The economic impact of the health sector on the Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area

              The Economic Impact of the Health Sector
on the Fairview Regional Medical Center
Medical Service Area
Hospitals Nursing Homes
Physicians, etc. Other Services Pharmacies
Oklahoma Office of Rural Health
OSU Center for Rural Health
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
Oklahoma State University
April 2011 AE-11009
The Economic Impact of the Health Sector
on the Fairview Regional Medical Center Medical Service Area
Community Health Engagement Process documents available online at:
www.okruralhealthworks.org
Lara Brooks, Assistant Extension Specialist, OSU, Stillwater
Phone: 405-744-6083, Fax: 405-744-9835, Email: lara.brooks@okstate.edu
Brian Whitacre, Assistant Professor and Extension Economist, OSU, Stillwater
405-744-6083
Stan Ralstin, Area Extension Rural Development Specialist, OSU, Enid
580-237-7611
Dana Baldwin, Major County Extension Director, Fairview
580-227-3786
Corie Kaiser, Assistant Director, Oklahoma Center for Rural Health, Oklahoma City
405-840-6500
Val Schott, Director, Oklahoma Center for Rural Health, Oklahoma City
405-840-6500
Oklahoma Office of Rural Health
OSU Center for Rural Health
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
Oklahoma State University
April 2011 1
The Economic Impact of the Health Sector
on the Fairview Regional Medical Center Medical Service Area
Medical facilities have a tremendous medical and economic impact on the community in which they are located. This is especially true with health care facilities, such as hospitals and nursing homes. These facilities not only employ a large number of people and have a significant payroll, but they also draw a large number of people from rural areas that need medical services into the community. The overall objective of this study is to measure the economic impact of the health sector on the Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area. The specific objectives of this report are to:
1. Review economic trends of the health sector for the U.S. and Major County;
2. Identify the population for the medical service area of Fairview Regional Medical Center;
3. Summarize the direct economic activities of the health sector;
4. Review concepts of community economics and multipliers; and
5. Estimate the secondary and total impacts of the health sector on the Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area.
No recommendations will be made in this report.
Health Services and Rural Development
The nexus between health care services and rural development is often overlooked. At least three primary areas of commonality exist. A strong health care system can help attract and maintain business and industry growth, and attract and retain retirees. A strong health care system can also create jobs in the local area. The following section looks at how the health care sector impacts these areas.
2
Services that Impact Rural Development
Type of Growth
Services Important to Attract Growth
Industrial and Business
Health and Education
Retirees
Health and Safety
Business and Industry Growth
Studies have found that quality-of-life (QOL) factors are playing a dramatic role in business and industry location decisions. Among the most significant of the QOL variables are health care services, which are important for at least three reasons.
First, as noted by a member of the Board of Directors of a community economic development corporation, the presence of good health and education services is imperative to industrial and business leaders as they select a community for location. Employees and participating management may offer strong resistance if they are asked to move into a community with substandard or inconveniently located health services.
Secondly, when a business or industry makes a location decision, it wants to ensure that the local labor force will be productive, and a key factor in productivity is good health. Thus, investments in health care services can be expected to yield dividends in the form of increased labor productivity.
The cost of health care services is the third factor that is considered by business and industry in development decisions. Research shows that corporations take a serious look at health care costs in determining site locations. Sites that provide health care services at a lower cost are given higher consideration for new industry than sites with much higher health care costs.
3
Health Services and Attracting Retirees
A strong and convenient health care system is important to retirees, a special group of residents whose spending and purchasing can be a significant source of income for the local economy. Many rural areas have environments (e.g., moderate climate and outdoor activities) that enable them to be in a good position to attract and retain retirees. The amount of spending embodied in this population, including the purchasing power associated with Social Security, Medicare, and other transfer payments, is substantial. Additionally, middle and upper income retirees often have substantial net worth. Although the data are limited, several studies suggest health services may be a critical variable that influences the location decision of retirees. For example, one study found that four items were the best predictors of retirement locations: safety, recreational facilities, dwelling units, and health care. Another study found that nearly 60 percent of potential retirees said health services were in the “must have” category when considering a retirement community. Only protective services were mentioned more often than health services as a “must have” service.
