iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Health Care Spending Will Increase After Overhaul, But Not By Much

RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR   09/ 9/10 12:42 PM ET   AP

Health Care Costs

WASHINGTON — The nation's health care tab will go up – not down – as a result of President Barack Obama's sweeping overhaul. That's the conclusion of a government forecast Thursday, which also predicts the increase will be modest.

The average annual growth in health care spending will be just two-tenths of 1 percentage point higher through 2019 with Obama's remake, said the analysis from Medicare's Office of the Actuary. And that's with more than 32 million uninsured gaining coverage because of the new law.

"The impact is moderate," said Andrea Sisko, an economist with the nonpartisan unit that prepared the report.

Factoring in the law, Americans will spend an average of $13,652 per person a year on health care in 2019, according to the actuary's office. Without the law, the corresponding number would be $13,387.

That works out to $265 more with the overhaul.

The big picture numbers are $4.6 trillion with the overhaul in 2019, and $4.5 trillion without it. The nation will spend $2.6 trillion on health care this year.

The new bottom line is guaranteed to provide ammunition for both sides of a health care debate that refuses to move offstage. Republicans are vowing repeal if they win control of Congress this fall, although they are unlikely to have enough votes to override an Obama veto.

For critics, the numbers show that the law didn't solve the cost problem, although Obama repeatedly said he wanted to bend the spending curve down.

The analysis found that health care spending will grow to nearly 20 percent of the economy in 2019. That siphons off resources that could be invested in education, research, transportation or other areas. Medical costs now account for about 17 percent of the economy, and some experts think that's already too much.

"We really haven't trimmed health care spending," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, which advocates for reducing the federal deficit. "Even if we found a way to provide more people with coverage, we still have the same fiscal problem we always did. Frankly, it's a little bit more difficult to solve now because we have made a major new commitment."

Bixby's group raised concerns about the cost of the health care legislation, but did not oppose it.

For advocates of the law, the numbers show that expanding coverage to 93 percent of eligible Americans comes at a relative bargain price. Moreover, if Congress sticks to cost controls in the legislation, there's potential beyond 2020 to rein in the growth of health care spending. The new projections show a slowdown starting around 2018.

"By the end of the projection period, we estimate (costs) will grow more slowly," said John Poisal, who worked on the forecast.

It's a long way off, but under the health care law, the big coverage push doesn't start until 2014.

That's when the government will offer tax credits to help middle-class people buy private coverage through new insurance markets in their states. At the same time, Medicaid will be opened up to millions more low-income people. Insurers will have to accept all applicants, regardless of health problems. And most Americans will be required to carry coverage or face a fine from the IRS.

The study also showed:

_Government is becoming the dominant player in health care even without Obama's law. Federal, state and local government spending will overtake private sources in 2011, three years before the main provisions of the overhaul take effect. The biggest programs are Medicare and Medicaid.

_Even after the health care overhaul is fully phased in, three out of five people under age 65 will still have private coverage, with most continuing to get benefits through their employers.

_Two federal-state programs, Medicaid and children's health insurance, will grow dramatically under the overhaul. Enrollment will jump 34 percent between 2013 and 2014, to more than 85 million people. States will be bigger players in health care – and face new pressures over the long run.

The White House released its own analysis of the report, calculating that total health care spending per insured person would be more than $1,000 lower under the law.

A White House blog post from health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said that by 2019 overall health care spending per insured person would average $14,720 under the law, compared with $16,120 if Congress and the president had not acted, or $1,400 less.

That statistic was not part of the Medicare analysts' projections, and there was no official response from the actuary's office to the White House estimate.

DeParle acknowledged that spending would rise in the short run as uninsured people gain coverage, but noted the rate of growth would slow in the second half of the decade. "A close look at this report's data suggest that for average Americans, the Affordable Care Act will live up to its promise," she said.

The Medicare analysts' report is available online from the journal Health Affairs.

___

Online:

http://www.healthaffairs.org

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The nation's health care tab will go up – not down – as a result of President Barack Obama's sweeping overhaul. That's the conclusion of a government forecast Thursday, ...
WASHINGTON — The nation's health care tab will go up – not down – as a result of President Barack Obama's sweeping overhaul. That's the conclusion of a government forecast Thursday, ...
Filed by Ryan McCarthy  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 345
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
Bettysdad
The arc of human history is to the left.
02:52 AM on 09/12/2010
"three out of five people under age 65 will still have private coverage"

That means 40% won't.

What kind of modern, industrialized country would allow 40% of it's people to not have insurance.

The United States, and that's about it.
11:02 PM on 09/09/2010
Ignoring the details of this particular bill, which is not optimal because Dems, Blue Dog Dems and Repubs can't agree on anything, from a purely economic standpoint, we can all pay a few extra bucks in insurance premiums to cover 30+ million felllow citizens, or we can all pay a few extra bucks in taxes to cover the Medicaid expense of treating them. It's semantics. What I DO know, is that the status quo wasn't working and was getting worse. What we got is far from perfect, but it's a start, and doing nothing was not an option.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tiggy
11:24 PM on 09/09/2010
They agree on their free health care and specialist being flown in to treat them just downstairs.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=8706655
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Schaef
10:44 PM on 09/09/2010
"The analysis found that health care spending will grow to nearly 20 percent of the economy in 2019. That siphons off resources that could be invested in education, research, transportation or other areas. Medical costs now account for about 17 percent of the economy, and some experts think that's already too much."

