 27% while the per capita healthcare expenditure increased 60% over the two decades. All groups except the uninsured experienced increased dental care expenditure over the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare spending is not inherently bad since it brings benefits while exacting costs. Our findings indicate that while there were increases in both health and dental care expenditures from 1996 to 2016, these increases were non-uniform both across population subgroups and time. Further research to understand these trends in detail will be helpful to develop strategies to address health and dental care disparities and to maximize resource utilization.

Introduction

Over the past two decades, United States health and dental care expenditures have continued to increase in growth despite efforts to decrease spending. [1] Previous studies suggest that factors such as increased deductibles and copayments, improved delivery system efficiency, expiration of expensive drug patents, and evidenced-based approaches to costly medical innovations may have also contributed to the slowdown of healthcare expenditure. [2-4] However, low and middle-income Americans disproportionally experience the slowest spending growth, skewing overall health spending towards higher-income Americans [3] and widening the gap in spending between the poor and the wealthy. [5] While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to address healthcare spending disparities by expanding Medicaid, inequalities in health spending persist. [6]

A key component of the Medicaid expansion was a mandatory dental benefit for children. [7] This adoption significantly changed the pediatric dental care landscape by no longer restricting dental coverage only to low income children. [7] While the ACA did not make adult dental care mandatory, it did provide opportunities for adults to obtain dental benefits through the insurance exchanges. [7, 8] As a result, about 8.3 million adults gained dental care benefits beyond emergency care since the ACA became law in 2010. [7] However, provider reimbursement and benefit coverage affect the likelihood of utilizing dental services and poor reimbursement for dentists participating in public health programs may contribute to the steady decline in dental care utilization among adults. [9, 10] As more senior citizens and low-income adults shift away from dental coverage to Medicaid, the ratio of Medicaid to private dental insurance plans has been reduced dramatically across 36 states and may impact dental expenditure. [7, 11, 12]

In 2012, annual healthcare expenditure in the United States amounted to $1.3 trillion with dental care representing approximately $85 billion of the total costs. [12] Of the $85 billion spent on dental care, Medicaid and Medicare accounted for $5.5 billion while $76 billion was either paid out-of-pocket or by private dental insurances. [2] Although dental costs are a relatively small percentage of the total expenditures, it remains a sizeable expenditure which should not be ignored. In addition, spending for oral health is an important issue since oral health contributes significantly to overall health and poor oral health is associated with chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease.

Understanding health and dental care expenditures can help direct future planning and guide reform healthcare programs accordingly. [13-15] From the public payer perspective the anticipation that Medicaid enrollment will double or even triple makes it critically important to understand expenditure trends. [7, 16] Though previous research examined overall health and dental care expenditures, these studies were limited because their research design focused on limited samples, settings and narrow time frames. [17, 18] This study adds to the literature by using national samples that are representative of the United States’ population to describe trends in health and dental care expenditures over the past two decades. It further augments the literature by exploring trends both before and after the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2012. In addition, we investigated the trends of expenditures across demographic groups sand insurance coverage.

Methods

This study was descriptive in nature and examined health and dental care expenditures from 1996 to 2016 for the United States noninstitutionalized population. Longitudinal data were obtained from the 1996–2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Household Component, a nationally representative study of the United States civilian, noninstitutionalized population collected annually and sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [11] MEPS provides information about a respondent’s demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, health state and access to care and represents a complete data source on the health and dental expenditures by individuals and families in the nation. A more detailed description of MEPS is provided at https://www.meps.ahrq.gov/. Per federal regulations (45 CFR 46, category 4), this study is deemed exempt and does not require review from Institutional Review Board since the data were deidentified and publicly available.

Initial data processing began with merging all data from the 1996 to 2016 MEPS. Demographic characteristics were examined for all respondents from 1996 to 2016. Descriptive statistics of health and dental care expenditures were calculated and graphical representations displayed, stratifying by various groups such as age, gender, marital status, race, income and insurance coverage. Health and dental care expenditures included expenses such as inpatient and outpatient visits and drug expenditure. The per capita average expenditure as well as total expenditures were computed. For the total expenditures, the sum of all expenditures is reported. Total income was calculated based on the working age population from 15 to 64 years old. To compute the statistics for the geriatric population, we defined this group as adults aged 65 years and over.

