A new tax conundrum

The anouncement of a potential increase in VAT rate for health care products that currently are under the reduced tax rate, a shift from 10% to 21%, represents the third step in a dangerous growth spiral for health expenditure. From 2010, VAT rates have grown 3 pp (from 7 to 10% the reduced rate) and 5 pp (from 16 to 21%).  For public health expenditure, these changes represented an increase in 1,1% or 45 m euro. Right now, the new rate could replicate past events. You can check this information in this recent report. I couldn't find a similar one for private sector.
This is a nonsense. The publicly funded hospitals have to pay a VAT that goes to the government for the goods and services they acquire and they can't put a tax on the services they provide. The hospital resources to pay the tax comes from public funds (the citizens taxes). The result is that hospitals need more funds to pay for more taxes that come from the same body that receives them!
Some years ago, hospitals were asking for VAT rate of 0%, and we all know that this is difficult to achieve under EU rules. Surprisingly a "minor" change in legislation last november has allowed the construction industry for VAT rate of 0%. The final buyer has to pay for the standard VAT amount, but those involved in the process don't have to.
Why does the UK have a reduced tax of 5% or tax exemption in health and we can't apply the same? 

 Dramophone by Caravan Palace

The health funding crisis (ten years after)

 Despesa sanitària a Catalunya

In a decade (2008-2018) the nominal growth of health expenditure has been 7,6%, 811m€ in absolute terms (!). If we apply de CPI to deflate such figure (14,6%), then  we conclude that we have reduced our expenditure in 887m€ after  10 years (!). In 2018, we were spending 8,3% less than in 2008 in real terms (!).  If we add a demographic growth of 3,3%, then the reduction in per capita terms is 11,6% (!). This is our "funding" for population health. The nominal growth in taxes during the same period has been 17,8%. Where is the money?

That's all folks, and now you can ask why Catalonia is asking for independence and why our politicians are not answering the outcry for a better funding for health.

How much do countries spend on health?

‌Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators

The european country that spends the most is Switzerland 12,2% over GDP. In Catalonia this figure was 7,6% in 2016 (less than Greece). Per capita income in 2016 was 35% more in Switzerland than in Catalonia, while health expenditure was 60% more in Switzerland.  Where have the catalan taxes gone?. You know it and I know it. And everybody is aware that there is only one solution to have the appropriate public health expenditure. We have to say good bye as soon as possible.

Why are we waiting? (4)

Patients that are waiting for a health service deserve an explanation about the current situation and its potential solution. In former posts I have made some steps in this direction, but the final and definitive one lies on the resources available.
As far as we are publicly spending 1.095 euros per capita, we could ask if in the same State and under the same tax pressure, some people get more resources than us. Let's have a look at Euskadi,( p.5) any citizen there, will have 1.541 euros per capita for health care in 2014. Therefore, we can increase by 40% our health expenditures without increasing our tax pressure. With such an amount of resources we can forget forever the current waiting lists. In Euskadi, they have 0,8% of population waiting (p.6)  and last year the number of patients was reduced by 2,62%. We have 2,4% of population waiting, 3 more times than them, this is unacceptable and requires immediate action.
Fortunately there is a solution. We need only to disconnect as soon as possible, get all the money of our taxes as they do, and only 60.000 patients will wait instead of 180.000 as it is now. This is good news.

PS. Last Sunday this documentary forgot to tell this relevant information to patients. Once again, I repeat what I said: A wider and sound view about current challenges in health care would allow to understand reality and take better decisions. A new documentary should be recorded to replace it. This is my kind request to TV3.

Drivers of health cost variation

Variation in Health Care Spending:Target Decision Making, Not Geography

Variations in medical practice are well known and documented. Variations in costs, not so much, at least in our country. Now you can check what happens to geographic cost variations in US. Have a look at IOM report and you'll get the right approach to the issue:

Geographically-based payment policies may have adverse effects if higher costs are caused by other variables like beneficiary burden of illness, or area policies that affect health outcomes. Further, if there are substantial differences in provider practice patterns within regions, cutting payments to all providers within a region would unfairly punish low cost providers in high-spending regions and unfairly reward high cost providers in low spending regions.

