The White House and its congressional allies are trying to suggest that the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate proves that their health-care plan is fiscally responsible.
But, in fact, the latest CBO projections confirm — again — that the President’s health plan would pile more another unfinanced entitlement program on top of the unaffordable ones already on the federal books.
According to CBO, the new entitlement spending in the plan would cost $216 billion by 2019, and then increase by 8 percent every year thereafter. In other words, the President’s plan would stand up another health entitlement program that will grow much faster than the nation’s economy or revenue base. The changes the Democrats would make to the Senate-passed bill would make the entitlement program even more expensive.
Over a full ten years of implementation, the cost of the new entitlement spending would reach $2.5 trillion, at least, not $1 trillion as advertised by the White House.
The President and his congressional allies have suggested that the offsets they are pushing will more than cover this massive spending increase. But even a modest amount of scrutiny reveals these supposed offsets are nothing more than gimmicks and implausible assumptions.
For starters, the plan doesn’t count $371 billion in spending for physician fees under the Medicare program. The President and Congressional Democrats want to spend this money, for sure. They just don’t want it counted against the health bill. That’s because they want to reserve all of the Medicare cuts in the bill as offsets for another entitlement instead of using them to pay for the problem that everyone knows needs fixing. The President says he shouldn’t have to pay for the “doc fix.” But why not? Never before did congress move to add the cost of a permanent fix to the national debt. But that is exactly what the President now wants to do. When the cost of the “doc fix” is properly included in the accounting, all of the claimed deficit reduction from the President’s health plan vanishes.
Then there’s the “Cadillac” tax on high-cost insurance plans. Because of union pressure, the President pushed the tax back to 2018, well passed the point when he will have left office. But once in place, he now would allow the threshold used to determine “high-cost” to rise only with the CPI, beginning in 2020. That means a very large segment of the middle class would get hit with the tax as the years passed. The President has shown that he is unwilling to actually collect this tax. But he wants us to believe we can count on a huge revenue jump over the long-run because his successors will have more stomach for it than he does.
Similarly, to jury-rig “long-term deficit reduction,” the latest plan would first increase the premium assistance subsidies paid to low and moderate wage families above the levels in the Senate-passed bill, but then index their value to something below the growth in premiums to give the appearance of deficit reduction in the decade after 2019.
There’s no “bending of the cost-curve” here. It’s sleight of hand that, if actually implemented, would force millions of low-income families to pay ever higher premiums every year. The Democrats don’t want to talk about that. They just want to pretend they have been serious with fiscal discipline.
The other gimmicks remain in the plan as well. The double-counting of premiums for a long-term care insurance programs an offset for the health entitlement spending. The assumption that congress will allow Medicare reimbursement rates to fall so low that one in five hospitals and nursing homes might be forced to stop taking Medicare patients. And the expectation that somehow congress can hand out generous new subsidies to those getting insurance through the exchanges, even though many tens of millions of others with the same resources would get no additional help for their job-based coverage.
The bottom line here has been clear for months. The bill being pushed by the President would take what’s already a very bleak budget outlook and make it much, much worse.
Cross-posted at The Corner.
During last month’s Blair House health care summit, President Barack Obama was forced to change the subject after Rep. Paul Ryan(R-WI) Blair House thoroughly refuted the President’s claim that his health care plan would reduce the deficit. It took over a week for the White House to respond to Ryan, but last Thursday they finally produced this blog post by OMB director Peter Orszag followed by a Washington Post op-ed Friday titled: Health reform that won’t break the bank. Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow James Capretta responded to the White House that same day at NRO:
Orszag and DeParle start by agreeing with Ryan that delaying the start date of an entitlement expansion is a tried-and-true budget gimmick, designed to push the full cost of the additional spending outside of the “budget window” covered by a cost estimate.
But, not to worry, they say. In this instance, it’s not a gimmick because the deficit reduction from their plan just keeps growing over time. They claim the president’s health plan would produce deficit reduction of $100 billion over ten years and $1 trillion in the second decade.
Of course, there’s another reason besides balancing revenue and spending to push the start of an entitlement back, and that’s to make the ten-year cost look much smaller than it really is. Recall that the president promised in his address to Congress last September to deliver a bill that costs only “$900 billion” over a decade. The new entitlements the Democrats want to create would cost much, much more than $90 billion per year. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says they will cost about $200 billion per year by 2019. And so, to get the media to now say his plan costs only “$1 trillion” (what’s $100 billion among friends!), the administration delays the coverage expansion provisions until 2014. Never mind that the president also says the uninsured can’t wait a day longer for the legislation. Once enacted, he would make them wait — for four years.