In order to account for the effect of inflation or deflation over the study period, we adjusted all expenditures to the dollar values reflective of the year 2016 using inflation rates (or deflation rates when appropriate) published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. MEPS uses a complex sample design including stratification, clustering and disproportionate sampling. The survey design was taken into consideration, and to enable the study findings to be representative of the United States population, we applied sampling weights to estimate expenditures in the population. Application of sampling weights is warranted because some population subgroups could have small or disproportionate sample sizes and applying sampling technique can provide sufficient sample size for statistical analyses leading to better precision. [19]

Results

Demographics

Table 1 summarizes the demographic and economic characteristics of the study population which consisted of 690,298 participants over the twenty-year period of 1996 to 2016. The mean age was 34.5 years old (standard deviation = 22.4). Approximately one-fourth of the study population was age 16 and younger, and 52% were female. The mean income was $26,070 (standard deviation = $30,556) and 57% of the population had private health insurance coverage.

Table 1

Demographic characteristics.

Variable	Description	N*	%*	Mean	SD	Median
AGE	Age (year)	684,381		34.5	22.4	33.0
TTLP	Person’s total income ($)	690,298		26,070	30,556	17,960
INSCOV	Insurance coverage
	Private	392,680	56.9
	Public	188,316	27.3
	Uninsured	109,302	15.8
SEX	Sex
	Male	329689	47.8
	Female	360609	52.2
MARRY	Marital status
	Married	257,494	37.3
	Widowed	33,302	4.8
	Divorced	53,923	7.8
	Separated	13,404	1.9
	Never married	155,357	22.5
	Under 16 –N/A	176,283	25.6

Healthcare expenditure

There was an increasing trend in total healthcare expenditures in the United States between 1996 and 2016 across all groups with a 1.9-fold increase from $838.33 billion in 1996 to $1.62 trillion in 2016 (Table 2, Fig 1). Over the same time period, healthcare expenditure for older adults increased by 2.3-fold from $243.12 billion in 1996 to $566.75 billion in 2016 (Table 2, Fig 1), making the increase in health expenditure approximately one-fourth greater for older adults compared to the general adult population.

Table 2

Total healthcare expenditures in the United States.

Year	Total healthcare expenditures	Total healthcare expenditures (Adjusted to 2016 US dollars)	Total geriatric healthcare expenditures	Total geriatric healthcare expenditures (Adjusted to 2016 US dollars)
1996	$548.04 billion	$838.33 billion	$158.94 billion	$243.12 billion
1997	$553.24 billion	$827.30 billion	$169.98 billion	$254.19 billion
1998	$560.59 billion	$825.44 billion	$171.97 billion	$253.22 billion
1999	$596.07 billion	$858.71 billion	$178.83 billion	$257.63 billion
2000	$627.89 billion	$875.14 billion	$182.31 billion	$254.09 billion
2001	$726.35 billion	$984.92 billion	$218.05 billion	$295.67 billion
2002	$810.72 billion	$1.08 trillion	$248.17 billion	$331.09 billion
2003	$895.52 billion	$1.17 trillion	$274.89 billion	$358.57 billion
2004	$963.88 billion	$1.22 trillion	$298.48 billion	$379.23 billion
2005	$1.02 trillion	$1.26 trillion	$303.33 billion	$372.77 billion
2006	$1.03 trillion	$1.23 trillion	$304.97 billion	$363.07 billion
2007	$1.12 trillion	$1.30 trillion	$334.67 billion	$387.39 billion
2008	$1.14 trillion	$1.28 trillion	$342.68 billion	$382.00 billion
2009	$1.26 trillion	$1.40 trillion	$363.58 billion	$406.75 billion
2010	$1.26 trillion	$1.39 trillion	$386.27 billion	$425.15 billion
2011	$1.33 trillion	$1.41 trillion	$394.93 billion	$421.39 billion
2012	$1.35 trillion	$1.41 trillion	$395.54 billion	$413.48 billion
2013	$1.40 trillion	$1.44 trillion	$419.99 billion	$432.69 billion
2014	$1.50 trillion	$1.52 trillion	$478.17 billion	$484.78 billion
2015	$1.60 trillion	$1.62 trillion	$520.73 billion	$527.30 billion
2016	$1.62 trillion	$1.62 trillion	$566.75 billion	$566.75 billion

Fig 1

Total health care expenditures in the United States (Entire population versus 65 years and older).

