Tag: Health

How Much Does the Senate Health Bill Cost?

Earlier today the Congressional Budget Office released an updated analysis of the Senate health bill. The update reflects all the amendments that were adopted during Senate consideration of the bill, some technical adjustments, and the assumption that the bill would be enacted in the spring of 2010 (rather than December 2009, as previously assumed).

The bottom line is that not much has changed. The near-term costs of the bill have increased somewhat, but the budget story remains essentially the same.

The health care debate seems to have moved on from budget issues. For example, the big news today was that the Senate Parliamentarian announced that the legislative strategy of using reconciliation to pass a second health care bill will work–at least as far as he is concerned–only if the Senate bill is first passed by the House and signed into law by the President.

Nonetheless, as a public service let me offer a quick summary of the budget impacts of the bill over the next ten years:

There are four things you should take away from this table:

1. The Senate bill costs about $971 billion — not $875 billion — over the next ten years. As long-term readers know, one of my pet peeves is that the media (and many policymakers) use the phrase “cost of the health care bill” when they should be saying “cost of the provisions in the health care bill that expand health insurance coverage.” This distinction is important because all the health bills also contain provisions that have nothing to do with expanding insurance coverage. The Senate bill, for example, would help fill in the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D, fund more community health centers, and fund prevention efforts, among other things. These efforts may be worthy, but they aren’t free. Thus while the media reports that the bill costs $875 billion, I estimate that the real cost is about $971 billion. That figures includes the $875 billion being spent to increase health insurance coverage plus $94 billion in new spending on other health initiatives and $2 billion in new tax cuts.

2. The Senate bill will reduce the deficit by $118 billion over the next ten years. The bill contains more than $1 trillion in offsets, including $251 billion in tax increases related to health insurance coverage (e.g., the tax on “Cadillac” health plans, penalties on some employers, and penalties on some uninsured individuals), $266 billion in tax increases unrelated to health insurance coverage (e.g., higher Medicare payroll taxes on wages above $200,000), and $572 billion in spending reductions (e.g., lower Medicare payment rates for some providers).

3. The near-term budget savings are exaggerated by the inclusion of the CLASS Act; adjusting for that, the ten-year deficit reduction is $48 billion. Another item familiar to long-time readers, the CLASS Act would create an insurance program for long-term care. Premium income, which reduces the reported deficit, would start much faster than benefit payouts, so the program generates surpluses in the near-term. But it won’t in the long-run. So most budgeteers view the inclusion of the CLASS Act here as a gimmick. Netting out the $70 billion in budget savings from the CLASS Act, and you have deficit reduction of $48 billion over the next decade.

4. The bill would increase the Federal commitment to health care over the next ten years. CBO created this metric to reflect the fact that the Federal government supports health care both through spending programs and through tax subsidies, most notably that for employer-provided health insurance. CBO finds that the combination of these efforts will expand during the first ten years of the bill.  If the entire bill executes as written, however, CBO expects that the federal commitment to health care will decline in the second decade.

Note: CBO does not calculate a total cost figure for the health bills. The bills include dozens of policy changes, and it would be difficult (perhaps impossible) to allocate all their impacts to specific provisions. Thus, my figures should be considered approximate. I calculated the $94 billion figure for additional spending by adding up all the individual line items in Table 4 of the cost estimate 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; I included the net spending increase in my figure. I am certainly open to other suggestions about how to add up the other spending in the bill. It’s also worth noting that I have taken as given CBO’s estimate of the gross cost of expanding coverage. There are some nuances in the calculation of that figure (e.g., the treatment of payments in a reinsurance program) that I need to understand better. I made similar calculations for the $2 billion in tax cuts itemized in the JCT analysis of the bill.

Good Charts from the ERP

Last week, the Council of Economic Advisers released its 2010 Economic Report of the President (ERP). I haven’t had time to read it yet, but I did take a quick spin through looking at the charts and getting a feel for it.

The first thing I noticed is that the folks at the CEA have made an important innovation: the ERP now includes references to the academic studies, government reports, etc. on which it bases some of its conclusions. That’s a welcome break from a long-standing tradition (which I never really understood) that the ERP didn’t include references.

A second useful innovation is that the ERP is available in eBook formats, including for my beloved Kindle. Not to add to their already enormous workload, but I look forward to the 2011 or 2012 version having dynamic graphics and live links to the references.

