The New CMS Report Shows That Health Reform Was A Good Deal

[ProSense]

The New CMS Report Shows That Health Reform Was A Good Deal

Despite the GOP’s doomsday predictions about the health care law dramatically increasing health care costs, a new report from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) predicts health spending will grow only “slightly faster than projected under prior law – at an annual rate of 6.3 percent, rather than 6.1 percent” — a fairly small price to pay for providing insurance coverage to 32.5 million more Americans. By 2019, health spending will “increase as a share of the economy by only 0.3 percentage points, to 19.6 percent of GDP,” the government found. Here is what it looks like:



To expand coverage to millions of Americans without significantly altering spending growth trends requires efficiences, and the law delivers. Beginning in 2014, as 30 million+ individuals begin receiving health care coverage and visiting doctors, health care expenditures will naturally increase. Costs will continue to grow higher than current law until around 2015, at which point the law’s efficiencies kick in — Medicare savings, the excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, the Medicare payment board — and costs begin to “decelerate.” As you can tell from the graph, between 2017 and 2019 the red line is below the blue line — the annual growth rate is decreased under reform for that period.

Moreover, the actuaries predict that as a result of these savings, Medicare spending will decline $86.4 billion from previous projections due to reforms. “Specifically, average annual Medicare spending growth is anticipated to be 1.4 percentage points slower for 2012–19 than we projected in February 2010. By 2019, it is projected to grow 7.7 percent—0.9 percentage point more slowly than we projected in February 2010,” the report concludes.

Now, reform bends the cost curve for national health spending, but what this means for private health insurance premiums is more complex. As Merrill Goozner points out, “the private insurance market will absorb most of the increase, and most of that will fall on individuals.” The actuaries are projecting a “9 percent increase in out-of-pocket expenses in 2018 and 2019″ as employers switch plans to avoid the Cadillac tax.

On the whole, however, this represents a fairly striking achievement and places the country on track to further lowering health care spending in the out-years. Much will depend on Congress’ commitment to maintaining the law’s cost savings and efficiencies — which the CMS may actually be under estimating — after all, they’re the only ways we can afford this kind of coverage expansion.

[ClarkUSA]

1. Those who are demonizing HCR haven't got a clue. Thanks for the facts.

:thumbsup:

[zipplewrath]

4. Actually it supports much of the criticism

It increased the rate of cost increases of health CARE. Not by much, 6.3 vs 6.1, but the point remains that costs are no rising even faster, not going down. And they are still well above the rate of inflation, not to mention the rate of personal income growth. These are unsustainable rates, and HCR didn't do anything about that.

It also says our out of pocket costs are going to rise by 9%, to avoid cadillac tax status. That's not for a few years though.

It just says these cost effects are "worth it" to increase the number of insured. It also says that the federal government will see some significant savings. In the end that's what HCR was all about, saving the feds money.

[ClarkUSA]

5. Much of the GOP criticism, that is. And no, it doesn't, at least not within the realm of reason.

<< It increased the rate of cost increases of health CARE. Not by much, 6.3 vs 6.1, but the point remains that costs are no rising even faster, not going down. >>

That's "a fairly small price to pay for providing insurance coverage to 32.5 million more Americans" doncha think? You do understand that HCR is a balancing act that is going to achieve 95% coverage, right?

[zipplewrath]

8. The delta yes

The problem is that health care costs are rising at 6% per year. We can't sustain that rate of increase. 6.1%, 6.3%, it don't make a hill of beans of difference because more and more people are unable to afford health CARE. All we've accomplished is forcing people to buy health insurance that they soon, if not already, won't be able to afford to use. A primary criticism from the left about HCR was that it didn't do anything to control the costs of health CARE. In the end, it merely slowed the rate of increase to the feds, not to the individuals. All the while real WAGES are on the decline. And health care is still neither universal nor a right.

[ProSense]

13. The rate begins to go down in 2017

That is significant. As the OP noted, covering more than 30 million while reducing the growth rate is significant.

[zipplewrath]

15. The rate of increase

The rate of increase flattens out and stays at roughly 6% for as far out as they are projecting. The rate never gets close to zero, or even the general rate of inflation. These rates of cost increases for health CARE are unsustainable. 16 years ago it was the cost of health CARE that Clinton was explaining had to be controlled, or it would bankrupt us all, including the federal government. HCR merely slowed the rate of increase for the federal government, not for the individual.

[ProSense]

22. "The rate never gets close to zero, or even the general rate of inflation."

From the OP: "increase as a share of the economy by only 0.3 percentage points"

Again this is spending. Did anyone actually believe spending wouldn't increase under any health care reform? That it goes down is significant.

