Research Evaluation Tables

Although total spending provides insight into overall health care spending, additional indicators are used to measure changes to health care financing. These include the amount spent calculated as a percentage of GDP and the amount spent per capita. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), CIHI reports that health care expenditure decreased from 11.6% of GDP in 2011 to 10.9% of GDP in 2015 (image 2: CIHI spending as percentage of GDP). This decline is corroborated by the World Health Organization (WHO) analysis

Funding health care is continuously changing. It involves payments going and receiving. Allocating resources that impact funding plays a big factor in how economists view health care funding. This includes the rising demand for quality and accessible health care.

Decrease in funding is another economic challenge in health care. The amount of finances coming from various sources not just the

Hilton, R. (2011). Managerial accounting: Creating value in a dynamic business environment (9th Ed.). McGraw-Hill. Hardcover ISBN: 9780073526928.

The World Health Organization ranks the United States as #37 out of 190 for performance. It is evident that even though we are spending more money, we are not able to achieve the desired outcome. The argument has always been that the free market of health care and insurance in this country has created a health care system that is second to none in the world. The statistics do not support this assertion.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), health care spending in the United States has grown at a rate of 3.7 percent since 2012 to $2.8 trillion, costing the U.S. 17.9 percent of total its GDP and ranking it number one spending on health care (Martin et al 67; world bank). Despite having the most expensive healthcare per capita, according to The Commonwealth Fund - a private American foundation dedicated to the promotion of a high performance healthcare system - the U.S. ranks at the bottom of the top ten wealthiest nations in terms of “access, efficiency, and equity” (Davis

The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation, with the goal of encouraging health care systems that produce quality outcomes, greater access, and greater efficiency to the public. As per their 2014 survey, the U.S. ranked last when comparing health care performance (in terms of quality, access, and efficiency) to 10 other industrialized countries. Providers cited frustrations with coordinating care with specialists and hospitals, as well as administrative stresses. Additionally, they found that from the viewpoint of both providers and patients, the U.S. health care system could improve “in achieving the value for that nation’s substantial investment in health”. (Davis, Stremikis,

It also ranks 37th out of the world’s 191 countries in overall health care efficiency according to the World Health Organization. Although this ranking may appear decent at first glance, it becomes apparent that the current system is broken given the context that the “U.S. [spends] more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations” (The Commonwealth Fund). These twelve countries include Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

reimbursements are now tied to performance on quality metrics, as well as patient experience. All part

This proposal will also give a little insight on how our healthcare system compares to other countries and the issues of how just how and why the United States are number 37 on the list for the World Health Organization. This proposal will require a full re-evaluation of our healthcare system, compare the system to one other noted country and look into how

The cost of care has been a growing problem throughout developed nations during the last 15 years. For example, across 34 nations that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the average per capita health care expenditure increased by more than 70 percent between 2000 and 2010. However, the biggest spenders — such as

This worldwide phenomenon has been brought into focus by various health care reforms and other system-level developments (Farrar, Ryan, Ross, and Ludbrook, 2000). Meaning there are more claims on resources than there are resources available, some form of priority setting must occur. This making resources are scarce and there is a need, regardless of how many resources are available in total, to make choices about what to fund and what not to fund.

Shaw of the World Bank, Philip Davies of the World Health Organization, and participants at the

Management accounting researchers (Otley, 1999; Norreklit, 2000) have criticized depending exclusively on financial measures. As referred by Cumby and Conrod (2001), sustainable shareholder value and competitiveness advantages are actually driven by non-financial factors such as employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, internal processes and innovation. As a result, companies started to include non-financial measurements within their PAMs to gain better knowledge about the overall company situation (Ittner and Larcker, 2001; Speckbacher et al, 2003).

The Burns and Scapens framework for analyzing managerial accounting change was built on the study of old institutional economics, which sees "economics as a process of social provision, subject to multiple and cumulative causation." This view culminates in a model that argues that the managerial accounting practices at institutions are subject to a process of constant change, influenced by routines and rules. The institutions contribute to these routines and rules, but so do actions on the part of managers within the institutions. By combining multiple influences over time, we arrive at modern managerial accounting practice. In other words, Burns and Scapens tells us that managerial accounting practice changes over time, influenced by a number of factors including rules, routines and actions.