A clear alert for any designer of payment systems. The Economist adds more details on this topic and finishes with an additional alert:

The transition from fee-for-service will inevitably be slow. In the meantime, it would help if the millions of Americans with private insurance had any idea what hospitals charge. In May CMS published hospitals’ price lists, showing huge gaps from one hospital to the next. But few patients pay these charges—it would be more useful to know the rate negotiated with their insurers. This transparency does not require restructuring the health system. It just requires hospitals to lift the veil on prices. If they don’t, a regulator may do it for them.

PS. For those that claim that our tax pressure is low. Have a look at taxes over labour costs (41,4%)  OECD average 35,6% (2012), why this figures are not broadcasted? The medium is the message? Who controls the medium? Does anybody consider that competitivenes is possible with such rates?

The weirdest financing of a health system in the world

Alternative Financing Strategies for Universal Health Coverage

This article from WHO by Joe Kutzin provides a deep analysis of the implications of financing universal coverage. Today I would like to highlight this statement:

There is a general trend toward greater diversification of revenue sources, including a diminishing role for payroll tax funding. This is a practical consequence of the “ideology” of UHC. With the move toward UHC, entitlement to health coverage is being delinked from employment, and from direct contributions more generally. On the practical side, wage-linked contributions cannot generate a sufficient revenue base, both in high-income countries (because of aging populations and macroeconomic concerns regarding increasing wage-based taxation) and also in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (because of low participation rates in formal sector employment).

Spain has decided exactly the opposite. Coverage entitlement comes from social security membership, while funds come from taxes. The weirdest financing of a health system in the world.

La capsa entròpica

Regulating sugar sweetened beverages

Searching for Public Health Law’s Sweet Spot: The Regulation of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Nowadays, obesity prevention lies at the heart on any public health policy. If sugar sweetened beverages contribute decisively to obesity, then something should be done. What?. A recent PLOS article explains the options:

The main regulatory approaches are taxes, restrictions on the availability of SSBs in schools, restrictions on advertising and marketing, labeling requirements, and government procurement and benefits standards.

On taxes:

Savvy regulatory design has tremendous potential. For example, there is growing evidence that taxes that are more salient to consumers, such as those included in a good’s posted price (rather than being levied at the register), are more likely to influence purchasing behavior

On public procurement, a practical suggestion for immediate application:

Restrictions on which beverages may be purchased using government funds are a less visible form of regulation, but one with potential to change the consumption patterns of large numbers of people. Outside public schools, these standards are most germane in two areas: procurement standards for public institutions (e.g., government agencies, hospitals, and prisons) and restrictions on what recipients of government benefits for the indigent may buy with those funds.
The UK’s Government Buying Standards prohibit central government bodies from  procuring SSBs larger than 330 ml and encourage the wider public sector to follow the guidelines. Massachusetts  and many US counties and cities have adopted nutrition standards for government contracts, but most apply to a limited set of institutions, such as childcare facilities or youth centers.

PS. My former posts on the same topic.
PS. Article: The impact of sugar sweetened beverages on depression risk in adults.
PS. Report: Scenarios of Macro-economic Development for Catalonia on Horizon 2030
PS. Report: FBBVA Essential Public Services.
PS. Report: Chronicle of a premeditated offensive.

A country in a desperate situation

Early this morning on the radio this was the statement: "We live in a country in a desperate situation". The reason is that the rule for public expenditure is tied to a fiscal deficit of 0.7% and unless this figure is relaxed this means a cutback of 4,500 million euros. (1,800 million in health expenditure).
This is nonsense, a threat to citizens health. A country that only receives 57 euros out of 100 of taxes, can't cut its health expenditure again. As citizens, we are currently subject to threats and blackmailing with our money. The first thing to do is not to accept such rules. It's an issue of dignity.
Enough is enough, the day to say goodbye is closer.

PS. Now the neighbouring government is threatening us with no subsidies for transplants while retains our taxes.
PS. You can listen to the radio to confirm what I'm saying.

Road safety at the top of Health in All Policies

Cost savings associated with 10 years of road safety policies in Catalonia

You can get a clear understanding of the impressive results of road safety policies with a quick look at this excellent article. The summary:

A substantial reduction in deaths from road traffic collisions was observed between 2000 and 2010. Between 2001 and 2010, with the implementation of new road safety policies, there were 26 063 fewer road traffic collisions with victims than expected, 2909 fewer deaths (57%) and 25 444 fewer hospitalizations. The estimated total cost savings were around €18 000 million. Of these, around 97% resulted from reductions in lost productivity. Of the remaining cost savings, 63% were associated with specialized health care, 15% with adapting to disability and 8.1% with hospital care.