The other point is that this doesn't talk about the savings that represents in dollar amounts, which is $130 billion through 2019 and more than $1 trillion over the subsequent 10 years.

[zipplewrath]

30. Rate closer to inflation

We need to get the rates down much closer to inflation. That's not zero by any stretch. Furthermore, we need to get the rates down closer to the inflation rate of wages. These rates are unsustainable.

And yes, "anyone" though we could achieve that. That's what single payer/public option was all about. Getting the cost of health CARE under control and down to the general rate of inflation.


And your "savings" are lower rates of increase TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Individuals aren't realizing these savings. The feds are, predominately through medicaid and medicare savings.

[ProSense]

33. "That's not zero by any stretch" Inflation isn't zero.

"These rates are unsustainable."

What rates? This is spending, and it is set to decrease enough to provide more than $1.3 trillion in savings in the 10 years from 2019 to 2029.

[zipplewrath]

34. The rate of spending increases

This correlates closely to the rate of cost increases in health care. The rate is increasing, and is projected to stabilize around 6% per year, which is unsustainable. We need to get the rate of increase down to the general rate of inflation, if not down to the rate of wage increases. The savings you quote are with respect to the previous rate of increase, and is predominately for the federal government, not individuals. Individuals are being bankrupt by the increased costs of health care.

[ProSense]

36. What exactly are you arguing

"The savings you quote are with respect to the previous rate of increase, and is predominately for the federal government, not individuals. "

That $1.3 trillion in saving is for the government? Of course it is, this is a post about health care spending, that is government spending, not premiums.

For the government to save $1.3 trillion on health care is a BFD.

[zipplewrath]

37. That HCR isn't controling health CARE costs

The 6% is unsustainable. In an environment where people are forced to buy health insurance, a 6% rate of increase in the cost of health CARE is unsustainable. Individuals aren't "saving money". It's still going up at unsustainable rates.

We need health CARE reform, before it is too expensive for all of us.

[ClarkUSA]

18. ABC News: "Obama Health Care PLan Spends A Bit, Covers A Lot"

Obama Health Care PLan Spends A Bit, Covers A Lot

The main driver of increased spending... is the estimated $38 billion cost for establishing the new health insurance exchanges. Close behind is the expected $31 billion increase in the cost of Medicaid. Under ACA, any person under the age of 65 who has an income under 138 percent of the federal poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid.

Taken together, the insurance exchanges and the Medicaid expansion, provide the new structure that will provide care to the uninsured... Healthcare reform could bring down costs after 2019, but the CMS researchers didn't look beyond the next decade... Of the newly insured, about 8 million will be enrolled in their state's Children's Health Insurance Plan (CHIP), and nearly 31 million will be enrolled in the new insurance exchanges that the ACA will establish beginning in 2014.

Finally, crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate so the researchers cautioned that as the provisions of the ACA are implemented, the "actual impacts may well differ considerably form these estimates."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/obama-health-care-plan-spends-bit-covers-lot/story?id=11591835

[Nordmadr]

19. Well, in theory, saving the 'feds' money saves

us money; but you know how trickle down works.

[zipplewrath]

21. We're in deficit spending

Lowering a cost increase doesn't get reflected in lower taxes or fees. We will never realize any monetary benefit from these savings. If nothing else, it will just go to pay for more war.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Thanks to BushCo, we are. Do you have evidence to back up your claims?

You said:

<< Lowering a cost increase doesn't get reflected in lower taxes or fees. >>

<< We will never realize any monetary benefit from these savings.>>

<< If nothing else, it will just go to pay for more war. >>

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[golfguru]

42. Here are some ugly facts about the HCR bill as passed

For profit private insurers (FPPI) win 40 million additional paying
customers, courtesy of middle class workers who will pay higher premiums.

There is not a single restraint on premium hikes by FPPI in the bill.
The FPPI's are free to increase your premiums as high as necessary until
their profit goals are met. Annual rate hikes as high as 34% are already
showing up in this year with majority to reset higher on January 1st 2011.
Note that per prosense's link in another thread, the average premium
increase has been under 9% per year over last 10 years.

No competition to FPPI from public option to keep rate hikes under control.
This was the only effective means of restricting run away rate hikes.

Competition to FPPI from across the state lines by other FPPI's is missing in bill.
So each state has it's FPPI operating as a monopoly without outside competition.

Nothing in the HCR bill to restrain frivolous malpractice suits which end up
costing all consumers of health care more.

No wonder democrats all over the country running for election are running away
from it and I can't blame them one bit. I have not seen many democratic political
ads from candidates running in 2010, touting the HCR bill.