Health Services and Job Growth
A factor important to the success of rural economic development is job creation. The health care sector is an extremely fast growing sector, and based on the current demographics, there is every reason to expect this trend to continue. Data in Table 1 provide selected health expenditures and employment data for the United States. Several highlights from the national data are:
 In 1970, health care services as a share of the national gross domestic product (GDP) were 7.2 percent. This increased to 16.2 percent in 2008;
 Per capita health expenditures increased from $356 in 1970 to $7,681 in 2008; 4
 Employment in the health sector increased almost 341.0 percent from 1970 to 2008; and
 Annual increases in employment from 2003 to 2008 ranged from 2.0 percent to 4.0 percent.
In addition, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects substantial increases in health care expenditures from 2010 through 2019. In fact, the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services predict that health care expenditures will account for 18.7 percent of GDP by 2016 and increase to 19.6 percent of GDP in 2019. Per capita health care expenditures are projected to increase to $11,625 in 2016 and to $13,653 in 2019. Total health expenditures are projected to increase to $4.5 trillion in 2019. 5
Table 1
United States Health Expenditures and Employment Data
1970-2008; Projected for 2010, 2013, 2016 & 2019
Total
Per Capita
Health
Health
Avg. Annual
Year
Health
Health
as %
Sector
Increase in
Expenditures
Expenditures
of GDP
Employment
Employment
($Billions)
($)
(%)
(000)
(%)
1970
$74.9
$356
7.2%
3,052
a
1980
253.4
1,100
9.1%
5,278
a
7.3%
1990
714.1
2,814
12.3%
7,814
a
4.8%
2000
1,352.9
4,789
13.6%
10,858
a
3.9%
2001
1,469.2
5,150
14.3%
11,188
a
3.0%
2002
1,602.4
5,564
15.1%
11,536
a
3.1%
2003
1,735.2
5,973
15.6%
11,817
b
N/A
2004
1,855.4
6,328
15.6%
12,055
b
2.0%
2005
1,982.5
6,701
15.7%
12,314
b
2.1%
2006
2,112.5
7,071
15.8%
12,602
b
2.3%
2007
2,239.7
7,423
15.9%
12,946
b
2.7%
2008
2,338.7
7,681
16.2%
13,469
b
4.0%
Projections
2010
2,600.2
8,389
17.5%
2013
3,024.8
9,505
17.3%
2016
3,795.9
11,625
18.7%
2019
4,571.5
13,653
19.6%
SOURCES: Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov [September 2010]); U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditures 1970-2008 and National Health Expenditure Projections 2009-2019 (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata [September 2010]).
N/A - Not Available.
a Based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for health sector employment.
b Based on North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) for health sector employment. 6
Figure 1 illustrates that health services accounted for 16.2% of all national expenditures (as reported by the gross domestic product). This figure also breaks the amount spent on health services into various categories. The largest health service type was hospital care, representing 31.0 percent of the total. The next largest type of health services was physician services with 21.0 percent of the total. Community health centers, home health services, and other medical services are allocated in “other” category, which accounts for 32.0 percent.
7
Major County Economic Trends
Data relative to the health sector for Major County are provided in Table 2. Data in Table 2 are from the U. S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns, based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The table shows employment and payroll for both health services and total county services for Major County. Further, it indicates the percentage of total employment and payroll that health services make up, at the county and state level. This table states how health services have changed over time. It must be noted that for the years of 2007 and 2008 the number of health services employees and their payroll is not available at the county level. This is due to privacy rules and regulations. To compare trends 2006 data will be used since it is the latest exact number available. Health services employment in Major County decreased 4.2 percent from 333 employees in 2001 to 319 employees in 2006 (Table 2). During the same time period, the total county employment increased 3.5 percent. County health services employment as a percent of total county employment decreased from 19.8 percent in 2001 to 18.4 percent in 2006, while the state health services employment as a percent of total state employment increased from 14.3 percent in 2001 to 15.1 percent in 2006. The county saw a decrease of 1.4 percent over this eight year period, while the state grew 1.0 percent.