In my opinion, next steps for additional reductions  in traffic accidents should be adressed with investment in renovation of roads. A clear example of such need is this recent demonstration or the current and tragic situation of N-II and other roads in Girona. You can follow it by twitter at  #VergonyaN2. Otherwise, you can watch this documentary, and you'll confirm how politicians can neglect citizens for years. After a decade, Catalonia is still waiting for public  investment coming from neighbouring country. Hopefully we will not have to wait for another decade. Soon we'll just keep our taxes and we'll belong to a new State. I't just a compelling argument to prevent mortality.

PS. WHO on Health in All Policies.

PS. On Moisés Broggi death. An interview included in the book "What Catalans want".

Voluntary health insurance: fulfilling expectations

Memòria entitats d'assegurança lliure 2015
Regulació de l'assegurança voluntària de salut

Let's take one country that has a mandatory social security system for the whole population, though its funding comes from taxes (?). If 25% of the population in this country voluntarily buy  duplicate coverage for the roughly the same benefits, what would you say?. The potential answer is that the public system is not fulfilling people expectations and has a big problem. Unfortunately, politicians don't recognise the situation. Imagine that in the capital more than one third of the population hold private insurance, you would say indeed that the problem is larger. This is the case of Barcelona.
Somebody should review the situation. Both public and private systems have their drawbacks. If public mandatory funding is not providing an efficient system, than a prescription is needed. If voluntary health insurance solves the unfulfilled expectations, then a close relationship should be established, and this is not an option by now.
I wrote a paper some time ago on the required new regulation for voluntary health insurance. My impression is that nobody read it. Maybe now it's the time.

PS. Right now 735.997 patients are waiting for a surgery, a visit or a diagnostic procedure.

 

 

Richard Estes. Galeria Marlborough

Eurohealth

Everything you always wanted to know about European Union health policies but were afraid to ask

I have to say that I am not afraid to ask about health policies in EU because EU is basically a market. Therefore nothing to ask. Social policy is out of the real scope of EU.However, as a regulator of the market for health has clear examples of disfunctioning. For example, implantable medical devices regulation currently applied was enacted in 1990. New regulation will be applied next year, after 30 years of regulatory vacation. Nothing to add. Taxes haven't been on vacation. Shame on Europe. By the way, you'll not find minor details like this one in the book.

Beware of healthcare providers consolidation

The Potential Hazards of Hospital Consolidation Implications for Quality, Access, and Price

The key message:

  With the current most substantial consolidation of health care in US history, the concerning implications of the trend of hospital consolidation on quality, access, and price must be carefully considered. However, unlike banks that became too big to fail, 85% of US hospitals pay no taxes because they are designated as nonprofit organizations serving a public good. Hospitals can set prices that are ultimately passed on to others in the form of escalating insurance deductibles and taxes.

The alternative:

 The good work of integrated hospitals should continue to create networks of coordinated care, while at the same time, physicians and patients should insist that hospitals compete on transparent prices and quality outcomes. Achieving this goal is an important prerequisite to a functional health care system.

A market that grows

This is the case of voluntary health insurance. Amid the current downturn, in 2012 there was an increase in the number of members (2.04%) and premiums (6.09%). This data confirms previous trends although it reduces its strength. The market serves 1.9 m members and generates €1,300 m  in premiums (close to 8% of health expenditure). The trend towards collectivization is consolidating again. Right  now close to 45% of premiums come from group insurance due to tax-breaks that only to apply to such policies.
The key question then is not regarding the growth of that market, we have to ask ourselves if such growth is in the right direction towards a more competitive and efficient market. My impression is that information asymmetries and current incentives (tax rebates) need to be rebuilt. 
Let's leave it here for today.

PS. Gary Becker on the Breakup of Countries: No Economic Disaster

PS. Carles Boix, on the role of elites.