Here are some of the charts that I particularly liked:

1. The boom and bust of house prices. By this measure, house prices are still historically high–except for the bubble.

2. The declining role of banks in the financial sector. Note the growth of mutual funds and ABS issuers.

3. How rising health care costs may consume a rising share of employee compensation. (Note, however, that by setting the axis at $30,000 rather $0, the chart visually exaggerates the effect.)

4. How the rate of being uninsured varies with age.

Don’t Double Count the Medicare Savings in Health Reform

In order to pay for coverage expansions (and other spending increases), the Senate health bill includes a mix of tax increases and spending reductions. Notable among these are several provisions that would reduce future Medicare spending and increase Medicare revenues.

Some opponents of the bill have argued that the spending reductions would eventually drive providers from the program and thus hurt Medicare beneficiaries. In response, some proponents of the bill have made an interesting argument: that the spending reductions and revenue increases would actually strengthen Medicare by extending the life of its Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, which pays for Part A of the program.

That argument is interesting for two reasons. First, it is absolutely correct within the narrow confines of trust fund accounting. The Medicare spending reductions and revenue increases in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) would indeed extend the life of the HI trust fund, thereby allowing Part A payments to continue further into the future. Second, that logic implies that many of the budget savings from the Senate health bill will eventually be used to pay for further Medicare benefits. As a result, those savings won’t be available to pay for the coverage expansions and other spending increases in the bill. In short, if you believe that the bill will strengthen Medicare, you shouldn’t believe that the Part A spending reductions and revenue increases are helping to pay for health reform.

The Congressional Budget Office makes exactly this point in a helpful note published today. The note explains the mechanics of trust fund accounting and their relation to usual budget accounting and then delivers the money quote:

The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs.

That conclusion echoes a similar finding by Rick Foster, the Chief Actuary of CMS (the folks who oversee Medicare and Medicaid). Back on December 10, he noted:

In practice, the improved part A financing [resulting from the Senate health bill] cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions under the PPACA) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.

Bottom line: Don’t double count the Medicare spending reductions and revenue increases in the Senate health bill.

Bending the Federal Health Cost Curve (Maybe)

UPDATE: The Congressional Budget Office discovered an error in its original cost estimate for the revised Senate health bill. CBO originally projected that the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) created by the bill would lead to substantial reductions in Medicare spending beyond 2019. CBO’s revised estimate shows significantly smaller IPAB savings in future decades. CBO’s new letter does not specifically address the federal commitment to health care (the specific cost measure discussed in this blog post), but it appears that the potential reductions are much smaller than originally reported.

Buried deep in CBO’s cost estimate of the new Senate health bill is a striking conclusion: CBO believes that the health bill would eventually reduce the federal commitment to health care. In short, the bill would eventually bend (or, at least, lower) the federal health cost curve (including both spending and tax subsidies).

That conclusion comes with two crucial caveats: CBO’s estimates into future decades are subject to great uncertainty and assume that the legislation executes exactly as written. As CBO itself points out, that latter assumption is shaky — Congress will undoubtedly revisit health care repeatedly in coming years and may well decide to soften the spending reductions and tax increases specified in the bill.

Still it is striking that the bill, as written, might reduce the federal commitment to health beyond the first decade. That certainly distinguishes it from the previous version of the Senate bill.

CBO writes (my emphasis added):

In subsequent years [i.e., after 2019], the effects of the proposal that would tend to decrease the federal budgetary commitment to health care would grow faster than those that would increase it. As a result, CBO expects that the proposal would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade following the 10-year budget window. By comparison, CBO expected that the legislation as originally proposed would have no significant effect on that commitment during the 2020-2029 period; most of the difference in CBO’s assessment arises because the manager’s amendment would lower the threshold for Medicare spending growth that would trigger recommendations for spending reductions by the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The range of uncertainty surrounding these assessments is quite wide.

The change in the IPAB is a bit arcane, but potentially a big deal if future Presidents and Congresses let it do its thing. Under the original Senate bill, the IPAB recommendations would be relevant only to the extent that Medicare spending per beneficiary was projected to grow faster than overall per capita health spending. In the new bill, the threshold is set much lower, reflecting inflation in overall consumer prices and consumer medical inflation. That change gives the IPAB more teeth and, in later years, more bite.