Although between 1996 and 2016 total health expenditures demonstrated an overall increase, there was not a consistent annual upward trend. In fact, total healthcare expenditures experienced a steep increase from 2000 to 2004 (at a rate of $31.29 billion per year), and then slowed from 2004 to 2011 (to a rate of $6.02 billion per year), and resumed a steep upward trend again from 2012 to 2016 (to a rate of $38.56 billion per year) (Fig 3). Overall, the average healthcare expenditure per person in the United States increased by over 60% during the two decades, from $3,118 in 1996 to $5,006 in 2016 (Table 3, Fig 2). For the elderly population, the per capita increase in healthcare expenditure was over 50% spanning the two decades, from $7,530 in 1996 to $11,358 in 2016 (Table 3).

Fig 3

Annual average health care expenditure per person across subgroups in the United States.

Table 3

Average healthcare expenditure per person in the United States.

Year	Average healthcare expenditure	Average healthcare expenditure (Adjusted to 2016 US dollars)	Average geriatric healthcare expenditure	Average geriatric healthcare expenditure (Adjusted to 2016 US dollars)
1996	$2,038	$3,118	$4,922	$7,530
1997	$2,039	$3,050	$5,238	$7,832
1998	$2,049	$3,018	$5,253	$7,734
1999	$2,156	$3,107	$5,455	$7,859
2000	$2,255	$3,143	$5,483	$7,643
2001	$2,555	$3,465	$6,322	$8,571
2002	$2,813	$3,753	$7,158	$9,551
2003	$3,082	$4,020	$7,787	$10,158
2004	$3,284	$4,172	$8,333	$10,587
2005	$3,457	$4,248	$8,415	$10,343
2006	$3,452	$4,110	$8,368	$9,965
2007	$3,737	$4,326	$8,970	$10,383
2008	$3,773	$4,206	$8,975	$10,007
2009	$4,107	$4,595	$9,373	$10,485
2010	$4,094	$4,507	$9,702	$10,678
2011	$4,277	$4,564	$9,397	$10,027
2012	$4,309	$4,504	$9,029	$9,438
2013	$4,436	$4,570	$9,327	$9,610
2014	$4,708	$4,774	$10,269	$10,412
2015	$4,978	$5,040	$10,861	$10,999
2016	$5,006	$5,006	$11,358	$11,358

Fig 2

Average health care expenditure per person in the United States (Entire population versus 65 years and older).

Fig 3 presents the annual average healthcare expenditure per person across subgroups in the United States. Those who were widowed had the highest per person healthcare spending throughout all twenty years, followed closely by the geriatric population. In recent years, divorced individuals rose more than single or married individuals in healthcare spending. The uninsured group had the lowest per person healthcare spending across the two decades. Those with public healthcare insurance spent substantially more than those with private health insurance and females spent substantially more than males. Asians demonstrated lower average healthcare spending compared to Caucasians and African Americans.

Dental care expenditure

From 1996 to 2016, total dental care expenditures across all demographic groups increased by about 1.5-fold from $66.00 billion in 1996 to $101.26 billion in 2016 (Table 4). In contrast, over the same time period, total geriatric dental care expenditures increased 2.5-fold from $9.14 billion to $22.51 billion.

Table 4

Total dental care expenditures in the United States.

