Massachusetts wants to upend health care. Again.

Massachusetts is running the country's most aggressive experiment in controlling health-care costs — and the first year results suggest it could be working.

Two years ago, Massachusetts set what seemed like an ambitious goal: it would be the first state in the entire country that would put a firm cap on health-care spending. By 2017, the state planned to have health-care costs grow slower than the rest of the economy — something that never happens anywhere in the United States.

Massachusetts' budget cap kicked in last year and, earlier this morning, the state reported a victory: it stayed within the 2013 growth limits.

Massachusetts set a target to have health-care costs grow no faster than 3.6 percent in 2013. New data from the Center for Health Information and Analysis (or, as it's known by its amazing acronym, CHIA), shows that health costs grew by an average of 2.3 percent per person in Massachusetts.

(Massachusetts Center for Health Information and Analysis)

The good news: per capita health-care costs grew slower than Massachusetts had hoped. The bad news: medical spending still grew faster than overall inflation in the state. And all of this is happening in an era when, across the country, health-care costs are growing at a slower-than-normal pace.

So while growth in health-care costs "was below the benchmark, it is also notable that the state economy also grew slowly over this period," the report notes. "Moreover, health care expenditure growth has been slowing nationwide. It is difficult to distinguish the effect of Massachusetts-specific policy … because the observed trend is broadly consistent with national trends."

The next few years will likely be a better test of Massachusetts' ability to control costs. By 2017, the state aims to have health-care costs growing 0.5 percent slower than the rest of the economy. That's a much more challenging goal to hit — and, if Massachusetts can pull it off, one that lots of other states will want to copy.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via