The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
December 2008 (Volume 86)
Quarterly Article
Tanya G.K. Bentley
Rachel M. Effros
Kartika Palar
Emmett B. Keeler
December 2024
Dec 19, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Context: Health care costs in the United States are much higher than those in industrial countries with similar or better health system performance. Wasteful spending has many undesirable consequences that could be alleviated through waste reduction. This article proposes a conceptual framework to guide researchers and policymakers in evaluating waste, implementing waste-reduction strategies, and reducing the burden of unnecessary health care spending. Methods: This article divides health care waste into administrative, operational, and clinical waste and provides an overview of each. It explains how researchers have used both high-level and sector- or procedure-specific comparisons to quantify such waste, and it discusses examples and challenges in both waste measurement and waste reduction. Findings: Waste is caused by factors such as health insurance and medical uncertainties that encourage the production of inefficient and low-value services. Various efforts to reduce such waste have encountered challenges, such as the high costs of initial investment, unintended administrative complexities, and trade-offs among patients’, payers’, and providers’ interests. While categorizing waste may help identify and measure general types and sources of waste, successful reduction strategies must integrate the administrative, operational, and clinical components of care, and proceed by identifying goals, changing systemic incentives, and making specific process improvements. Conclusions: Classifying, identifying, and measuring waste elucidate its causes, clarify systemic goals, and specify potential health care reforms that-by improving the market for health insurance and health care-will generate incentives for better efficiency and thus ultimately decrease waste in the U.S. health care system.
Author(s): Tanya G.K. Bentley; Rachel M. Effros; Kartika Palar; Emmett B. Keeler
Keywords: health care waste; health care inefficiency; quality of care; health care reform; administrative; operational; clinical waste
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 86, Issue 4 (pages 629–659) DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00537.x Published in 2008