Year	Total dental care expenditures	Total dental care expenditures (Adjusted to 2016 US dollars)	Total geriatric dental care expenditures	Total geriatric dental care expenditures (Adjusted to 2016 US dollars)
1996	$43.14 billion	$66.00 billion	$5.97 billion	$9.14 billion
1997	$44.50 billion	$66.54 billion	$5.66 billion	$8.46 billion
1998	$49.04 billion	$72.21 billion	$6.52 billion	$9.60 billion
1999	$52.20 billion	$75.20 billion	$7.01 billion	$10.10 billion
2000	$55.55 billion	$77.42 billion	$7.33 billion	$10.22 billion
2001	$59.49 billion	$80.67 billion	$7.64 billion	$10.36 billion
2002	$64.30 billion	$85.78 billion	$8.53 billion	$11.38 billion
2003	$66.97 billion	$87.35billion	$8.70 billion	$11.35 billion
2004	$71.77 billion	$91.19 billion	$9.85 billion	$12.52 billion
2005	$72.47 billion	$89.06 billion	$11.30 billion	$13.88 billion
2006	$76.32 billion	$90.86 billion	$11.16 billion	$13.29 billion
2007	$82.04 billion	$94.96 billion	$12.94 billion	$14.98 billion
2008	$84.08 billion	$93.73 billion	$13.64 billion	$15.20 billion
2009	$83.39 billion	$93.29 billion	$12.96 billion	$14.50 billion
2010	$83.11 billion	$91.48 billion	$14.11 billion	$15.53 billion
2011	$85.15 billion	$90.85 billion	$14.89 billion	$15.89 billion
2012	$84.81 billion	$88.66 billion	$16.92 billion	$17.69 billion
2013	$91.83 billion	$94.60 billion	$17.20 billion	$17.72 billion
2014	$91.87 billion	$93.14 billion	$19.61 billion	$19.88 billion
2015	$95.91 billion	$97.12 billion	$20.97 billion	$21.23 billion
2016	$101.26 billion	$101.26 billion	$22.51 billion	$22.51 billion

Although dental expenditure showed an increase over the study period, similar to overall healthcare expenditure, the increase was also non-linear and included periods of decline. Total dental expenditures decreased from $91.19 billion in 2004 to $89.06 billion in 2005 (Table 4, Fig 4). Interestingly, dental expenditure exhibited a marked drop from 2007 to 2012, where total dental expenditures decreased $6.3 billion from $94.96 billion to $88.66 billion, paralleling the global economic trend of the Great Recession. However, total geriatric dental expenditures did not show a similarly substantial drop over the 2007 to 2012time span (Fig 4). Instead the data revealed three time periods each with relatively smaller decreases. Geriatric dental care expenditure decreased from $9.14 billion in 1996 to $8.46 billion in 1997, from $13.88 billion in 2005 to $13.29 billion in 2006, and from $15.20 billion in 2008 to $14.50 billion in 2009. Despite these three periods of small declines, total geriatric dental expenditures experienced an overall increase.

Fig 4

Total dental care expenditures in the United States (Entire population versus 65 years and older).

In 2015, dental expenditure displayed a dramatic $4 billion increase, the largest annual increase in cost and one that resulted in total dental expenditures rising to $97.12 billion. From 1996 to 2016, average dental expenditure per person in the United States paralleled trends in total dental care expenditures for the overall population. Average per person dental expenditure grew from $245.30 in 1997 to $310.69 in 2004 (Table 5, Fig 5), but started to decrease in 2008 and lowered to $292.52 in 2014, being comparable to where they stood in the early 2000’s. Across the two decades, the average dental expenditure per person increased 27% from $245.44 to $313.37 for the overall population, and increased 59% from $283.29 to $451.02 for the elderly population.

Table 5

Average dental care expenditure per person in the United States.

Year	Average dental care expenditure	Average dental care expenditure (Adjusted to 2016 US dollars)	Average geriatric dental care expenditure	Average geriatric dental care expenditure (Adjusted to 2016 US dollars)
1996	$160.45	$245.44	$185.15	$283.29
1997	$164.04	$245.30	$174.49	$260.88
1998	$179.30	$264.01	$199.33	$293.48
1999	$188.86	$272.08	$213.89	$308.16
2000	$199.53	$278.10	$220.69	$307.60
2001	$209.32	$283.83	$221.53	$300.31
2002	$223.14	$297.69	$246.15	$328.45
2003	$230.46	$300.61	$246.54	$321.59
2004	$244.53	$310.69	$275.17	$349.60
2005	$244.70	$300.72	$313.51	$385.35
2006	$255.03	$303.62	$306.48	$364.95
2007	$272.29	$315.19	$346.98	$401.64
2008	$276.25	$307.95	$357.30	$398.39
2009	$271.96	$304.25	$334.27	$373.91
2010	$269.35	$296.46	$354.51	$390.16
2011	$273.70	$292.03	$354.52	$378.30
2012	$270.56	$282.83	$386.26	$403.80
2013	$290.86	$299.66	$382.01	$393.58
2014	$288.53	$292.52	$421.13	$426.99
2015	$298.42	$302.18	$437.35	$442.91
2016	$313.37	$313.37	$451.02	$451.02

Fig 5

Average dental care expenditure per person in the United States (Entire population versus 65 years and older).