[dkf]

2. Oh for Gods sakes it actually predicts Employers will start giving us crappier plans

Thanks to this stupid law. It really covers more people but at the expense of those of us who had decent health coverage.

Thanks a lot Obama. It is designed for the degradation of my plan and the whole promise to keep what I had was a big huge lie.

[ClarkUSA]

3. Enough with the distortion. It says nothing of the sort. n/t

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[niceypoo]

6. No cost controls = gouging

The gouging might level off in five years?

Miserable fail

[ClarkUSA]

7. WH: The Affordable Care Act Did Not Cause Unjust Premium Increases

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=435886&mesg_id=435886

[zipplewrath]

10. Nor did it stop them

All they have to do is justify them, based upon their own cost increases. That will be fairly easy to do, because health CARE costs continue to rise at unsustainable rates, and HCR didn't do anything about that. Which is why they are predicting expenditures continuing to rise at rates above 6% per year.

[ClarkUSA]

12. You expected HCR to "stop" premium increases? No one ever promised that.

There are reasonable cost increases built into every business model, including non-profits and government programs.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uponit7771]

16. Nor did they promise they would either....strawman noted

[zipplewrath]

20. It was a primary complaint about HCR

It didn't control health care costs at all. It didn't make health care more affordable for the vast majority of people, and wouldn't stop the increases that were putting health care out of reach of more and more people. It wasn't health CARE reform at all.

[uponit7771]

24. CHC's aren't going to control health care cost AT ALL?!!? You're kidding right, do you even know wha

...what they are?!?!

Also, my niece can now be covered on my her parents insurance and my nephew can NOT be excluded from health care cost no matter that they're high now due to past conditions.

My personal premiums were reduced this year by the company moving to another HCI....

Come on people, the "HCR is fucked up" meme is uninformed and sounds religious

[ClarkUSA]

29. +1

:thumbsup:

[zipplewrath]

32. No, they aren't

the cost will merely be borne by the people paying for them. But they don't control the cost of health CARE.

And I never said it was "fucked up". Please, at least stick to what's written.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

40. What the law requires....

85% of premiums in the insurance pools has to go to actual medical payments. The remaining 15% is for all administrative, overhead, and profit. Given the size of the administrative and overhead costs, that's not a lot of room left over for profit.

[niceypoo]

46. ....beginning in five years

[newtothegame]

11. Is there a reason why...

on Monday there's a report from the government saying health reform has raised costs, on Tuesday there's a report from the same government saying it's lowered costs, on Wednesday they're back to raised, etc. etc. etc. on and on and on?

[StarburstClock]

17. Too bad most Americans don't matter to HCR pushers

Americans still want universal health care no matter how much "propaganda" is put out suggesting otherwise.

[ProSense]

23. Do the more than 30 million people who will receive coverage matter to you?

Or do you just care about the people who currently have coverage?

[Vinca]

39. Time for that pesky asterisk again.

*If they can afford it.

[bornskeptic]

41. It will be very affordable for most of them, with the subsidies.

Most people with incomes over 400% of FPL have health insurance now, so most of the newly insured will have effective premium cost limited to a percentage of inome. Preventive care will be provided without out-of-pocket cost, and many people will need no medical treatment other than preventive care in most years. Those with incomes below 200% of FPL will also be eligible for assistance with out-of-pocket costs. The wild claims that people won't be able to afford to use their insurance is nonsense.

[uponit7771]

25. Great, we've got to start somehwere and to say HCR is total bust means either you don't know how it

...benefits those who could not get insurance or you don't give a damn.

This "HCR is a bust" meme is old as dirt and has been beat in the mouth to death her lately

[StarburstClock]

26. I'm simply stating what most Americans want, not reciting "memes"

Ignoring the majority of Americans in order to cater to a corrupt and inflexible for-profit insurance industry while saying there's nothing else to be done is actually reciting a "meme".

[ClarkUSA]

28. You are reciting well-worn memes, actually. And you mistake the facts for "memes". nt

[Milo_Bloom]

35. LMAO!

This might be the worst justification for this abortion of a law I have ever seen.

"It's not going to be as bad as some predicted".

LOL

[zipplewrath]

43. It's becoming the party slogan

The other guys would have been worse.
We're not as bad.
He's not on the ticket.

It's been down right amazing to see what passes for inspiration these days.

[Phx_Dem]

38. It was, and still is, a big fucking deal.

B-)

[martymar64]

44. Still not allowing drugs to be imported from Canada is a good deal?

Banning the government from negotiating for lower prescription drugs prices is a good deal?

Please explain that to us.

[Cha]

45. Of course, it is..it is only not when stuck in

a whining mode of what it doesn't have.