In the specific sense it refers to as being the correct use of the word, no its not. Its not a drop in consumer demand caused by an increase in tax. If you mean reduction in private spending because goverments are spending it then DUH. However if thats what your talking about then you compleatly missread my post. Lets say that total health expenditure in the US is 1000 (it can be 1000 gold coins, 1000 tons of gold, or 1000 cocnuts for all i care, its just an example) Of that 1000, 10 come from the goverment and 990 come from people and companies. The goverment decides to increase its share of that 1000 by 490. Now you would expect to see either a total expenditure of 1000 still and "private" contribution fall to 500 OR you would expect to see total expenditure rise to 1490 but that isnt what the OECD statistics show. Insted total expenditure would now become 900 (or 800, the exact amounts dont matter its a principle im trying to show). The important thing though is the level of care indicators actually STAY at the same rates as you were on for the 1000 OR ACTUALLY INCREASE. This isnt a bad thing, actually its a very good thing (except if you happen to be a private health insurer) Goverment expenditure in health care is deflationary in both the direct costs of health AND in the burden these costs cause the community there by increasing other compnay profits and peoples take home wages.