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
Vinca
(50,269 posts)riversedge
(70,208 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The details here are a tad depressing.
...
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)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)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)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.