The Spin On The HHS Report (Boo! HC Costs Increase!) Relies On Two Ignored Assumptions!

[TomCADem]

I see many astro turfers gleefully quoting the same HHS report being cited by Republicans that Health Care Reform will raise overall costs. This HHS report actually simply reiterates made by an earlier HHS report. However, why do "overall costs" increase? Well, because more people are covered because of Health Care Reform! Wait, isn't that the point! To reduce the number of uninsured? Isn't that a good thing? Also, wouldn't Single Payer also run into the same problem of increasing costs because it would cover more people?

Now, single payer advocates would respond that single payer would also cuts! Once again, the HHS report could also be used to attack single payer, because it assumes that due to politics, Congress would by-pass the cost containment provisions of Medicare! So, if the report is going to assume Congress will buy-pass the cost containment provisions of health care reform due to political pressure, isn't a single payer system subject to the same political pressures?

Yet, some folks will gleefully reiterate right wing talking points without noting the flaws, spin and mis-characterizations of the HHS report. Here is the key elements discussed below in a long report otherwise filled with GOP spin:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34382286/ns/health-health_care/

The analysis from the Office of the Actuary, which does long-range cost estimates for Medicare, was prefaced by a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. Unlike estimates from the budget office, which have mainly focused on the legislation's impact on the federal deficit, the actuaries looked at total public and private costs over the next 10 years.

The analysts also used their years of experience with Medicare's finances to make a judgment call on whether the cuts proposed in the Democratic bills are politically sustainable. When previous Congresses have cut Medicare too deeply, providers have usually convinced lawmakers in subsequent years to restore at least some of the money. That same scenario is playing out this year as doctors try to persuade Congress to permanently repeal automatic spending cuts that would reduce their Medicare fees 21 percent next year.

* * *
The actuaries' report projected that national health care spending would rise by an additional 0.7 percent under the bill from 2010-2019, mainly because newly insured people would be able to receive medical care they wouldn't otherwise have gotten.

So, isn't that a neat trick? It probably can be applied with equal force to single payer, the public option or any other form or reform: (1) Costs will rise because more people are covered and (2) Congress will override any cost containment due to political pressure. Boom! I just blew up single payer, as well as any other form of reform, with these two handy assumptions.

[kirby]

1. False argument, IMO...

Uninsured are already getting the expensive treatment via Emergency Rooms. That costs way more than if they had insurance and went to a doctor for service. The 'uncovered' are costing everyone a lot. Moving them to being covered should actually reduce the cost.

What I find a bit objectionable though is that they project a 0.7% increase - big whoop. I mean, hasn't it been increasing double digits already. This sounds like a rounding error.

[TomCADem]

2. Exactly Its A Bullsh*t Argument Being Spread Like Gospel

It relies on "total costs," ignores deficit reduction AND the increase in the number of insured. WORSE, it uses the fact that the number of uninsured falls to support its argument that total health care costs will rise due to the increase demand. Isn't that the whole point? To create more access? Isn't more access a good thing? Yet, in this up is down work, more health care access by those most in need of health care is bad thing, because it places more demand on our health care system, which may increase total health care costs (not the deficit) by a whopping 0.7 percent.

Maybe that total cost increase is due 33 million more people having access to health insurance and perhaps even Medicare, but I guess in this new world, that is a bad thing.

[valerief]

3. Maybe we should call it warcare instead of healthcare. That way $$$ won't matter. nt

[TomCADem]

4. Well, I Understand Republicans Citing The HHS Report, But Liberals?

Particularly when the two assumptions in that report would apply to single payer, public option, or any other health care reform proposal. Unless you are proposing that we bomb something, Republicans won't get behind it, but too many liberals are getting lead astry by the media spin based on assumptions that could doom any type of health care reform package.