The county health services payroll experienced a different trend compared to employment. Major County’s health services payroll increased 4.6 percent from about $6.4 million in 2001 to $6.7 million in 2006; this compares to an increase of 49.1 percent for the total county payroll (Table 2). State health services payroll as a percent of state payroll increased 0.6 percent from 2001 to 2006. County health services payroll as a percent of total county payroll decreased from 18.0 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2006. 8
Table 2
Fairview Regional Medical Center
Employment and Payroll for County Business Patterns*
Major County and the State of Oklahoma
Employment
Based
Health
Total
Hlth Svcs as a
Hlth Svcs as a
on
Services
County
% of Total
% of Total
NAICS1
Employment
Employment
County Employment
State Employment
2001
333
1,678
19.8%
14.3%
2002
315
1,654
19.0%
15.1%
2003
341
1,618
21.1%
15.2%
2004
331
1,701
19.5%
15.4%
2005
308
1,685
18.3%
15.4%
2006
319
1,736
18.4%
15.1%
2007
250-499
2,161
N/A
15.3%
2008
250-499
2,172
N/A
15.3%
% Change '01 - '06
-4.2%
3.5%
Payroll
Based
Health
Total
Hlth Svcs as a
Hlth Svcs as as
on
Services
County
% of Total
% of Total
NAICS1
Payroll ($1000s)
Payroll ($1000s)
County Payroll
State Payroll
2001
$6,422
$35,590
18.0%
14.5%
2002
$6,336
$35,066
18.1%
15.2%
2003
$6,535
$35,103
18.6%
15.2%
2004
$6,545
$37,177
17.6%
15.7%
2005
$6,412
$43,488
14.7%
15.5%
2006
$6,719
$53,073
12.7%
15.1%
2007
D
$76,135
N/A
15.3%
2008
D
$80,804
N/A
15.2%
% Change '01 - '06
4.6%
49.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns; 2000-2008 data (www.census.gov [March 2011]).
1 The Health Care and Social Assistance NAICS sector comprises establishments providing health care and social assistance for individuals. The sector includes both health care and social assistance because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the boundaries of these two activities. Industries in this sector are arranged on a continuum starting with those establishments providing medical care exclusively, continuing with those providing health care and social assistance, and finally finishing with those providing only social assistance. The services provided by establishments in this sector are delivered by trained professionals. All industries in the sector shared this commonality of process, namely, labor inputs of health practitioners or social workers with the requisite expertise. Many of the industries in the sector are defined based on the educational degree held by the practitioners included in the industry.
E- 250-499 paid health care and social assistance employees
D- Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies; data are included in higher level totals
* Data from County Business Patterns exclude self-employed persons, employees of private households, railroad employees, agricultural production workers, and for most government employees (except for those working in wholesale liquor establishments, retail liquor stores, Federally-chartered savings institutions, Federally-charted credit unions, and hospitals). 9
Basic economic indicators of the Major County economy are illustrated in Table 3. Based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data, the 2008 per capita income for Major County of $32,613 is lower than the per capita income for the state of Oklahoma and the United States.
Table 3
Economic Indicators for Major County,
the State of Oklahoma and the Nation
Indicator
County
State
U.S.
Total Personal Income (2008)
$232,595,000
$131,070,218,000
$12,238,800,000,000
Per Capita Income (2008)
$32,613
$35,969
$40,166
Employment (2009)
4,153
1,636,917
139,877,000
Unemployment (2009)
196
115,855
14,542,000
Unemployment Rate (2009)
4.5%
6.6%
9.3%
Employment (December 2010)*
4,047
1,626,928
139,159,000
Unemployment (December 2010)*
179
115,292
13,997,000
Unemployment Rate (December 2010)*
4.2%
6.6%
9.1%
Percentage of People in Poverty (2009)
10.6%
16.1%
14.3%
Percentage of Under 18 in Poverty (2009)
14.1%
22.1%
20.0%
Transfer Dollars (2008)
$45,973,000
$23,242,704,000
$1,875,558,000,000
Transfer Dollars as Percentage of
19.8%
17.7%
15.3%
Total Personal Income (2008)
*County estimates are considered preliminary
SOURCES: 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2008 Bureau of Economic Analysis; 2009 U.S. Census Bureau.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for Major County was 4.5 percent for 2009, which was lower than the state (6.6 percent) rate and the national (9.3 percent) rate. Moreover, preliminary estimates for December 2010 indicate the unemployment rate for Major County had decreased to 4.2 percent, which was lower than both the state (6.6 10
percent) and the nation (9.1 percent). Also, the number of people employed in Major County decreased 2.6 percent from 2009 to December 2010. This is a common trend across the state. The number of people unemployed in Major County decreased 8.7 percent during that same time period.
