As I’ve noted in a series of posts, there is often great confusion about the cost of the health bill being considered by Congress.
Yesterday, for example, many commentators were saying that the coverage expansions in the new House health bill would cost $894 billion over ten years, even though the actual cost is $1.055 trillion (according, as always, to the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office).
A second problem is confusion between (a) the cost of expanding coverage and (b) the overall cost of the bills. Expanding coverage is the key focus of each of the major health bills, but we should always keep in mind that the bills make other changes as well. In the case of the Baucus bill, for example, I estimated that other spending initiatives added about $75 billion, bringing its total cost to slightly more than $900 billion.
I’ve made the same calculations for the House health bill, and the additional spending is even larger: about $217 billion. Among many other things, that spending would increase payment rates for primary care physicians in Medicaid and create two new funds to finance public health investments and prevention and wellness efforts. The bill would also extend a provision in the recent stimulus bill (ARRA) that increased the federal share (the FMAP) of Medicaid spending, and thus provided assistance to the states:
As noted, the House bill does not include any funding to prevent the upcoming 20%+ cut in payment rates for doctors in Medicare. The Baucus bill included a one-year fix at a cost of $11 billion, while the Senate’s efforts to pass a permanent fix without paying for it recently failed (thankfully).
P.S. Kudos to David Espo of the Associated Press for covering the cost of the House bill correctly. He wrote: “The Congressional Budget Office said the cost of additional coverage alone was slightly more [than] $1 trillion over a decade. But that omitted other items, including billions for disease prevention programs.”
Note on the numbers: The increases in other health spending programs are sprinkled throughout CBO’s analysis of the bill. I calculated the $217 billion figure by adding up all the individual line items that increased direct spending, with a couple of exceptions. First, I did not include the interaction effects that CBO lists as the end of the estimate because I was not sure how to allocate them; the interactions are large and could have a material effect on my estimate, potentially up or down. Second, there was one policy that led to both spending increases and spending decreases; since the decreases were larger, I didn’t include any of the increases in my figure. I am certainly open to other suggestions about how to add up the other spending in the bill.
[…] as I discussed yesterday and a few weeks ago, I think policy makers should unpack the second line item, changes in net […]
[…] Cannon at Cato draws my attention to these posts by Donald Marron, a former CBO director, on the confusion surrounding recent estimates of the […]
[…] can read his explanation, and check out his math, here. StumbleUpon| Digg| Reddit| Twitter| […]
[…] November 2, 2009 by Donald Marron In a series of posts last week, I noted that the coverage provisions in the House health bill would cost more than $1 trillion over the next ten years, notably higher than the $894 billion figure that was circulated when the bill was first released. In addition, I pointed out that the bill includes other spending increases that aren’t involved in expanding coverage; when you factor those in, I estimated that the real cost of the bill would be almost $1.3 trillion. […]
[…] In a recent series of posts, I noted that the coverage provisions in the House health bill would cost more than $1 trillion over the next ten years, notably higher than the $894 billion figure that was circulated when the bill was first released. In addition, I pointed out that the bill includes other spending increases that aren’t involved in expanding coverage; when you factor those in, I estimated that the real cost of the bill would be almost $1.3 trillion. […]
[…] is all true. As both Donald Marron and James Capretta have noted, the Democrats included billions of spending in the bill that are not […]
[…] Marron, former acting director of the Congressional Budget Office, calculates that through a variety of provisions there is about $217 billion in additional spending the House […]
[…] Marron, former acting director of the Congressional Budget Office, calculates that through a variety of provisions there is about $217 billion in additional spending in the […]
[…] Cost of Health Reform: $894 billion or 1.3 trillion? […]
[…] Donald Marron, former CBO director, estimated that there are $217 billion in additional spending ignored by CBO. Even if the bill cost under the arbitrary $900 billion limit requested by the President, that seems to be a $900 billion expansion of the federal government that we, as a nation, don’t need right now. […]
[…] Doug Marron| The House Health Bill Costs Almost $1.3 Trillion […]
[…] trillion over 10 years. I’ve seen reports from other organizations saying 2 to 2.5 trillion. Donald Marron lays out his argument with a handy dandy chart for 1.3 trillion. Once caveat to his analysis […]
[…] trillion over 10 years. I’ve seen reports from other organizations saying 2 to 2.5 trillion. Donald Marron lays out his argument with a handy dandy chart for 1.3 trillion. Once caveat to his analysis […]
[…] Donald Marron, former CBO director, estimated that there are $217 billion in additional spending ignored by CBO. Even if the bill cost under the arbitrary $900 billion limit requested by the President, that seems to be a $900 billion expansion of the federal government that we, as a nation, don’t need right now. […]
[…] Donald Marron lo presenta gráficamente: […]
[…] do not capture all the costs of these bills. As I’ve pointed out several times (e.g., here and here), the health bills include many important provisions in addition to those expanding coverage. Many […]
Who is going to pay the fine for the people who refuse to buy health care insurance. Are we going to let them die if they are brought into the hospital without insurance? Is death the penalty? Or going without the cast on a leg the penalty? And what is the deductable on this insurance? It is not like car insurance where there is a penalty if caught without a license and or insurance. The whole thing does not make sense to me. Does not give any incentive to those who choose not to take out insurance to do so.
Plus, I do not believe that taxpayers should pay for abortions. ABORTIONS are not health issues. The same people would be getting abortions as if they were pills.
Who to believe? Need to know party affiliation of article writer before believing it!
Health Care costs LESS in countries that have healthcare coverage for ALL their citizens. Looks like Americans want to believe Insurance-bribed writers and not examine the facts—how have we gotten so selfish as to not look after our fellow Americans who have lost insurance with jobs due to this “recession,” or lost insurance due to being too ill?