Data from OECD, 2007, Health at a Glance 2007; OECD Indicators
For Further discussion see this post on the Incidental Economist, particularly the comment section.
Posts
The Buck Continues Here
2 hours ago
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Is the US an extreme outlier in Healthcare per Capita?
Data from OECD, 2007, Health at a Glance 2007; OECD Indicators
For Further discussion see this post on the Incidental Economist, particularly the comment section.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Ryan Howard's Arbitration Case
I have been frequenting fangraphs.com recently, which is a great site for lots of cool baseball data and analysis. I recommend it for all the baseball stat nerds out there.
Recently Ryan Howard, the Phillies first base slugger, is in the news for having the biggest difference between arbitration figures submitted. Howard is asking for 18 million, while the Phillies submitted a figure of 14 million. Last year, in his first arbitration year, Howard took home a record 10 million for actually taking his case to arbitration judges and winning.
So in terms of arbitration, major league players have three arbitration years. Howard is in his 2nd year. According to Fangraphs, estimates on what players get are 40% of their free market value their 1st year, 60% their 2nd year, and 80% their 3rd year. So Howard should be getting about 60 percent of his free market value.
The Phillies with their 14 million dollar offer, think Howard is worth 19.6 million/year.
Howard with his 18 million dollar suggestion, thinks he's worth 25.2 million/year.
So basically Howard thinks he deserves the 2nd highest contract in league after ARod, who makes 27.5 million/year.
Looking at Fangraphs data, here are what the top Phillies were "worth" based on last year's production:
1. Chase Utley: 35.7 million
2. Jimmy Rollins: 23.1 million
3. Jayson Werth: 21.3 million
4. Cole Hamels: 20.6 million
5. Shane Victarino: 17.0 million
6. Ryan Howard: 14.1 million
The stats take into account his defense, replacement level (1b) performance, OPS (which went down .100 this year), and many other measures.
Howard has regressed the past three years, but considering his great 2nd half he will hopefully preform better next year. The Phils take that into account giving him a "19.6 million/year" deal (5.5 million more than he "made" last year).
Yes - Howard wants the 2nd "highest" salary in the major leagues, when he was potentially the 6th most valuable Philly last year.
It will be interesting to see what happens if this goes to arbitration. Do these arbitration judges think like MVP voters (Howard finished 2nd in NL MVP voting) or do they take into account statistics other than HR and RBI? I think either way Howard will lose his case.
EDIT:
A good point (by a fangraphs contributor) was made that needs to be considered.
He basically believes that Howard cannot be considered like a typical arbitration case, which would normally fall under the 40/60/80 rule. The problem with Howard is that the Phillies took awhile (age 26?) in calling him up (since they had Thome). Assuming the arbitration judges aren't ignorant like MVP voters, they probably rewarded Howard 10 million last year because he really should be in his 3rd year of arbitration (not his 2nd). I can understand that logic a bit more. If you make that assumption, Howard only thinks he's worth 21.6 million, which is a bit high but more understandable. In the above article, the fangraphs author used 2009 projections to calculate that Howard would be worth approximately 15 million (assuming he's in his "third" year of arb.)
So it could go either way I guess, but I still don't think he's worth the money.
Recently Ryan Howard, the Phillies first base slugger, is in the news for having the biggest difference between arbitration figures submitted. Howard is asking for 18 million, while the Phillies submitted a figure of 14 million. Last year, in his first arbitration year, Howard took home a record 10 million for actually taking his case to arbitration judges and winning.
So in terms of arbitration, major league players have three arbitration years. Howard is in his 2nd year. According to Fangraphs, estimates on what players get are 40% of their free market value their 1st year, 60% their 2nd year, and 80% their 3rd year. So Howard should be getting about 60 percent of his free market value.
The Phillies with their 14 million dollar offer, think Howard is worth 19.6 million/year.
Howard with his 18 million dollar suggestion, thinks he's worth 25.2 million/year.
So basically Howard thinks he deserves the 2nd highest contract in league after ARod, who makes 27.5 million/year.
Looking at Fangraphs data, here are what the top Phillies were "worth" based on last year's production:
1. Chase Utley: 35.7 million
2. Jimmy Rollins: 23.1 million
3. Jayson Werth: 21.3 million
4. Cole Hamels: 20.6 million
5. Shane Victarino: 17.0 million
6. Ryan Howard: 14.1 million
The stats take into account his defense, replacement level (1b) performance, OPS (which went down .100 this year), and many other measures.
Howard has regressed the past three years, but considering his great 2nd half he will hopefully preform better next year. The Phils take that into account giving him a "19.6 million/year" deal (5.5 million more than he "made" last year).
Yes - Howard wants the 2nd "highest" salary in the major leagues, when he was potentially the 6th most valuable Philly last year.
It will be interesting to see what happens if this goes to arbitration. Do these arbitration judges think like MVP voters (Howard finished 2nd in NL MVP voting) or do they take into account statistics other than HR and RBI? I think either way Howard will lose his case.