From the U. S. Census Bureau, the percent of people in poverty in Major County was 10.6 percent in 2009, as compared to 16.1 percent for the state and 14.3 percent nationally. The percentage of people under age 18 in poverty in 2009 followed similar trends, with Major County being lower than the state and the nation. Another economic indicator is the percent of personal income that is from transfer payments. Based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data, Major County had 19.8 percent of total personal income from transfer payments, which is higher than both the state and the nation. Transfer payments represent that portion of total personal income whose source is state and federal funds. These typically include social security, Medicare, and retirement / disability payments.
Just like other communities, sales tax collections from retail sales are extremely important, if not vital, to the city of Fairview and Major County. Figure 2 displays the trend of city level taxable sales for Fairview. In nominal terms, Fairview has experienced a significant increase in taxable sales. However, when the CPI is applied, inflation-adjusted taxable retail still appears to have increased slightly in 2005, but experienced a decline in FY 2010 (this is a common trend for the state and nation). Fairview’s retail sales are above average for a community of Fairview’s size (Population 1,000-5,000). As stated earlier, a healthy health sector is vital in rural development efforts. Local health services can also be very beneficial for local retail activity (Brooks and Whitacre, 2010).11
$0.00
$5,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$15,000,000.00
$20,000,000.00
$25,000,000.00
$30,000,000.00
$35,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$45,000,000.00
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure. 2 Taxable Sales for Fairview, Actual and Inflation-Adjusted for
1980-2010
Taxable Sales Inflation-Adjusted
12
Demographic Trends for the Fairview Regional Medical Center Medical Service Area and Major County
The Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area is delineated in Figure 3, which also shows the location of nearby hospitals. The primary medical service area is the immediate area surrounding Fairview including the zip code areas of Fairview, 73737; Aline, 73716; Cleo Springs, 73729; Chester 73838; Isabella, 73747; Longdale, 73755; and Ringwood, 73768. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2000 census population of this primary medical service area was 7,790 (Table 4a). Fairview Regional Medical Center also serves a secondary medical service area, which consists of the zip code areas of Canton, 73724; Carmen, 73726; Helena, 73741; Okeene, 73763; Seiling, 73663; and Waynoka, 73860. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2000 Census population of this secondary medical service area was 7,719 (Table 4a).
Since the U. S. Census Bureau only has zip code population for the 2000 census year, another source for more current populations by zip code was researched. ESRI, a company specializing in geographic information systems software, has illustrated zip code populations for the 2000 census year and projected zip code populations for 2010 and projections for 2015. The zip code populations do not match exactly due to a variance in zip code boundaries and based on the methodology for determining population by zip code. However, when comparing the 2000 census and the 2000 ESRI data, total populations for the medical service area do not vary considerably. The ESRI projection of the primary medical service area shows a decrease in population of 4.4 percent from 2000 to 2010 and a projected 6.7 percent decrease from 2000 to 2015 (Table 4a). 13
Table 4b also shows population trends for the state of Oklahoma, Major County, and most of the cities in the primary and secondary medical service area of Fairview Regional Medical Center for the years 1990, 2000, and 2010. The city level estimates are place estimates rather than zip code estimates that were discussed in the previous table. From 1990 to 2000, Major County had a population decrease of 6.33 percent, while the state increased at a rate of 9.70 percent. During the same time period, Longdale (10.32%), Ringwood (7.61%), and Waynoka (4.86%) were the only communities to experience an increase in their population. Aline and Seiling experienced the largest decline in population of 27.46 percent and 15.13 percent, respectively. From 2000 to 2010, Major County saw a population decrease of 4.72 percent; the state experienced an increase of 8.71 percent during this time period. Ringwood (17.22%) and Cleo Springs (3.68%) both experienced an increase from 2000 to 2010. Longdale and Carmen experienced the largest declines in population during this time period with -15.48 percent and 13.63 percent, respectively. When first examining Helena, it appears that the population experienced significant a decrease in 2000 followed by a significant increase in 2010. This could be due to changes in counting institutionalized population during Census years. However, when considering the population across 1990-2010 for Helena, there has been a 34.5 percent increase. It must be noted that place level population estimates were not available for Chester or Isabella.