Fig 6 shows the annual average dental care expenditure per person across subgroups in the United States. In most cases, the average dental care expenditure followed similar patterns with the exception of a few groups whose patterns differed from the average healthcare expenditure. The geriatric population experienced higher dental spending throughout the two decades, rising to the top in recent years. Those with private insurance also had very high dental expenditure and closely matched the geriatric population. Those with public health insurance spent substantially less in dental care than those with private health insurance. Caucasians experienced higher dental care expenditure compared to Asians and African Americans. Those who were widowed and those who were divorced experienced wider swings in spending with more dramatic increases and decreases in dental spending throughout the past two decades.

Fig 6

Annual average dental care expenditure per person across subgroups in the United States.

Fig 7 displays different sources of coverage for dental care expenditures. It is evident that the dental care required the most from out-of-pocket (e.g., self/family amount) for the past two decades. Private insurance coverage came very close to out-of-pocket dental expenses in the recent years.

Fig 7

Different sources of coverage for dental care expenditures.

Discussion

This study captures the most recent trends in health and dental care expenditures before and after the 2007–2009 financial crisis, and represents the most comprehensive longitudinal study examining health and dental care expenditures disaggregated by subgroups. Overall, both health and dental care expenditures per person have increased over the last two decades. Using a nationally representative database, we found that per person dental expenditure increased from $245 in 1999 to $313 in 2016 representing an average annual growth rate of 2.2%, though the growth rate for each year was not uniform. The decreases seen in 2007 to 2012 are most likely a consequence of the United States financial crisis, since annual spending started to increase again in the following years. However, average dental expenditure decreased over 10% from 2007 to 2012, while in contrast the average healthcare expenditure increased more than 4% over the same period suggesting that dental care may be more sensitive to an economic downturn than medical care. Understanding why this occurred will be important in the event of a future economic downturn. Another key finding was the inconsistent growth of dental expenditure across different social demographics. This study found the largest increases in spending in individuals 65 years and older, where dental expenditure per person nearly doubled with total healthcare expenditures nearly tripling.

Understanding which population groups drive health and dental care expenditures is important for addressing disparities in care and in balancing cost and benefit. The inconsistencies in spending across groups may reflect factors such as the healthcare environment or social barriers rather than major changes in medical or dental practice. For example, the influx of millions of Baby Boomers could create an increased demand for health and dental services that might affect the per capita cost of care. Since more older adults retain teeth due to advances in health and dental care, geriatric dental expenditure could increase. Moreover, enhanced application of dental implants that support prosthetic treatment have become more affordable over the last twenty years. In addition, more general dentists receive implant training, making it a more commonly used procedure and potentially contributing to the observed growth in dental expenditures.

Lower dental care spending for those with public health insurance and high out-of-pocket dental expenses raise questions about appropriately matching need to spending and whether Medicare and Medicaid system-level reform which includes sufficient dental coverage might be a cost-effective strategy to improve the nation’s health. After all, oral health is the gateway to an individual’s overall health and well-being and an investment in oral health could potentially reduce overall healthcare expenditure. [19] One example of investment benefiting both healthcare expenditure and outcomes is the reduction of acute cardiac events attributed to the wider use of use of medications for cardiovascular risk factors. Public healthcare financing policies that endorse Medicare and Medicaid dental care insurance coverage for citizens with unmet dental needs might yield a similar benefit. For example, seniors without adequate insurance might avoid preventive care or delay dental care, potentially shifting expenditures to costlier treatments. Future research targeted at dissecting the results reported by this study will be helpful in directing policy and strategies to maximize the health and dental services cost benefit ratio for individuals with unmet needs.