PS. Yesterday I attended at the conference on economic and legal dimensions of independence:



PS. Extracted from Vilaweb: Message to the elites: independence is viable and inevitable
 
The Wilson Initiative at Cercle d'Economia explains the arguments for a own state
 
'The independence movement goes from bottom to top, from the street to the Circle. And the role of the elite is to provide what is inevitable. There is vibration, there is anxiety ... But we have to make an effort to allow this to happen. " This is the message that Professor Boix has sent on behalf of the Wilson Initiative to representatives of the country's economic and political elites that assembled at the Economic Circle to hear the arguments of this group of distinguished academics . They have appeared amid great excitement and deploying all arguments to show an audience traditionally reluctant to independence process, that is feasible and necessary. 
Savings of 1,800 euros per person per year
The own state is an opportunity, said Jaume Ventura, who presented figures on the balance between the cost and expense to have a state and maintain their structure.
'He says that if we want exactly replicate the structure in Spain that would cost us 383 euros per person per year. And that, assuming we want to maintain the same embassy as many guns and so on. ' This would be the cost per head, said Ventura. But, eliminating the annual fiscal deficit of Catalonia would provide € 16,000 million. 'The Catalans pay 2,251 euros per person per year in excess of contribution to Spain. After paying 100 euros in taxes, only 57 are spent in Catalonia. Why do we pay that extra money? Not because lower pensions than in Spain. The unemployment benefit is also the same. The explanation is that the deficit is not reversed in Catalonia infrastructure. We have the lowest public capital stock '
What could we do with this after saving 1,868 euros? "With a third of the money we could stop the budget cuts, with 1,868 of these would spend $ 500 to be the sixth country with more investment in education, and 550 euros per person per year, we would be the third country in Europe in investment in research and development.

Listen to Lizz Right while waiting for the next concert in Barcelona. 

The lyrics apply to the former text

Welfare State apocalypsis

WILL POPULATION AGEING SPELL THE END OF THE WELFARE STATE?

Too many people argue over the end of the welfare state. There are reasons for concern, but apocalyptic views are unnecessary. A new book reviews the ageing process and the implications for the welfare state. The message is a balanced perspective:

Upon closer inspection, available evidence suggests that caring for a growing older population may not be so costly to finance and that older people provide significant economic and societal benefits, especially when healthy and active:
– Population ageing has a modest and very gradual effect on health expenditure forecasts, compared
to traditional cost drivers such as price growth and technological innovation.
– Demand for long-term care is expected to increase substantially due to population ageing but it is coming from a low baseline currently. However, projected increases in long-term care spending do not account for the economic cost of informal long-term care, as this is not captured in international statistics (nor fully understood).
– Many older people continue to provide paid or unpaid work beyond official retirement age and continue to make a positive economic and societal contribution. The value of unpaid work provided by older people is considerable but not regularly quantified.
– While in Europe older people's consumption is mainly financed by public transfers, many older people pay for (part of) their consumption from private sources, including from incomes from their own continued work or from accumulated assets.
– Accumulation of asset wealth also benefits the economy indirectly through its contribution to productivity growth; health is a key predictor of asset accumulation.
– Older people, even if not in paid employment, continue to pay consumption and other non-labour-related taxes, and thus contribute to public-sector revenues.

 Mostly, I agree with this view. The retirement funding issue is the largest challenge for the welfare state and our politicians are playing with fire.

La financialització com a determinant de la salut

The Financialization of Health in the United States 

Més d'una vegada he confrontat el professionalisme amb l'ineficàcia de l'Estat i els desequilibris del mercat al sector salut. El que es coneix com a tercera lògica que va dir Freidson. Les tres peces clau del professionalisme són: l'hegemonia del benestar del pacient, el principi d'autonomia del pacient i el principi de justícia social. La dinàmica dels incentius porta a conflictes d'interès on l'objectiu de benefici es contraposa als criteris anteriors, i especialment al primer.

A un article recent del NEJM podem veure com el professionalisme va de baixa als USA i es veu minoritzat fruit de la financialització de la salut, entesa com el procés d'influència dels mercats financers i les seves elits sobre el sector. La financialització implica la transformació d'empreses i productes sanitaris  en actius comercialitzables i transmissibles pels quals el sector financer pot acumular capital. La financialització representa una nova forma de propietat i control dels actius del sector sanitari en la mesura que els mercats financers demanen l'obtenció de beneficis a curt termini i la seva distribució a agents financers allunyats del sector salut.

Les dades que conté l'article demostren que la tendència ha estat i és creixent a hores d'ara. La financialització de la salut s'estén com una taca d'oli al USA. I alhora, això significa que hospitals, asseguradores i empreses farmacèutiques i biomèdiques es comporten com entitats financeres. Tal com vaig explicar, la teranyina que envolta la indústria farmacèutica ha convertit la innovació en noves molècules en actius financers, preocupa més l'extracció de valor que la seva creació. Allò que l'enyorat Uwe Reinhardt ja va apuntar sota el nom de "value shifting", quan el valor s'extrau dels membres d'una societat i és apropiat pels tenidors del capital.