14
Figure 3 Fairview Regional Medical Center Medical Service Areas
City
County
Hospital
No. of Beds
Okeene
Blaine
Okeene Municipal Hospital
17
Watonga
Blaine
Watonga Municipal Hospital
25
Seiling
Dewey
Seiling Community Hospital
18
Enid
Garfield
INTEGRIS Bass Baptist Health Center
183
Enid
Garfield
INTEGRIS Bass Pavilion
24
Enid
Garfield
St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center
245
Alva
Woods
Share Memorial Hospital
25
Woodward
Woodward
Woodward Regional Hospital
87
Primary Medical Services Area
Secondary Medical Services Area 15
Table 4a
Population of Fairview Regional Medical Center
Medical Service Area
Populations
Population by Zip Code
City
2000 Census
2000 ESRI
2010 ESRI
2015 ESRI
Primary Medical Service Area
73737
Fairview
3,587
3,785
3,674
3,610
73716
Aline
544
408
358
339
73729
Cleo Springs
591
550
522
508
73838
Chester
486
462
429
415
73747
Isabella
400
353
329
320
73755
Longdale
901
686
651
636
73768
Ringwood
1,281
1,327
1,274
1,239
Total
7,790
7,571
7,237
7,067
% Change from 2000 ESRI
-4.4%
-6.7%
Secondary Medical Service Area
73724
Canton
1,143
1,142
1,081
1,053
73726
Carmen
600
552
488
463
73741
Helena
1,648
1,717
1,687
1,656
73763
Okeene
1,609
1,644
1,520
1,471
73663
Seiling
1,332
1,613
1,534
1,489
73860
Waynoka
1,387
1,477
1,255
1,182
Total
7,719
8,145
7,565
7,314
% Change from 2000 ESRI
-7.1%
11.4%
16
Table 4b
Population Trends for Major County and the State of Oklahoma
1990
2000
2010
% Change
% Change
Population
Population
Population
1990-2000
2000-2010
State of Oklahoma
3,145,585
3,450,654
3,751,351
9.70%
8.71%
Major County
8,055
7,545
7,189
-6.33%
-4.72%
Population by City
Fairview
2,936
2,733
2,579
-6.91%
-5.63%
Aline
295
214
207
-27.46%
-3.27%
Cleo Springs
359
326
338
-9.19%
3.68%
Chester
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Isabella
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Longdale
281
310
262
10.32%
-15.48%
Ringwood
394
424
497
7.61%
17.22%
Canton
632
618
625
-2.22%
1.13%
Carmen
459
411
355
-10.46%
-13.63%
Helena
1,043
443
1,403
-57.53%
216.70%
Okeene
1,343
1,240
1,204
-7.67%
-2.90%
Seiling
1,031
875
860
-15.13%
-1.71%
Waynoka
947
993
927
4.86%
-6.65%
Cities Total
9,720
8,587
9,257
SOURCE: Population data from the U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990, 2000; U. S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Branch, 2008; Business Analyst Version 10, ESRI, ESRI 2000 population and 2010 and 2015 projected populations.
Tables 5 and 6 provide further details about the demographic trends of Major County. Table 5 presents the breakdown by age group for Major County and the State of Oklahoma from 17
the census years 1990 and 2000 and the 2009 census estimates. The lowest age group, age 0-14, experienced a proportional decrease from 1990-2000 and 2009. The age group of 45-64, however, has seen a dramatic increase over time. In Major County, those age 45-64 made up 20.6 percent of the total population in 1990, and this went up to 29.2 percent in 2009. This same trend holds true for the state of Oklahoma as well.