EDIT:
A good point (by a fangraphs contributor) was made that needs to be considered.
He basically believes that Howard cannot be considered like a typical arbitration case, which would normally fall under the 40/60/80 rule. The problem with Howard is that the Phillies took awhile (age 26?) in calling him up (since they had Thome). Assuming the arbitration judges aren't ignorant like MVP voters, they probably rewarded Howard 10 million last year because he really should be in his 3rd year of arbitration (not his 2nd). I can understand that logic a bit more. If you make that assumption, Howard only thinks he's worth 21.6 million, which is a bit high but more understandable. In the above article, the fangraphs author used 2009 projections to calculate that Howard would be worth approximately 15 million (assuming he's in his "third" year of arb.)
So it could go either way I guess, but I still don't think he's worth the money.
Stat of the Week: Hospitials as Hotels
According to a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research
"We also find that a one-standard-deviation increase in amenities raises a hospital's demand by 38.4% on average, whereas demand is substantially less responsive to clinical quality as measured by pneumonia mortality."
-It's interesting they used pneumonia mortality as a measure of clinical quality. I can only read the abstract, but I would assume that they adjusted for confounders and such like a good epidemiologist would do.
"We also find that a one-standard-deviation increase in amenities raises a hospital's demand by 38.4% on average, whereas demand is substantially less responsive to clinical quality as measured by pneumonia mortality."
-It's interesting they used pneumonia mortality as a measure of clinical quality. I can only read the abstract, but I would assume that they adjusted for confounders and such like a good epidemiologist would do.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Our (Potential) Future Surgeon General and Marijuana Legalization
Before I begin, I implore to you watch this Daily Show clip on Dr. Gupta. Aasif Mandvi does a great job. I hadn't laughed that hard in awhile. (start at minute 2 for the good stuff)
Anyway, Dr. Gupta recently wrote an article for Time Magazine entitled "Why I would vote No on Pot". I'm pretty disappointed in this article by our (potential) future surgeon general. He brings to light both sides of the issue, but I don't think he argues his case very well.
So what did he bring up in the article (which leaves out other valid arguments for both sides):
positives of legalizing pot
- can help really sick people - those going through chemo, and those suffering from Alzheimer's
- 15 million people all ready use it, so wouldn't have to enforce law on them
- cut illegal drug trafficking and make communities safer
negatives of legalizing pot
- addiction
- affect short term memory
- impair cognitive ability
- lead to long term depression or anxiety
- can impair driving - cause accidents
First off I am disappointed by the lack of statistics. From this article I have no idea how severely pot affects short term memory, leads to long term depression, etc. A reasonable question would be, how do these negatives compare to alcohol? It seems that alcohol shares all of these negative consequences and is potentially worse in some cases. He also suggests outcomes that are rather subjective like depression, cognitive ability, etc. It is not nearly as clear cut as tobacco's relationship to lung cancer and other disease. I don't doubt his medical claims, but he should at least link to scientific/epidemiological studies supporting it.
So how authoritarian is Sanjay Gupta? Yes, it would be better medically if we banned alcohol and soda - but is it the right move for the country? There are reasonable reasons to keep marijuana illegal, but Dr. Gupta needs to bring a little more substance to his argument. Granted this was just a short article for Time Magazine, but adding links similar to Frank Rich's style at the New York Times would be refreshing.
One of my major reasons for reluctance of Gupta for Surgeon General is his lack of public health training or experience. If this is the way he would describe a public health epidemic in the future as surgeon general, consider me unimpressed.
Looking further at the Marijuana issue as a whole:
Gallup polling has explored the legalization of Marijuana question for years, and while support is still on Dr. Gupta's side the margin is eroding.
When asked if medical marijuana should be legalized, support jumps into the 70 percent range. Dr. Gupta points out that 11 states have all ready decriminalized marijuana for medical use. I honestly believe that polling (on legalization of both medical and recreational) would change if people were more informed on this subject.
For example, there is a very valid economic argument that would play well in today's economic situation.
Jeffery Miron an economist from Harvard conservatively estimates that the US could receive 14 billion dollars a year from the legalization of marijuana. "...the government would save $7.7 billion a year if it didn't have to spend money policing and prosecuting marijuana activity. Then, if the feds taxed marijuana at a rate comparable to cigarettes and booze, another $6.2 billion would come rolling in."
It will be interesting to see if any "change" is made on this issue with the Obama administration, considering it's the "#1 Idea" proposed on their site change.org.
Anyway, Dr. Gupta recently wrote an article for Time Magazine entitled "Why I would vote No on Pot". I'm pretty disappointed in this article by our (potential) future surgeon general. He brings to light both sides of the issue, but I don't think he argues his case very well.