Ho exemplificava amb aquest gràfic:

i ho explicava així:

In this exhibit, we assume that Acme Inc., possibly a pharmaceutical company, has developed a new product that is highly valued by the rest of society. Let us call that value “social value.” Measuring it is a methodological challenge. At the conceptual level, however, we may think of it as follows: Acme, Inc. can sell the new product to each individual, prospective customer at that individual’s maximum bid price – the monetary expression of the value that individual puts upon a unit of the product. That bid price naturally varies among individuals, because their income and wealth varies and also because their desire for the product—economists call it “taste” for the product—varies.

If we added up these maximum bid prices across all individuals potentially interested in the new product, we might call that sum the product’s “social value.” In the exhibit, it is shown as the value-flow in pipe A. In many instances, the true social value might even be higher, if there are spill-over effects from the individual user of the new product to other members of society. That would be the case, for example, if the products cured an infectious disease.

Usually, in the real world, firms cannot extract from society all of the social value their products create. Even drug companies with government-granted monopolies usually capture only a fraction of total social value in the form of the firms’ sales revenue. That captured value is shown in pipe B of the chart. The firm distributes that captured value to its employees (pipe C), to its suppliers of other productive inputs and of credit (pipe D), and to government in the form of taxes (pipe E). The residual that is left over accrues to the firm’s shareholders (pipe F). It is the source of the wealth the firm bestows on them.

A major point to take away from the preceding discussion and the accompanying exhibit is that a firm adds net social value to society as a whole only through pipe A. If a firm’s policies do not add net social value, but its shareholders nevertheless are enriched by the firm’s decisions, the firm merely has redistributed already existing value from some members of society (for examples, customers or employees) to its shareholders.

Normally, neither politicians, nor the media, nor the general public pay much attention to the fraction of total social value (pipe A) that firms can capture as revenue (pipe B). In health care, however, that fraction can be quite controversial, as was seen in the public’s reaction to the pricing of high-value specialty drugs such as Gilead Sciences Inc.’s new drugs Solvadi and Harvoni.

En Reinhardt ja apuntava el 2016 a que els preus excessius dels medicaments representaven una extracció de valor. Malgrat no citava el terme financialització com a causa, a hores d'ara podem afegir i confirmar que la financialització també és un determinant de la salut. Una financialització que esvaeix el professionalisme en la medicina. Cal estar-ne atent, entendre com actua i tractar de moderar el seu impacte. Malauradament, en sabem encara poca cosa del que passa per aquí a prop. Caldria una anàlisi en profunditat, i crec que ens trobaríem amb més d'una sorpresa.

PS. Aquí podeu trobar un exemple d'avui de com els lobbys treballen per la financialització de la salut.

The one and only option

Imagine for a moment a country, their citizens are presumably under the same constitution and tax law. Some citizens in a geographic area have a per capita public budget for health care for 2014 equal to 1.541 €. Other citizens, 1.091 € or less. There is no possible argument to maintain such huge and increasing differences. Is there any clever politician in the room to treat such disease? For sure, there isn't.
Simplistically speaking, my understanding is that we could decrease taxes by 28% or otherwise increase public health expenditures by 41%. Since these options are not plausible, the third is to forget such country because it is unable to solve the real public policy challenges. And worst than that, it obliges to apply budget cuts to those that already are spending less. Since such problems have persisted for three decades, the one and only option is to leave, reform is not a credible option.

PS. Data

Death, taxes and fiscal deficit

Benjamin Franklin said: "The only things certain in life are death and taxes.". If he had lived here, he would have added "fiscal deficit" in its quote. And this is a constant since 1986, 8,1% of our GDP disappears and doesn't returns in services or infrastructures. And somebody is still interested in this money to use it for their preferences, and not for the tax-payers.
Yesterday we knew again that fiscal deficit was 16,543 million euros, a 8,5% of GDP of 2011. After 25 years, the accumulated amount of fiscal deficit is 306.267 million euros!!!. Can you imagine what represents this figure for a country of 7,5 million inhabitants?
Every year the fiscal deficit is equal to the sum of health, education and welfare expenditures. As far as a country can't survive with such bleeding, I'm convinced that we'll not discuss it again. Let's put it simply, time to say goodbye has arrived because it is socially unacceptable such discrimination and unfair relationship. Only one fourth of the fiscal deficit in one year would stop recent public budget cuts. The answer is only one: Goodbye.