Table 6 shows the race and ethnic group percentages for Major County and the state of Oklahoma for the census years 1990, 2000, and 2010. The state has experienced a significant increase in people of Hispanic origin, increasing from 2.7 percent in 1990 to 8.9 percent in 2010. Major County has experienced this same trend. In 1990, those of Hispanic origin made up 1.6 percent of the population. In 2000, this number increased to 4.0 percent. This number again increased in the 2010 census to 7.5 percent. 18
Table5
Age Groups -
for Population Numbers and Percent of Total Population
Major County and the State of Oklahoma
Major County
State of Oklahoma
Age Groups
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1990 Census
0-14
1,818
22.6%
702,537
22.3%
15-19
549
6.8%
233,093
7.4%
20-24
323
4.0%
222,766
7.1%
25-44
2,153
26.7%
961,560
30.6%
45-64
1,659
20.6%
601,416
19.1%
65+
1,553
19.3%
424,213
13.5%
Totals
8,055
100.0%
3,145,585
100.0%
2000 Census
0-14
1,481
19.6%
732,907
21.2%
15-19
577
7.6%
269,373
7.8%
20-24
306
4.1%
247,165
7.2%
25-44
1,839
24.4%
975,169
28.3%
45-64
1,877
24.9%
770,090
22.3%
65+
1,465
19.4%
455,950
13.2%
Totals
7,545
100.0%
3,450,654
100.0%
2009 Estimates
0-14
1,380
19.2%
767,758
20.8%
15-19
503
7.0%
256,841
7.0%
20-24
378
5.3%
280,782
7.6%
25-44
1,421
19.8%
957,235
26.0%
45-64
2,101
29.2%
928,472
25.2%
65+
1,406
19.6%
495,962
13.5%
Totals
7,189
100.0%
3,687,050
100.0%
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Census data for 1990 and 2000, estimated population for 2009 (www.census.gov [March 2011]). 19
Table6
Race and Ethnic Groups -
for Population Numbers and Percent of Total Population
Major County and the State of Oklahoma
Major County
State of Oklahoma
Race/Ethnic Groups
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1990 Census
White
7,781
96.6%
2,547,588
81.0%
Black
3
0.0%
231,462
7.4%
Native American 1
128
1.6%
246,631
7.8%
Other 2
11
0.1%
33,744
1.1%
Two or more Races 3
NA
--
NA
--
Hispanic Origin 4
132
1.6%
86,160
2.7%
2000 Census
White
7,076
93.8%
2,556,368
74.1%
Black
14
0.2%
257,981
7.5%
Native American 1
65
0.9%
266,158
7.7%
Other 2
7
0.1%
50,594
1.5%
Two or more Races 3
80
1.1%
140,249
4.1%
Hispanic Origin 4
303
4.0%
179,304
5.2%
2010 Census
White
6,629
88.1%
2,706,845
72.2%
Black
32
0.4%
277,644
7.4%
Native American 1
130
1.7%
321,687
8.6%
Other 2
29
0.4%
223,854
6.0%
Two or more Races 3
142
1.9%
221,321
5.9%
Hispanic Origin 4
565
7.5%
332,007
8.9%
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Census data for 1990 , 2000, and 2010 (www.census.gov [March 2011]).
1 Native American includes American Indians and Alaska Natives.
2 Other is defined as Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders and all others.
3 Two or more races indicate a person is included in more than one race group.
4 Hispanic population is not a race group but rather a description of ethnic origin; Hispanics are included in the five race groups.
NA - Not available; 1990 census did not report this category.
20
The Direct Economic Activities
The health sector creates employment and payroll impacts, which are important direct economic activities for the Fairview Regional Medical Center service area. The health sector is divided into the following six components:
 Hospital
 Physicians, Dentists, and Other Medical Professionals
 Nursing and Protective Care
 Home Health
 Pharmacies
 Other Medical and Health Services
The health sector in Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area employs 206 full-time equivalent employees and has an estimated payroll of $8,890,871 (Table 7). The health sector in Major County is fairly typical of counties of its size, with a hospital, one dental office, one chiropractor office, one optometrist office, one nursing home, one county health department, one EMS service, one home health service, one hospice service, one behavioral health facility and three pharmacies.
The Hospital component provides 67 full-time equivalent jobs with an estimated annual payroll of $3,878,211 (including benefits1). The Physicians, Dentists, and Other Medical Professionals sector employs 13 total full-time equivalent employees with an estimated payroll of $603,524. The Nursing and Protective Care component employs 80 total full-time equivalent employees with an estimated annual payroll of $2,640,000. The Other Medical and Health Services & Pharmacy component which includes one county health department, one home health service, one hospice service, one behavioral health facility, one EMS service and three pharmacies employs 46 total full-time equivalent employees and has an estimated annual payroll of $1,769,136.
1 The ratios for benefits are derived from the 2002 Economic Census Data-Oklahoma Health Care and Social Assistance by industry, U.S. Census Bureau. 21
The health sector is vitally important as both a community employer and a source of income to the community's economy. As demonstrated in Table 7, the health sector employs a large number of residents.
Table 7
Direct Economic Activities of the Health Sector
in the Fairview Regional Medical Center Medical Service Area
Component
Full-Time & Part-Time Employment
Total Payroll with Benefits
Hospital
67
$3,878,211
Includes Fairview Regional Medical Center
Physicians, Dentists, & Other Medical Professionals
13
$603,524
Includes one dentist office, one optometrist office, and one chiropractor office
Nursing and Protective Care
80
$2,640,000
Includes one nursing home
Other Medical & Health Services & Pharmacies
46
$1,769,136
Includes Major County Health Department, Major County EMS, one home health service, one hospice service, and one behavioral health facility
Totals
206
$8,890,871
SOURCE: Local survey and estimates from research.