As Ryan noted, however, once the program did get up and running, costs would soar. The Senate Budget Committee Republican staff estimates the Senate bill’s cost at $2.3 trillion over ten years when fully implemented.
In their Post op-ed, Orszag and DeParle do not even attempt to address the many other points Ryan made which expose the dubious assumptions and sleight of hand behind their deficit-cutting claims.
For instance, the health-reform bill is filled to the brim with Medicare changes, but the one Medicare provision the president and the Democrats want to pass separately from the health bill is the so-called “doc fix,” which would repeal a cut in Medicare physician fees at a cost of $371 billion over ten years. Of course, splitting their agenda into two or three bills doesn’t change the total cost. When the “doc fix” is properly included in a tally of what the president is pushing, all of the supposed deficit reduction vanishes.
Then there’s the double-counting that Ryan exposed. The president’s plan starts up yet another entitlement program, providing long-term care insurance. Enrollees have to pay premiums for a number of years before they qualify for any benefits. Consequently, at startup, there’s a surplus of premium collections — $73 billion over ten years, according to CBO — because no one qualifies for the benefits yet. The president and his team count these savings against the cost of health reform — even though the money will be needed later to pay out long-term-care insurance claims. When this gimmick is taken out of the accounting, the president’s health proposal goes even deeper into the red.
Over the long-run, the administration’s claim of large-scale deficit reduction hinges on the dubious assumption that future elected officials will demonstrate more political courage than those in office today.
For most of last year, the president said that he would “bend the cost-curve” in large part by imposing a new tax on “high-cost” insurance plans. The tax would hit more and more middle-class beneficiaries each year because the threshold for determining what constitutes a “high-cost” plan would grow much more slowly than medical costs. In fact, after a number of years, virtually all Americans would be in plans at or above the “high-cost” threshold.
House Democrats and their union allies despise this tax. Last week, the president caved in to their pressure and pushed the start date of the tax back to 2018, well past the point when he will have left office. Even so, Orszag and DeParle still claim credit for the massive revenue hike that would occur in a second decade of implementation. They want us to believe we can finance a permanent, expensive, and rapidly growing new entitlement program with a tax the president himself was never willing to collect.
In Medicare, Orszag and DeParle like to highlight so-called “delivery system reforms” the administration has touted. In the main, these are extremely small-scale initiatives and pilot programs. CBO says they will amount to virtually no savings. The big Medicare cuts in the president’s plan come from across-the-board payment-rate reductions. In particular, the president wants to cut the inflation update for hospitals, nursing homes, and others by half a percentage point every year, in perpetuity. On paper, this change produces huge long-run savings. But it does nothing to control the underlying cost of treating patients. It just pays everyone less, without regard to patient need or quality of care. The chief actuary of the program has said repeatedly that these cuts are completely unrealistic for these very reasons. If implemented, he expects they would drive one in five facilities into serious financial distress. And yet Orszag and DeParle want us to believe these savings can be counted to finance the president’s massive entitlement promises.
And massive they are. CBO says the coverage expansion provisions in the Senate-passed bill would cost about $200 billion by 2019, and that cost would rise 8 percent every year thereafter.
But even these estimates understate the true cost of Obamacare. The president’s plan, like the House and Senate bills, would extend generous new insurance subsidies to low- and moderate-wage workers getting insurance through the new “exchanges.” Workers in job-based plans would get no additional help. That means two workers with identical incomes would be treated very differently. Gene Steuerle of the Urban Institute has estimated that, in 2016, a worker with job-based coverage and a $60,000 income would get $4,500 less than someone with the same income but health insurance through the exchange. This kind of inequitable treatment would never last: one way or another, the entitlement would get extended to everyone in the targeted income range, sending the overall costs of the program soaring.
The president started off last year by saying he wanted to “bend the cost-curve” even as he broadened coverage. But after a year of partisan political and legislative maneuvering, all that’s left is a massive entitlement expansion. The new costs would get piled on top of the unreformed and unaffordable entitlements already on the books. It’s a budgetary disaster in the making.