Healthcare in the U.S. is more expensive than in peer countries primarily because Americans consume so much more care, not because the number of administrators is out of wack
One way we know this is through private equity
When PE firms buy hospitals, they drastically cut admin:
PE acquisition leads to a momentary decline in the numbers of core workers (nurses, physicians, pharmacists, etc.), but this fizzles out in the long run.
By cutting a massive part of the administrative bloat (they also cut admin wages!), PE firms are able to turn hospitals around without sacrificing anything for patients or providers.
To be sure, there are cases where PE firms push certain specialties to bill for more, or they cut down on desirable services (like certain staff in nursing homes), but that's neither here nor there
What we see from hospital acquisitions is cutting bloat and it not mattering much
If you want to fix the healthcare system, cutting administrators is not a shortcut.
In fact, administration is not even a uniquely American problem when you take account of the fact that America is just richer than peer nations.
If you wanted to be maximalist about cutting administrative bloat--which I doubt would work, but whatever--then you can take the Congressional Budget Office's estimates of single-payer simplification benefits to heart: They're still not much relative to total healthcare spending.
If you want to learn more, check out my latest article, on why administrative costs are an overstated part of why healthcare in America is so costly: cremieux.xyz/p/focusing-on-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This research directly militates against modern blood libel.
If people knew, for example, that Black and White men earned the same amounts on average at the same IQs, they would likely be a lot less convinced by basically-false discrimination narratives blaming Whites.
Add in that the intelligence differences cannot be explained by discrimination—because there *is* measurement invariance—and these sorts of findings are incredibly damning for discrimination-based narratives of racial inequality.
So, said findings must be condemned, proscribed.
The above chart is from the NLSY '79, but it replicates in plenty of other datasets, because it is broadly true.
For example, here are three independent replications:
A lot of the major pieces of civil rights legislation were passed by White elites who were upset at the violence generated by the Great Migration and the riots.
Because of his association with this violence, most people at the time came to dislike MLK.
It's only *after* his death, and with his public beatification that he's come to enjoy a good reputation.
This comic from 1967 is a much better summation of how the public viewed him than what people are generally taught today.
And yes, he was viewed better by Blacks than by Whites.
But remember, at the time, Whites were almost nine-tenths of the population.
Near his death, Whites were maybe one-quarter favorable to MLK, and most of that favorability was weak.
The researcher who put together these numbers was investigated and almost charged with a crime for bringing these numbers to light when she hadn't received permission.
Greater Male Variability rarely makes for an adequate explanation of sex differences in performance.
One exception may be the number of papers published by academics.
If you remove the top 7.5% of men, there's no longer a gap!
The disciplines covered here were ones with relatively equal sex ratios: Education, Nursing & Caring Science, Psychology, Public Health, Sociology, and Social Work.
Because these are stats on professors, this means that if there's greater male variability, it's mostly right-tail
Despite this, the very highest-performing women actually outperformed the very highest-performing men on average, albeit slightly.
The percentiles in this image are for the combined group, so these findings coexist for composition reasons.