Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 12:18 PM Mar 2017

CBO: Obamacare Costing The Feds A Third Less Than Expected

Source: Talking Points Memo



By TIERNEY SNEED Published MARCH 6, 2017, 10:52 AM EDT


The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that its projections for the federal government's spending on the Affordable Care Act's coverage provisions in 2019 are now a third lower than what they were when the law was passed in 2010.

CBO Director Keith Hall said in written responses to questions posed by the House Budget Committee that the CBO expects the federal government to spend $148 billion in 2019 on the law's coverage provisions, down from the $214 billion estimated when the law was passed.

Hall cited a number of reasons for why the law is costing the federal government less than originally expected. One is that less people are using the individual market than anticipated, lowering the feds' spending on things like the subsidies for insurance premiums. Additionally, Medicare and Medicaid's costs are coming in under expectations, as are the costs of private insurance -- a slowdown in health care costs Hall speculated could have been driven by the recession.

"Although it is unclear how much of that slowdown is attributable to the recession and its aftermath and how much is attributable to other factors, the slower growth has been sufficiently broad and persistent to persuade the
agencies to significantly lower their projections of federal costs for health care," Hall said. The Supreme Court's decision in 2012 to make Medicaid expansion optional for states also "significantly reduced projected costs," Hall said.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/cbo-third-obamacare-costs

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CBO: Obamacare Costing The Feds A Third Less Than Expected (Original Post) DonViejo Mar 2017 OP
Well, it must be time to screw it all up then. Right, GOP? Vinca Mar 2017 #1
Repugs are trying their best! damn! riversedge Mar 2017 #2
For all the wrong reasons zipplewrath Mar 2017 #3
I don't think it matters Grins Mar 2017 #8
Well, to those not covered it does zipplewrath Mar 2017 #9
There was a huge volume of pre-existing medical conditions NCjack Mar 2017 #4
Good analysis and points. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2017 #5
KnR Hekate Mar 2017 #6
K&Rnt gademocrat7 Mar 2017 #7
Big Trumpcare is going to be something awesome Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Mar 2017 #10

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
3. For all the wrong reasons
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 01:16 PM
Mar 2017

The details here are a tad depressing.

Hall cited a number of reasons for why the law is costing the federal government less than originally expected. One is that less people are using the individual market than anticipated, lowering the feds' spending on things like the subsidies for insurance premiums. Additionally, Medicare and Medicaid's costs are coming in under expectations, as are the costs of private insurance -- a slowdown in health care costs Hall speculated could have been driven by the recession.

...

The Supreme Court's decision in 2012 to make Medicaid expansion optional for states also "significantly reduced projected costs," Hall said.


Not exactly the fault of the ACA, but it would be interesting to note the costs if it was doing everything it was intended to do.

Grins

(7,217 posts)
8. I don't think it matters
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 03:12 PM
Mar 2017

It is still $66-Billion below costs, and that ain't chump-change.

If it had been on-target that would have been good too, as that was what was planned/anticipated. If it was higher then there "might" be a problem.

Must suck to be a Republican.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
9. Well, to those not covered it does
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 03:16 PM
Mar 2017

The point was that there are "savings" because people aren't getting the coverage. In some cases it's because their states didn't implement the Medicaid expansion, in others because they aren't buying the individual policies. Some of the effect is suspected of being due to the economic collapse causing market forces to keep prices down because individuals couldn't afford the care. All of that "matters" and none of it is "good".

NCjack

(10,279 posts)
4. There was a huge volume of pre-existing medical conditions
Mon Mar 6, 2017, 01:28 PM
Mar 2017

that were presented for treatment under ACA. Treatment has ameliorated a lot of those cases, so their annual costs have fallen. And, since the beginning of ACA, preventative care is reducing annual costs. But, regardless of the cause of the big drop, it is terrible news for the GOP. They have to kill ACA in a way the GOP is not blamed. If they boldly show their disdain for the sick poor, they run the risk of not controlling Congress for the next 50 years.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»CBO: Obamacare Costing Th...