These residents, along with businesses in the health sector, purchase a large amount of goods and services from businesses in the Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area. These impacts are referred to as secondary impacts or benefits to the economy. Before the secondary impacts of the health sector are discussed, the basic concepts of community economics will be reviewed. 22
Basic Concepts of Community Economics and
Income and Employment Multipliers
Figure 4 illustrates the major flows of goods, services, and dollars of any economy. The foundations of a community's economy are those businesses that sell some or all of their goods and services to buyers outside of the community. Such a business is a basic industry. The two arrows in the upper right portion of Figure 4 represent the flow of products out of, and dollars into, a community. To produce these goods and services for "export" outside the community, the basic industry purchases inputs from outside of the community (upper left portion of Figure 4), labor from the residents or "households" of the community (left side of Figure 4), and inputs from service industries located within the community (right side of Figure 4). Households using their earnings to purchase goods and services from the community’s service industries complete the flow of labor, goods, and services in the community (bottom of Figure 4). It is evident from the relationships illustrated in Figure 4 that a change in any one segment of a community's economy will cause reverberations throughout the entire economic system of the community.
HouseholdsIndustryBasicServicesGoods &$LaborInputsProductsInputs$$$$Services$$
Figure 4
Community Economic System 23
Consider, for instance, the closing of a hospital. The services section will no longer pay employees and the dollars flowing into households from these jobs will stop. Likewise, the hospital will not purchase goods from other businesses, and the dollar flow to other businesses will stop. This decreases income in the "households" segment of the economy. Since earnings would decrease, households decrease their purchases of goods and services from businesses within the "services" segment of the economy. This, in turn, decreases the amount of labor and input that these businesses' purchase. Thus, the change in the economic base works its way throughout the entire local economy. The total impact of a change in the economy consists of direct, indirect, and induced impacts. Direct impacts are the changes in the activities of the impacting industry, such as the closing of a hospital. The impacting business, such as the hospital, changes its purchase of inputs as a result of the direct impact. This produces an indirect impact in the business sectors.
Both the direct and indirect impacts change the flow of dollars to the community's households. The households alter their consumption accordingly. The effect of this change in household consumption upon businesses in a community is referred to as an induced impact. A measure is needed that yields the effects created by an increase or decrease in economic activity. In economics, this measure is called the multiplier effect. The multipliers used in this report are defined as:
“…the ratio between direct employment (or income), or that employment (or income) used by the industry initially experiencing a change in final demand and the direct, indirect, and induced employment (or income).”
An employment multiplier of 3.0 indicates that if one job is created by a new industry, 2.0 jobs are created in other sectors due to business (indirect) and household (induced) spending. 24
Secondary Impacts of the Health Sector
on the Economy of Fairview Regional Medical Center Medical Service Area
Employment and income multipliers for the area have been calculated by use of the IMPLAN model. This model was developed by the U.S. Forest Service2 and allows for the development of multipliers for various sectors of an economy. The employment multipliers for the components of the health sector are shown in Table 8, column 3. The employment multiplier for the Hospital component is 1.33. This indicates that for each job in that component, an additional 0.33 jobs are created throughout the area due to business (indirect) and household (induced) spending. The employment multipliers for the other health sector components are also shown in Table 8, column 3.
Applying the employment multipliers to the employment for each component yields an estimate of the impact on the economy (Table 8, columns 2, 3, and 4). For example, the hospital has a direct employment of 67 full-time equivalent employees; applying the employment multiplier of 1.33 to the employment number of 79 brings the total employment impact of the hospital to 89 employees. The Physicians, Dentists, and Other Professionals component employs 13 people; however, the total impact is 15 employees once the multiplier of 1.18 is applied. The Nursing and Protective Care component has a total employment of 87 after the multiplier of 1.09 is applied to the direct employment of 80. The Other Medical and Health Services & Pharmacy component has 46 full-time equivalent employees and an employment multiplier of 1.17, for a total employment impact of 54. The total employment impact of the health sector in the Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area is estimated to be 245 employees (Table 8, total of column 4).