La reforma responsable dels serveis públics

PUBLIC SERVICES FOR ONTARIANS: A PATH TO SUSTAINABILITY AND EXCELLENCE
A Ontario van crear una comissió per tal que oferís recomanacions per un pressupost equilibrat del sector públic a 5 anys vista. El mandat era:

There are five parts to our mandate:
1. Advise on how to balance the budget earlier than 2017–18.
Given the deterioration in the economic outlook since the 2011 Budget, we believe an earlier target for balance is neither practical nor desirable.
2. Once the budget is balanced, ensure a sustainable fiscal environment.
Our proposals aim to keep the budget roughly in balance after 2017–18. We attach great importance to this goal.
3. Ensure that the government is getting value for money in all its activities.
We see this as a requirement to recommend ways of ensuring that all programs and services achieve the best possible outcomes within available resources.
4. Do not recommend privatization of health care or education.
We interpret this to mean that health care must be kept within the public payer model. We do not interpret it as denying opportunities for private-sector delivery of services, if that is more efficient.
5. Do not recommend tax increases.
Although our mandate precludes us from recommending higher taxes, we do recommend ways to raise more revenue without adjusting tax rates.
Government ministries and agencies should always strive for efficiency gains, not only when driven by overall budget restraint or in response to problems unearthed by the Auditor General or exposed by a spending scandal.

 Tasca complexa per a una comissió. Aquí més d'un no acceptaria de participar-hi amb aquestes restriccions. Ara que ja han publicat el treball, paga la pena llegir-lo, salut és al cap 5.
Qué lluny som de la reforma responsable que fan els canadencs d'Ontario! I qué diferent podria ser tot plegat si adoptéssim una visió semblant!

On sugar as a toxic substance. How little is still too much?

THE CASE AGAINST SUGAR

Last book by Gary Taubes takes a difficult way, how to demonstrate sugar as a toxic substance for our health. Although he tries to show evidence for his words, he finally concedes the following conclusion:

Ultimately and obviously, the question of how much is too much becomes a personal decision, just as we all decide as adults what level of alcohol, caffeine, or cigarettes we’ll ingest. I’ve argued here that enough evidence exists for us to consider sugar very likely to be a toxic substance, and to make an informed decision about how best to balance the likely risks with the benefits. To know what those benefits are, though, it helps to see how life feels without sugar.

The "very likely" expression is crucial. Unfortunately we don't have a explicit causal explanation of the impact of sugar on metabolic syndrome, for example. I think that epigenetics will provide neew perspectives on the issue, however we will have to wait. Meanwhile reducing exposure is the best advice.

PS. On the sugar sweetened beverage taxes. And in this blog

Testing, testing

The Landscape of Inappropriate Laboratory Testing: A 15-Year Meta-Analysis

As a citizen you may be concerned about taxes, as a patient about quality and safety (if you are in a universal publicly funded health care). As both, you should be concerned on cost, quality and access.
Imagine that someone says to you that there is a benefit that is accessible, relatively low cost and at the same time it is ordered but not indicated in 20% of cases, and it is not demanded although necessary in 44% of situations (!). For sure you should be extremely "preoccupied".
The most important difficulty, is that you'll never know that, and this reduces your concerns artificially. If you look at PLOS you'll find such figures from a meta-analysis of last 15 years:

Overall mean rates of over- and underutilization were 20.6% (95% CI 16.2–24.9%) and 44.8% (95% CI 33.8–55.8%). Overutilization during initial testing (43.9%; 95% CI 35.4–52.5%) was six times higher than during repeat testing (7.4%; 95% CI 2.5–12.3%;

Overutilization measured according to restrictivecriteria (44.2%; 95% CI 36.8–51.6%) was three times higher than for permissive criteria (12.0%; 95% CI 8.0–16.0%;P,0.001). Overutilization measured using subjective criteria (29.0%; 95% CI 21.9–36.1%) was nearly twice as high as for objective criteria (16.1%; 95% CI 11.0–21.2%;P=0.004).

With all these statistics together, somebody should do something. The first thing is to know what is happening nearby. Do you know it?

PS. Although this meta-analysis states that underutilization is 44,8%, I would suggest to take caution over this figure. I think that nobody has analysed properly its implications if it were true.

Meanwhile, dancing with Parov Stelar - Shuffle