Tag: "Health Care Costs"
From the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation:
CBO and JCT estimate that 23 million uninsured people in 2016 will qualify for one or more of those exemptions. Of the remaining 7 million uninsured people, CBO and JCT estimate that some will be granted exemptions from the penalty because of hardship or for other reasons.
All told, CBO and JCT estimate that about 4 million people will pay a penalty because they are uninsured in 2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf). An estimated $4 billion will be collected from those who are uninsured in 2016, and, on average, an estimated $5 billion will be collected per year over the 2017–2024 period.
Sometimes a picture tells a thousand words. And this growth in Medicaid dependency happened mostly during a Republican Administration, well before ObamaCare’s expansion. And the trend from 2006 through 2010 is straight. That is, the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession did not cause the expansion. It’s just what our government does, apparently.
Yesterday, we noted the New York Times‘ analysis of hospital charges from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) latest data dump. The same data dump showed how the amounts Medicare paid to hospitals and other providers for different services. The Hill‘s Ferdous Al-Faruque has pointed out some extreme differences:
The agency found wide discrepancies in how much services cost in different regions of the nation and within the same geographic area. In 2012 a major joint replacement surgery cost Medicare $15,901 in Baltimore while the same procedure cost $239,138 in Los Angeles, the report says.
This variation appears too extreme. If it is a quality difference, surely the lower-quality provider is so bad that it should not be accepting patients! The seeming arbitrariness of Medicare payments might be one good explanation for the variance in costs observed by the Dartmouth Health Atlas team.
Like the physician data dump, for which we praised CMS, this is a treasure trove of data. CMS has also presented the data in a reasonably user-friendly way. It took me less than ten minutes to figure out the dashboard, which allows users to make charts and tables of almost any shape and size.
Well done, CMS. Keep ‘em coming.
ObamaCare spends a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere:
So, even when we combine the most optimistic estimates of gains in mortality and morbidity, the average uninsured person would gain about 16 healthy days a year…As a comparison, 75-year-olds with foot problems prior to chiropody treatment rate their quality of life at .956. For the average uninsured person, having health insurance coverage provides health benefits that are roughly equivalent to averting the foot problems experienced by typical 75-year-olds.
More importantly, even using the most optimistic assumptions, ObamaCare does not appear to be very cost-effective in relative terms. That is, we could attain the equivalent gains in health status for only 4% of the trillions that will be spent on ObamaCare. Conversely, for the same massive expenditure, we could attain up to 27 times as much improvement in health status. In light of this rather egregious squandering of other people’s money, it’s little surprise that opposition to ObamaCare has been so persistent and widespread.
A patient with HIV/AIDS can expect to pay over $1,000 out of pocket for medicines, if he buys a policy on the ObamaCare health insurance exchange in Florida.
“Affordable”? Surely not. This perceived injustice has caused legal activists to file a lawsuit against four insurers, which offer plans in the Florida exchange, alleging discrimination.
Readers of this blog know that we have long warned against this consequence of ObamaCare. Insurers are not allowed to charge premiums appropriate to applicants’ expected medical claims. This is somewhat mitigated by a limited open-enrolment period. However, if applicants have chronic diseases, that provision gives little protection to insurers. While there are three methods within ObamaCare that transfer money to insurers which over-enroll sick patients, they do not eliminate the incentives for insurers to design plans that are not attractive to very sick patients. This results in a death spiral of antiselection.
The Administration continues to move the goalposts on its so-called “bailout” of insurers which lose money in ObamaCare’s exchanges. Formally, this is labelled “risk corridors”, and describes a process by which the Administration will take money from insurers which profit more than expected in the exchanges, and transfer it to those insurers which lose more money than expected.
Unfortunately, taxpayers are at risk because the revenue coming into the risk corridors is determined by premiums, whereas the payouts are determined by medical claims. If, overall, the insurers charged premium that are too low, the risk corridors will suffer deficits. This blog has covered the risk corridors thoroughly, and we expect that there will be a significant deficit. Our latest entry on the topic questioned the Administration’s assertion that the risk corridors would be budget neutral.
Medicaid is the single largest component of state expenditures, accounting for 23.5 percent of the $1.7 trillion spent by states in 2013.
Largely as a consequence of the ACA, state and local spending for Medicaid is projected to nearly double over the next decade.