The trends identified by this study raise questions about the drivers of health expenditure that are important for assessing administrative costs and for setting targets to avoid wasteful spending. This study also adds to existing knowledge about disparities in expenditures across population groups, by characterizing where gaps keep widening [20-22] and providing useful benchmarks to evaluate policy interventions. Traditionally, older adults face challenges accessing dental care [23, 24] despite programs aimed at improving dental care plans for older patients. [23-25] While older adults receiving more dental care is certainly positive, expanding healthcare costs make measuring cost/benefit ratios important. As the uninsured or underinsured populations experience lower expenditures and unmet dental care, they also provide a standard to gauge the impact of interventions such as publicly funded portable and mobile dentistry clinics introduced by the 2017 Action for Dental Health Act. Funding these clinics could theoretically decrease healthcare expenditure by reducing the non-emergency burden on emergency departments and restore productivity lost to dental disease affecting underserved adult and pediatric populations. [26] Again, future research assessing the impact of these interventions on expenditures will be important for directing funds and policies.

Limitations

Like all studies, this study does have limitations. The study used data from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population collected by MEPS, thus the interpretation should not be extended to the institutionalized population. Since MEPS collected data from noninstitutionalized population, our study did not include groups such as nursing home residents who are often a high cost and older population. Second, MEPS expenditures are lower than the National Health Expenditure Accounts database suggesting that the dependence on household reporting might result in an underreporting of individual medical events. [27] Another issue is that household reporting is potentially subject to misreporting because of a lack of technical knowledge. [27] However, a strength of MEPS is that it represents the most complete medical expenditure database in the United States and the results of this study should be generalizable to the United States population. Another limitation is that the expenditure data reported in this study represent accounting cost but not necessarily including economic cost such as sunk cost. [28] Other potential limitations include the differences in service charges by clinics or practices and sampling variations.

Conclusions

Healthcare spending is affected by many factors including the overall economy, regulations and legislation. For this reason, understanding trends and disparities is important to the society. Our findings indicate that while there are increases in both health and dental care expenditures, these increases are non-uniform both across population subgroups and time. One apparent trend is that dental care is more influenced by changes in the economy than medical expenditures. For the elderly population, the per capita dental care expenditures are growing much faster than the per capita medical expenditures across the two decades. Further research to understand these trends in detail will be helpful to develop strategies to address health and dental care disparities and to maximize resource utilization.

3 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-27729

Health and dental care expenditures in the United States from 1996 to 2016

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hung,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frédéric Denis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that according to our submission guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines), outmoded terms and potentially stigmatizing labels should be changed to more current, acceptable terminology. For example: “Caucasian” should be changed to “white” or “of [Western] European descent” (as appropriate).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: A well written manuscript that highlights the increase in dental expenditure among US geriatric population. As the authors describe,it is important to gain insights on the type of dental expenses this population is incurring. I feel Figure 6 display could be improved by selecting distinct colors for the dotted lines. It is hard to distinguish between lines that have similar colors.

Reviewer #2: This paper examines the trend in medical and dental care spending in the United States for the period from 1996-2016. The paper uses MEPS data. Among the findings are significant spending increases for the older population, and a slowdown in dental spending during the Great Recession. Overall, the paper is on an interesting topic and shows significant promise. However, there is a very important limitation.

The key limitation is that the MEPS data need to be adjusted before they can be used in this fashion. As the authors note (reference 27), the MEPS data do not add to national totals. There are several reasons for this: (1) the institutionalized sample is largely omitted from MEPS: (2) high spenders are underrepresented in MEPS; and (3) not all instances of medical care utilization are reported to MEPS. These three issues mean that total spending in MEPS is significantly below that in the national health accounts. Further, the trends in total spending in MEPS differ from those in national surveys. A methodology has been developed to address the deficiencies in MEPS spending (Rosen et al., https://www.nber.org/papers/w23290). The authors should implement an adjustment like this before undertaking the trend analyses.