Key Budget Changes in the Senate Health Bill

Majority Leader Harry Reid released his revised health care bill today; the Congressional Budget Office followed shortly thereafter with its cost estimate.

Leader Reid has made many changes to his original bill. The one you will hear the most about, just because it is amusing, is that the tax on cosmetic surgery (the “bo-tax”) has been replaced with a tax on indoor tanning services. (I’m not sure of the politics here, but I presume this tax will be justified by pointing out that indoor tanning is the equivalent of cigarette smoking for your skin.)

From a budget perspective, CBO identifies the following as among the most important changes:

• The tax credit for small businesses would be made available to firms paying somewhat higher average wages, and it would first take effect in 2010 rather than 2011.

• The penalty for not having insurance would be the greater of a flat dollar amount per person or a percentage of the individual’s income, which would increase the amount of penalties collected.

• The provision establishing a public plan that would be run by HHS was replaced with a provision for multi-state plans that would be offered under contract with OPM.

• Certain workers would have the option of obtaining tax-free vouchers from their employers equal in value to the contributions their employers would make to their health insurance plans. The value of vouchers would be adjusted for age, and the vouchers would be used in the exchanges to purchase coverage that would otherwise be unsubsidized. (CBO and JCT estimate that about 100,000 workers would take advantage of that option.)

• Several provisions regulating insurers were added, including a requirement for an insurer to provide rebates if its share of premiums going to administrative costs exceeds specified levels and a general prohibition on imposing annual limits on the amount of benefits that would be covered.

• Additional federal funding for CHIP would be provided to states in 2014 and 2015.

• A provision that would increase Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services by 0.5 percent for 2010 was eliminated. Instead, the 21 percent reduction in those payment rates that is scheduled to occur in 2010 under current law would take effect. [In other words, the previous bill had a one-year doctor fix; the new bill has none.]

• The measure of Medicare spending that would be used to set savings targets for the Independent Payment Advisory Board was modified. [As I will discuss in a later post, this is a big deal.]

• The increment to the Hospital Insurance portion of the payroll tax rate for individuals with income above $200,000 and for families with income above $250,000 was raised from 0.5 percent to 0.9 percent.

• The 5 percent excise tax on cosmetic surgery was eliminated, and a 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services was added.

• Community health centers and the National Health Service Corps would receive an additional $10 billion in mandatory funding.

• Revisions to and extensions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act were added.

When Do Regulations Turn Private Insurance into Government Insurance?

Summary: A new Senate health proposal might turn private insurance into government insurance, at least from CBO’s perspective.

In the 1990s, the Congressional Budget Office dealt a key blow to President Clinton’s health legislation when it decided that the reforms would move large portions of the health care system into the government and thus onto the budget. In that case, CBO concluded that regulations on private insurance would be so intrusive that it would effectively become a governmental activity. That finding strengthened the hand of opponents who portrayed the proposal as a big government expansion.

Policymakers have taken great pains to avoid the same fate in their current efforts at health insurance reform. Early in the process, Congressional leaders asked CBO to detail how it would decide which proposed policies should be treated as part of the government — and thus be recorded on the budget for Congressional purposes — and which not. To provide some answers, CBO released a brief back in May that describes how it would draw the line between government and non-government in evaluating health insurance proposals.  In his blog, Director Doug Elmendorf summarized the key distinction as follows:

In CBO’s view, the key consideration is whether a proposal would be making health insurance an essentially governmental program, tightly controlled by the federal government with little choice available to those who offer and buy health insurance—or whether the system would provide significant flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private-sector sellers of insurance available to people. The former—a governmental program—belongs in the federal budget (including all premiums paid by individuals and firms to private insurers), but the latter—a largely private-sector system—does not.

The health legislation being considered in Congress includes many new regulations on private insurance (e.g., to forbid screening based on pre-existing conditions and to require coverage for certain activities), but CBO has consistently found that they aren’t enough to bring private insurance into the federal budget. The regulations would certainly change insurance markets, but in CBO’s view would leave enough flexibility and choice for those markets to still be considered private.

Until last week, that is, when a new proposal emerged that might cross CBO’s line and bring significant portions of the private insurance market onto the federal budget. That proposal would require health insurers to achieve a “medical loss ratio” of at least 90%. [A medical loss ratio (MLR) is the amount that the insurer spends on health care divided by the premiums that it collects. The difference between premiums and health spending covers the insurer’s overhead and administrative costs and provides profits for its shareholders (if any; many insurers are non-profits).]