So what did he bring up in the article (which leaves out other valid arguments for both sides):
positives of legalizing pot
- can help really sick people - those going through chemo, and those suffering from Alzheimer's
- 15 million people all ready use it, so wouldn't have to enforce law on them
- cut illegal drug trafficking and make communities safer
negatives of legalizing pot
- addiction
- affect short term memory
- impair cognitive ability
- lead to long term depression or anxiety
- can impair driving - cause accidents
First off I am disappointed by the lack of statistics. From this article I have no idea how severely pot affects short term memory, leads to long term depression, etc. A reasonable question would be, how do these negatives compare to alcohol? It seems that alcohol shares all of these negative consequences and is potentially worse in some cases. He also suggests outcomes that are rather subjective like depression, cognitive ability, etc. It is not nearly as clear cut as tobacco's relationship to lung cancer and other disease. I don't doubt his medical claims, but he should at least link to scientific/epidemiological studies supporting it.
So how authoritarian is Sanjay Gupta? Yes, it would be better medically if we banned alcohol and soda - but is it the right move for the country? There are reasonable reasons to keep marijuana illegal, but Dr. Gupta needs to bring a little more substance to his argument. Granted this was just a short article for Time Magazine, but adding links similar to Frank Rich's style at the New York Times would be refreshing.
One of my major reasons for reluctance of Gupta for Surgeon General is his lack of public health training or experience. If this is the way he would describe a public health epidemic in the future as surgeon general, consider me unimpressed.
Looking further at the Marijuana issue as a whole:
Gallup polling has explored the legalization of Marijuana question for years, and while support is still on Dr. Gupta's side the margin is eroding.
When asked if medical marijuana should be legalized, support jumps into the 70 percent range. Dr. Gupta points out that 11 states have all ready decriminalized marijuana for medical use. I honestly believe that polling (on legalization of both medical and recreational) would change if people were more informed on this subject.
For example, there is a very valid economic argument that would play well in today's economic situation.
Jeffery Miron an economist from Harvard conservatively estimates that the US could receive 14 billion dollars a year from the legalization of marijuana. "...the government would save $7.7 billion a year if it didn't have to spend money policing and prosecuting marijuana activity. Then, if the feds taxed marijuana at a rate comparable to cigarettes and booze, another $6.2 billion would come rolling in."
It will be interesting to see if any "change" is made on this issue with the Obama administration, considering it's the "#1 Idea" proposed on their site change.org.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Stat of the Week: Health Care Costs
According to 2005 Paul Krugman article at the New York Times:
The following is per capita spending on Health Care
It's amazing how high our health care spending is. Hard to believe that our government spending on health care (medicare, medicaid, etc) is more than Canada and France's govt spending! My thoughts are that the biggest faults are the administrative costs that come with our insurance system. However I'm starting to believe that United States does not evaluate health decisions correctly, for instance over-emphasizing screening that does not extend or improve lives. More on this later, but as you can see in the following graph...yeah it's a problem.
The following is per capita spending on Health Care
United States: $5,267 on health care/ $2,364 is government spending.
Canada: $2,931 on health care / $2,048 is government spending.
France: $2,736 on health care / $2,080 is government spending.
It's amazing how high our health care spending is. Hard to believe that our government spending on health care (medicare, medicaid, etc) is more than Canada and France's govt spending! My thoughts are that the biggest faults are the administrative costs that come with our insurance system. However I'm starting to believe that United States does not evaluate health decisions correctly, for instance over-emphasizing screening that does not extend or improve lives. More on this later, but as you can see in the following graph...yeah it's a problem.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Income Distribution
A nice graphic from the economist:
A few things that stand out to me:
-The United States seems the most positively skewed - mean is much greater than the median (5th line)
-There is a significant proportion in the US in the lowest decile compared with other developed countries - Canada, Britain, France...
-US has largest top decile by a fair margin
It would be interesting to see this over statistic over time. I'm guessing that our country has always had a larger range than the other countries. I think it's pretty fair to think that this was constantly changing (under every presidential administration).
Monday, September 8, 2008
Gas Prices should be higher...
A discussion on the cost of gasoline:
“This price reflects only the cost of discovering the oil, pumping it to the surface, refining it into gasoline, and delivering the gas to service stations. It overlooks the costs of climate change as well as the costs of tax subsidies to the oil industry, the bludgeoning military costs of protecting access to oil in the politically unstable Middle East, and the health care costs for treating respiratory illnesses from breathing polluted air.” (p. 7)
-Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition (Lester Brown)
Sounds about right to me....
“This price reflects only the cost of discovering the oil, pumping it to the surface, refining it into gasoline, and delivering the gas to service stations. It overlooks the costs of climate change as well as the costs of tax subsidies to the oil industry, the bludgeoning military costs of protecting access to oil in the politically unstable Middle East, and the health care costs for treating respiratory illnesses from breathing polluted air.” (p. 7)
-Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Third Edition (Lester Brown)
Sounds about right to me....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