In considering the results, I prefer to consider the per capita measures instead of the total measures. The elderly population has increased in number greatly over time. Thus, spending growth will necessarily be more rapid for that group. At minimum, the authors should indicate how much of the relative growth in spending for the elderly is due to demographic changes compared to differential growth in spending per person.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Thankam Paul Thyvalikakath, DMD, PhD

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

25 Feb 2020

Reviewer #1: A well written manuscript that highlights the increase in dental expenditure among US geriatric population. As the authors describe, it is important to gain insights on the type of dental expenses this population is incurring. I feel Figure 6 display could be improved by selecting distinct colors for the dotted lines. It is hard to distinguish between lines that have similar colors.

We appreciate reviewer #1’s time to review our manuscript. We also believe that this study can contribute valuable insights to the public. Per reviewer #1’s suggestion, we improved Figure 6 by using distinct colors to make the dotted lines stand out and have darkened all of the solid and dotted lines and labels to enhance the figure’s quality.

Reviewer #2: This paper examines the trend in medical and dental care spending in the United States for the period from 1996-2016. The paper uses MEPS data. Among the findings are significant spending increases for the older population, and a slowdown in dental spending during the Great Recession. Overall, the paper is on an interesting topic and shows significant promise. However, there is a very important limitation.

The key limitation is that the MEPS data need to be adjusted before they can be used in this fashion. As the authors note (reference 27), the MEPS data do not add to national totals. There are several reasons for this: (1) the institutionalized sample is largely omitted from MEPS: (2) high spenders are underrepresented in MEPS; and (3) not all instances of medical care utilization are reported to MEPS. These three issues mean that total spending in MEPS is significantly below that in the national health accounts. Further, the trends in total spending in MEPS differ from those in national surveys. A methodology has been developed to address the deficiencies in MEPS spending (Rosen et al., https://www.nber.org/papers/w23290). The authors should implement an adjustment like this before undertaking the trend analyses.

In considering the results, I prefer to consider the per capita measures instead of the total measures. The elderly population has increased in number greatly over time. Thus, spending growth will necessarily be more rapid for that group. At minimum, the authors should indicate how much of the relative growth in spending for the elderly is due to demographic changes compared to differential growth in spending per person.

We thank reviewer #2 for the valuable feedback. We recognize the concerns raised by the reviewer and noted these in the limitations section of the paper. (See below).

“The study used data from the civilian, noninstitutionalized population collected by MEPS, thus the interpretation should not be extended to the institutionalized population. Since MEPS collected data from noninstitutionalized population, our study did not include groups such as nursing home residents who are often a high cost and older population. Second, MEPS expenditures are lower than the National Health Expenditure Accounts database suggesting that the dependence on household reporting might result in an underreporting of individual medical events.(27) Another issue is that household reporting is potentially subject to misreporting because of a lack of technical knowledge.(27) However, a strength of MEPS is that it represents the most complete medical expenditure database in the United States and the results of this study should be generalizable to the United States population. Another limitation is that the expenditure data reported in this study represent accounting cost but not necessarily include economic cost such as sunk cost.(28) Other potential limitations include the differences in service charges by clinics or practices and sampling variation.”

However, despite these limitations we believe using MEPS data without an adjustment remains justifiable. Unlike some databases, MEPS uniquely captures personal level data for expenditures, insurance coverage and demographics for the US non-institutionalized population as a whole. AQHR considers MEPS as the most complete database source on healthcare and expense in the US. (1) The continuing design methods used by MEPS and the number of years of available data also makes it a valuable tool for assessing trends in expenditures (2), critical to this paper since one aim was to examine trends over time. Also, for oral health, MEPS provides accurate estimates for dental utilization. Mancek MD and Manski RJ et. al (3) compared three nationally represented databases and recommended that for overall accurate estimates MEPS should be used.

Yet because of limitations in using MEPS reviewer #2 recommended a methodology to adjust for deficiencies in the MEPS database. (4) While we were aware of the papers publishing methods to adjust the MEPS database, we appreciate the reviewer bringing the Rosen paper to our attention. It is both an interesting and thoughtful approach. However, our concern is the suggested methodology relies heavily on several assumptions that we believe would introduce uncertainty and ambiguity to our analysis and potentially raises new questions. Specifically, in the discussion section the Rosen paper cited limitations to their proposed methodology and noted that their adjustment requires multiple assumptions all of which are subject to error. Other investigators attempting similar reconciliations (5, 6, and 7) yielded different reconciliation estimates, highlighting the difficulty, complexity and uncertainty of these adjustments. So, while we understand the rationale for the reviewer’s recommendation, we believe an adjustment as proposed in the Rosen paper adds an additional layer of complexity and adds more limitations that might detract from our paper.