Some insurance companies have MLRs that are 85%, 80%, or lower. Critics believe those lower ratios reflect either wasteful administrative costs or unwarranted profits. Defenders, on the other hand, point to the high administrative costs of providing careful care and cost management, as well as the higher costs of serving some parts of the insurance market.

Whatever the relative merits of those arguments, the key question for CBO is whether limiting MLRs would fundamentally transform the private insurance market. Based on what I’ve heard from several reporters this afternoon, it appears that the answer is yes. CBO has apparently concluded that when combined with other regulations in the proposed health legislation, strict limits on MLRs (e.g., establishing a minimum of 90%) would cross the line and bring any affected insurance into the federal government and onto the federal budget. On the other hand, much less stringent requirements on MLRs (e.g., establishing a minimum of 80%) would not cross that line.

Given the painful memories of the Clinton effort, you can be sure that Senate leaders are working hard to make sure their new proposal won’t cross the line. But it might come really, really close.

CBO Comments on the Budget Impacts of the Health Bills

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf posted a particularly interesting piece on his Director’s Blog today. Summarizing a presentation he gave to the Group of 30, Doug responds to some of the more common concerns one hears about the budget effects of the health bills:

First, some analysts argue that CBO is underestimating the ultimate costs of the new subsidies to buy health insurance. My response was that the budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems was very uncertain, but that CBO staff, in consultation with outside experts, has devoted a great deal of care and effort to this analysis, and the agency strives to have its estimates reflect the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes. CBO’s estimates of subsidy costs may turn out to be too low, but they could also turn out to be too high.

Second, some observers argue that CBO’s estimates are unrealistic because Congress will not allow the Medicare spending cuts in the proposals to take effect. My response was that CBO estimates the effects of proposals as written and does not forecast future legislation, but that the agency does try to provide information about the consequences of implementing proposals. Our cost estimate for the Senate proposal and our cost estimate for the House bill said that inflation-adjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary would slow sharply under those proposals. For example, growth in such spending under the Senate proposal would drop from about 4 percent per year for the past two decades to roughly 2 percent per year for the next two decades; whether such a reduction could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear. In addition, relaxing previously enacted constraints on Medicare spending can add significantly to long-run budget deficits, as we wrote in answer to a question about the effects of combining the House bill with a change in the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate mechanism for Medicare physician payments.

Third, some analysts argue that the pending proposals will hamper future efforts at deficit reduction by using spending cuts and new revenues to pay for a new entitlement rather than to cover the costs of existing entitlements. My response was, again, that CBO does not and should not forecast future legislation; its cost estimates address the specific legislation at hand and do not speculate about the possible impact of a bill on future legislative actions. However, our June analysis of health reform and the federal budget noted that using savings in certain programs to finance new programs instead of reducing the deficit would ultimately necessitate even stronger policy actions in other areas of the budget.

Fourth, some experts argue that the proposals are missing opportunities to reform health care delivery and reduce spending more significantly. My response was that it is not CBO’s role to make such judgments, but that our December volume on Budget Options included a wide range of alternatives for changing the nation’s health care and health insurance systems. Those options covered many different types of reforms and included reforms with different degrees of aggressiveness in altering existing systems and pursuing cost-saving goals.

(I don’t usually post such long excerpts, but this one struck me as worth quoting in its entirety. Doug also shared some thoughts on stimulus and the state of the economy; click on over to his post for those.)

Good Budget Reads

1. Jeff Frankel tops my National Journal post with nine more ways to trim the deficit.

2. EconomistMom Diane Lim Rogers scores the budget quote of the week: “‘Loosey-goosey’ out, loosey-goosey’ back at ya.”

3. Bruce Bartlett makes the case for a war tax: “wars financed heavily by higher taxes, such as the Korean War and the first Gulf War, end quickly, while those financed largely by deficits, such as the Vietnam War and current Middle East conflicts, tend to drag on indefinitely.”

How Would Health Reform Affect Insurance Premiums?

Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released its much-anticipated analysis of how the Senate health bill might affect insurance premiums. As a political matter, the analysis appears to be a clear win for proponents of the bill. Most importantly, CBO found that average premiums in the large group market—which provides about 70% of private health insurance—would decline slightly in 2016. That provides comfort to Senate moderates who were concerned by claims that the bill would increase premiums significantly.