2 For complete details of model, see [1], [2], and [3]. 25
Table 8
Fairview Regional Medical Center Medical Service Area Health Sector Impact
on Employment and Income, and Retail Sales and Sales Tax
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Employment
Income
Retail
1 Cent
Health Sectors
Employed
Multiplier
Impact
Income
Multiplier
Impact
Sales
Sales Tax
Hospitals
67
1.33
89
$3,878,211
1.14
$4,407,463
$929,534
$9,295
Physicians, Dentists, & Other Medical Professionals
13
1.18
15
$603,524
1.15
$693,721
$146,306
$1,463
Nursing and Protective Care
80
1.09
87
$2,640,000
1.12
$2,960,277
$624,322
$6,243
Other Medical & Health Services & Pharmacies
46
1.17
54
$1,769,136
1.18
$2,086,546
$440,052
$4,401
Total
206
245
$8,890,871
$10,148,006
$2,140,214
$21,402
SOURCE: 2008 IMPLAN database, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.; Local data for employment, employee compensation and proprietor's income; income estimated based on state average incomes if local data not available
* Based on the ratio between Major County retail sales and income (21.09%) – from 2009 County Sales Tax Data and Personal Income Estimates from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 26
Applying the income multipliers to the income (payroll including benefits) for each of the health sector components yields an estimate of each component’s income impact on the Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area (Table 8, columns 5, 6, and 7). The income multiplier for the Hospital component is 1.14 (Table 8, column 6). This indicates that for each dollar in that component, an additional 0.14 dollars are created throughout the area due to business (indirect) and household (induced) spending. The Hospital component has a total payroll of $3,878,211; applying the income multiplier of 1.14 brings the total Hospital component income impact to $4,407,463. The income multipliers for the other health sector components are also shown in Table 8, column 6. The Physicians, Dentists, and Other Medical Professionals component has a total income impact of $693,721, based on the application of the income multiplier of 1.15 to the $603,524 payroll. The Nursing and Protective Care component has a multiplier of 1.12 which yields a total income impact of $2,960,277. The Other Medical and Health Services & Pharmacy component has a total payroll of $1,769,136and an income multiplier of 1.18 leading to a total income impact of $2,086,546. The total income impact of the health sector on the economy of the Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area is projected to be $10,148,006 (Table 8, total of column 7).
Income also has an impact on retail sales, and the health sector has its own distinct effect on these retail sales. The local retail sales capture ratio is used to estimate the effect of the health sector on retail sales. This ratio indicates the percentage of personal income spent locally on items that generate local sales tax. If the county ratio between retail sales and income continues as is currently (around 21.09 percent), then direct and secondary retail sales generated by the health sector equals $2,140,214 (Table 8, total of column 8). Each of the components’ income impacts is utilized to determine the retail sales and a one-cent sales tax collection for each component. A one-cent sales tax collection is estimated to generate $21,402 in the Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area economy as a result of the health sector income 27
impact (Table 8, total of column 9). This estimate is probably low, as many health care employees tend to spend a larger portion of their income in local establishments that collect sales tax. The bottom line is that the health sector in the Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area not only contributes greatly to the medical health of the community, but also to the economic health of the community.
Summary
The economic impact of the health sector on the economy of Fairview Regional Medical Center medical service area is tremendous. The health sector employs a large number of residents, similar to a large industrial firm. The secondary impact occurring in the community is extremely large and is a testament to the importance of the health sector. If the health sector increases or decreases in size, the medical health of the community, as well as the economic health of the community, is greatly affected. For the attraction of industrial firms, businesses, and retirees, it is crucial that the area have a quality health sector. The fact that a prosperous health sector also contributes to the economic health of the community is often overlooked.
References
[1] IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0 Social Accounting & Impact Analysis Software – USER’S GUIDE, ANALYSIS GUIDE, DATA GUIDE, MIG, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2nd Edition, June 2000.
[2] Palmer, Charles and Eric Siverts, IMPLAN ANALYSIS GUIDE. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Land Management Planning Systems Section, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1985.
[3] Siverts, Eric, Charles Palmer, Ken Walters, and Greg Alward, IMPLAN USER'S GUIDE, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Systems Application Unit, Land Management Planning, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1983.
[4] Brooks, L. and Whitacre, B. E. , Critical Access Hospitals and Retail Activity: An Empirical Analysis in Oklahoma. The Journal of Rural Health, no. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2010.00336.x