Furthermore, integrating additional databases potentially complicates the analysis of trends over the time period (1996 to 2016) in our paper. For example, for some of the databases (e.g., MCBS, the NNHS, the SISFCF and demographics of the US Army) that Rosen suggested for use in adjustment, the MCBS data prior to 2013 are not publicly available for free, only the 1997, 1999 and 2004 NNHS data are available, only the 1997 and 2004 SISFCF data are available, and the Office of the Army does not have the 1996 and 1997 demographic data publicly available. As one can see, it would be extremely complicated to incorporate these additional databases which have an enormous amount of missing information to adjust for MEPS. A lot of unverifiable assumptions will have to be made of, which can introduce a great level of uncertainty for the adjusted results.

However, the concerns expressed by the reviewer do raise questions that we plan to address in a future paper comparing trends in the populations not covered by MEPS to the trends identified in this paper. We believe that adjusting the data, as suggested by the reviewer for this future study merits a separate paper devoted to this topic.

Finally, we also appreciate the suggestion that results for older adults be reported per capita. We have added these results per reviewer #2’s suggestion throughout the paper using track changes.

References

1. Bernard D, Cowan C, Selden T, Cai L, Catlin A, Heffler S. Reconciling medical expenditure estimates from the MEPS and NHEA, 2007. Medicare & Medicaid Research Review. 2012;2(4).

2. Chu MC. STATISTICAL BRIEF# 420: The Uninsured in America, 1996-2012: Estimates for the US Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population under Age 65. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493868/. Published 2013. Accessed 2/5, 2020.

3. Macek MD, Manski RJ, Vargas CM, Moeller JF. Comparing oral health care utilization estimates in the United States across three nationally representative surveys. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(2):499–521. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.034

4. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/. Accessed 01/22, 2020.

5. Rosen AB, Ghosh K, Pape ES, et al. Strengthening National Data to Better Measure What We Are Buying in Health Care: Reconciling National Health Expenditures with Detailed Survey Data. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series. 2017; No. 23290.

6. Sing M, Banthin JS, Selden TM, Cowan CA, Keehan SP. Reconciling medical expenditure estimates from the MEPS and NHEA, 2002. Health care financing review. 2006;28(1):25.

7. Zuvekas SH, Olin GL. Accuracy of Medicare Expenditures in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing. 2009;46(1):92-108.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - 2020.2.7.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 May 2020

Health and dental care expenditures in the United States from 1996 to 2016

PONE-D-19-27729R1

Dear Dr. Hung,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Frédéric Denis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The major concern of this paper is the use of  the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data base which is criticized. The author highlighted the limitations of the MEPS in the revised version and justified these methodological choices. The reviewer suggested the Rosen paper but this paper had several limitations. As for me, the MEPS data base represents the most complete medical expenditure database in the United States and The continuing design methods used by MEPS and the number of years of available data also makes it a valuable tool for assessing trends in expenditures, critical to this paper since one aim was to examine trends over time.

All methodological approaches have pros and cons and this paper can be accepted.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I raised an issue in my earlier review that the data were not accurate because the MEPS is a selected sample. The authors gave two responses: (1) it would be difficult to fix the issues; and (2) there is error in any adjustment that might be made. The second of these is not a convincing critique. Of course there are errors in adjustments. But how does that justify using data that we know to be incorrect (and which, by the way, are also estimated and adjusted)?

The only real argument is the first one. For many possible adjustments, the correction would likely be small and could be omitted. But for people in skilled nursing facilities, the adjustment could be material. If I were looking for a paper to cite on trends in spending in the elderly population, I would not cite one that did not make an adjustment to MEPS for the institutionalized population.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Thankam Thyvalikakath

Reviewer #2: No

3 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-27729R1

Health and dental care expenditures in the United States from 1996 to 2016

Dear Dr. Hung:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frédéric Denis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE