Regional science policy and the growth of knowledge megacentres in bioscience clusters

Pennsylvania, followed by a group spending around $8-9 billion in 1999, namely
Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan and Ohio. Of interest are the ways in

State State Funds ($ million) Federal Funds S/F Ratio GDP Share

Table 2: State & Federal Health Expenditure, USA Top Ten, 1999

Source: Calculated from Milbank Memorial Fund & US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau
of Economic Analysis

which such budgets are composed such that variance from the US mean GDP share
per State (2.6%) is relatively small, including the rest, where West Virginia at 4.8%
on the one hand, and Alaska at 0.6% are among the most significant outliers. With a
few exceptions, such as Ohio in Table 2, Federal funding makes a significant
contribution. Texas, like other southern Appalachian and south-western States receive
more Federal than State disbursements.

However, calculations of such disbursements in relation to State population size show
New York, at $1,572 per capita, and Massachusetts, at $1,482 to be the most generous
spenders, Pennsylvania comes next, at $1,070, then New Jersey at $949, Michigan at
$897 ahead of California at $800, followed by Illinois ($783), Texas ($765), Ohio
($763) and Florida ($615). Linking back to points made earlier about the increasing
‘commoditisation’ of health care in the US (and to a growing extent in the UK and
perhaps elsewhere) States such as these are becoming active purchasers of higher
quality, more technology-intensive, but also value for money health services. It should
further be recalled that the statistics under discussion constitute only some 20% of
total State health care budgets, but represent baseline funding. Clearly, California is

12

<<   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   >>

More intriguing information