On the other hand, the report also found that average premiums in the nongroup market would increase by 10 to 13%. That substantial boost is providing some ammunition to opponents of the bill.

To put these impacts in context, it’s useful to dig a bit deeper to understand the various channels by which health reform may affect insurance premiums. CBO identifies three such channels: changes in the amount of health insurance coverage that each beneficiary purchases, changes in the types of people with coverage, and changes in the price of a given amount of insurance for a given group of enrollees:

For me, the most interesting of CBO’s findings is that the Senate bill would make the nongroup and small group markets more efficient. The price of nongroup coverage would be reduced by 7 to 10% (holding constant the amount of coverage and the type of people covered), while the price of small group coverage would be reduced by 1 to 4%. Where do these savings come from? From reduced administrative costs and competition in the exchanges (not, CBO notes, from any material reduction in cost-shifting from the uninsured to the insured).

The second key finding is the enormous increase in the amount of coverage that consumers would purchase in the nongroup market. CBO finds that the bill would induce people in the in the nongroup market to purchase insurance that covers a larger share of their costs; the bill would also require insurers to cover a broader range of services. Both of these changes would boost nongroup premiums.

The third major finding is that the changing mix of enrollees would lower average premiums in the nongroup market. Premiums in the large group market would decline slightly.

A fourth major implication, overlooked in most discussions thus far, is that we shouldn’t assume that average premiums going up is always bad (or, for that matter, that average premiums going down is always good). Consider, for example, the increase in average nongroup premiums, which occurs because nongroup insurance would expand to cover more services and a larger fraction of beneficiary costs. To what extent is that increase harming people in the nongroup market? It depends on how much the beneficiaries value their new coverage. When consumers move up from a Honda Civic to a Honda Accord, it’s usually safe to assume that they are benefitting, even though the Accord is more expensive. On the other hand, we would look askance (I hope) at a government program that forced potential Civic buyers to purchase Accords instead.

So it is with nongroup insurance. If people are trading up willingly to more expensive coverage, we shouldn’t view that as a bad thing (there is an issue about how broader coverage affects their consumption of health services, but let’s leave that aside for now). On the other hand, if the government is forcing them to buy coverage they don’t fully value, we might be concerned (with the obvious caveat that with health insurance, unlike car purchases, there are some legitimate reasons why the government might mandate some level of coverage). But even then, the most important concern is the net burden (how much consumers value the coverage less what they have to pay for it), not simply the gross burden of paying for it. CBO doesn’t get into these particulars in detail, but it does provide the following breakdown of the amount of coverage effect: two-thirds is due to greater actuarial value of the plans and one-third is due to coverage of more services (including those induced by the greater actuarial value). The increase in actuarial value means that, on average, about two-thirds of the increase in nongroup premiums will be offset by reductions in out-of-pocket spending. As a result, I think the increase in average premiums significantly overstates the burden that beneficiaries in the nongroup market might bear (and, indeed, some may well be better off).

Of course all of these conclusions come with numerous caveats. Most importantly: (a) YMMV; individuals may experience much larger premium increases or decreases than the averages, (b) CBO didn’t model some impacts that could raise premiums — most notably the possibility that increased demand for health services would drive up prices, (c) CBO didn’t model some impacts that may eventually reduce premiums — most notably provisions that might reduce health costs somewhat after 2016, and (d) these findings don’t include the effects of any subsidies or the tax on Cadillac plans; see the CBO report for analysis of those.

Reducing National Health Care Spending

Four researchers from RAND Health have an interesting article in the latest New England Journal of Medicine (ht Bruce Bartlett). Based on some detailed research in Massachusetts, they identified eight strategies that might help to reduce national health care spending:

They conclude that the most promising option is to bundle payments: providers would receive a “single payment for all services related to a given treatment or condition, causing providers to assume risk for preventable costs.” Bundled payments would thus reduce one of the key inefficiencies in our current system: the tendency of fee-for-service payments to “encourage higher volume rather than better value.”

Another important finding is that several options could actually increase spending. Disease management, for example, “typically requires up-front payments for services for a broad population, and there is little evidence of substantial cost offsets.” (A few months ago, I made a similar point about prevention efforts. In both cases, it is important to keep in mind that spending reductions should not be the only goal. Disease management and prevention efforts that increase costs can still be justified if they improve health sufficiently.)