Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010;8(6):361-71.
doi: 10.2165/11531430-000000000-00000.

The missing technology: an international comparison of human capital investment in healthcare

Bianca K Frogner  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

The missing technology: an international comparison of human capital investment in healthcare

Bianca K Frogner. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010.

Abstract

This article explores human capital investment to understand cross-sectional variation and differences in growth of health spending among the US, Australia and Canada. Using a human capital model developed by Mincer, the article examines how rate of return to schooling and years of schooling impact wage rate levels in healthcare. The model is extended to approximate the probable trajectory of healthcare wage rate growth and thus the impact on health spending. The results suggest that a higher rate of return to schooling and a more educated healthcare workforce in the US may contribute to higher healthcare wage rates and thus contribute to higher health spending levels than in Canada and Australia. The results also suggest that average healthcare wage rates are growing at the rate of potential GDP; healthcare wage rates are not driving the growth of health spending.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mincer model rate of return: relative wage rate versus education through advanced degree.[34,35]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Annual wage rate per healthcare employee estimated using the Mincer model, and potential GDP per capita, 1970–2005. (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) US. Annual wage rate per healthcare employee calculated using equation 9; controlled for inflation (base year 2000). NCU = national currency unit.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Annual wage rate per healthcare employee estimated using the Mincer model, and potential GDP per capita, 1970–2005. (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) US. Annual wage rate per healthcare employee calculated using equation 9; controlled for inflation (base year 2000). NCU = national currency unit.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Annual wage rate per healthcare employee estimated using the Mincer model, and potential GDP per capita, 1970–2005. (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) US. Annual wage rate per healthcare employee calculated using equation 9; controlled for inflation (base year 2000). NCU = national currency unit.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bils M, Klenow PJ. Does schooling cause growth? Am Econ Rev. 2000;90(5):1160–83.
    1. Glied S. Health care costs: on the rise again. J Econ Perspect. 2003 Spring;17(2):125–48. - PubMed
    1. Okunade AA, Murthy VNR. Technology as a ‘major driver’ of health care costs: a cointegration analysis of the Newhouse conjecture. J Health Econ. 2002;21(1):147–59. - PubMed
    1. Weisbrod BA. The health care quadrilemma: an essay on technological change, insurance, quality of care, and cost containment. J Econ Lit. 1991 June;29(2):523–52.
    1. Newhouse JP. Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? J Econ Perspect. 1992 Summer;6(3):3–21. - PubMed

Publication types