Interesting the way people are treated when they make this observation about the federal budget, which in recent years has been about 30% of GDP and has skyrocketed into the low 40s in Obama's first two years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tiggy
11:25 PM on 09/09/2010
Healthcare for our Reps has not increased in 17 years. Free is still free.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=8706655
photo
Bettysdad
The arc of human history is to the left.
02:46 AM on 09/12/2010
Not even close to being true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Schaef
11:21 AM on 09/14/2010
If you have a problem with something I've written, please feel free to correct the record. The budget as a percentage of GDP is a mathematical fact, and it's not hard for me to cite one of e.g. Paul Krugman's missives against people who think maybe that much federal spending "siphons off resources that could be invested in education, research, transportation or other areas" and perhaps "that's already too much". He pens a new one every week with the same tired theme.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tim303
09:52 PM on 09/09/2010
"Repeal it! Children should not be allowed to have inhalers. Asthma IS a preexisting condition."
sandiegoconservative
Surprisingly refreshing and undeniably delightful
06:47 PM on 09/09/2010
Now that's change we can believe in. Change for the worse.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
JacksonJones
Absit iniuria verbis!
11:47 AM on 09/10/2010
Only if you don't care to count the millions of people that will be insured as a result of the plan, including those with pre-existing conditions (including babies born with health issues), and make the same, extremely conservative assumptions about the effectiveness of the cost-saving measures in the plan. If those produce more savings than the model predicts, and health-care economists expect that they will, then the plan, as it is, will save money. And all of the still neglects any further improvements that can be made to the system.
photo
Bettysdad
The arc of human history is to the left.
02:47 AM on 09/12/2010
It's only worse for your ilk that thinks about nothing but their money.
05:03 PM on 09/09/2010
So many, hundreds of thousands of families, I've put out of business, because of IT automation, the question becomes, how do we raise our children?
04:58 PM on 09/09/2010
By saying this, they are admitting that obama either lied or was way off when he said that Obamascare / health care deform would lower costs.
10:38 AM on 09/11/2010
Obama would not lie would he.

He promised his health care deform would cost $ 50 billion and save families $2500 a year.

That is what this plan costs isn't it?
photo
Bettysdad
The arc of human history is to the left.
02:48 AM on 09/12/2010
Who is it that you are delusionally thinking admitted anything?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
shirlyujest
04:22 PM on 09/09/2010
I no longer believe the R's or the D's can do much about health care as long as the private, "managed health care" providers exist in their current state.  As far as I can see, their only purpose is to provide the least amount of actual healing for the most amount of money.

They may call it health care and perhaps it is but there is sorry little healing involved anymore.  Private health care is a for-profit industry and if you become ill you get put on the conveyor belt and run through the system as economically as possible for the industry, actual "care" taking second place to actual "cost."

Seems to me that those folks who are complaining about scary old "socialized" medicine have got that premium ticket policy that avoids conveyor belt medicine and gets the customized version.  Shame on this country for healing the well-heeled but plastering band-aids on everybody else no matter the issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tiggy
11:26 PM on 09/09/2010
They could provide us coverage like they have at our expense..
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=8706655
04:17 PM on 09/09/2010
I honestly doubt that 95% of the citizens of the US have any idea what was in the final bill when it passed. They might know a thing or two that they picked up on their news channel of choice, but I don't think even the newsrooms know what was in it. I watched the debate for nearly a year on cable for around 6 hours just about every day (up until I had to disconnect cable for financial reasons) and I'm quite confused about it all. Obama didn't do a very good job of explaining it when he went stumping toward the end. He speaks far to much in generalities for me since taking office. Since it doesn't fully kick in for another 3-4 years, nobody's going to know what was in it anytime soon either.

As a result of the confusion, anything and everything that could be said about it is taken as true. I do know that something HAD to be done about healthcare costs. If this bill bent the cost curve downward for the average family, then I'm happy it did. A single payer system would have been better, but everyone gets all hot and bothered when someone throws in the word socialism. If socialism gets me to a doctor more regularly and makes my $100 prescriptions cost me $5, then bring on the socialism.
04:21 PM on 09/09/2010
Everything you said was passed! HHS is in charge now, not politicians.
08:29 AM on 09/10/2010
I don't care what they call it, socialism or democracy, I want to end the $500 a month for two inhaler bill I pay monthly.
11:01 AM on 09/10/2010
No one wants to pay $500 for an inhaler, but paying $700 in taxes so you can have a free inhaler doesn't fix the problem. The problem is cost!!!!! This monstrosity of a bill does nothing to curb cost, as is evidenced by this article, and by the administration's own admission. Government mandates that a doctor charge $50 for a procedure that costs the doctor $100 to perform, does not curb costs either. It just puts a doctor out of business, thereby decreasing choice and increasing costs. What was the solution to high retail costs in the 80s? A brilliant man offering better products at a lower cost. Consumers picking up on it and turning Walmart into the largest retailer in the world. Create an environment where a Sam Walton can survive in the Healthcare world, and costs will drop. That environment does not currently exists, and this bill makes the environment even more hostile.
04:17 PM on 09/09/2010
Meant to say "public option" instead of "public."
04:16 PM on 09/09/2010
What exactly is good about President Obama's health care plan? Mandatory health insurance which unemployed and low-wage people can't afford to buy. Penalties for the people who can't afford the coverage. Increases in the cost of health insurance which even the government concedes will occur, and will undoubtedly be much greater than government forecasts. Democratic politicians across the country are running away from this legislation in their campaigns, trying not to mention it. Single payer was the best choice for reform, with the public a second-best compromise. The new legislation is nothing but a cash cow for the health insurance industry, which can now force tens of millions of people who can't afford it to buy insurance.
04:29 PM on 09/09/2010
Families that make under $80,000 a year, will be helped with their premiums, DIDN'T you ever have to read War and Peace? Only two thousand pages for your families health care, give me a break.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JamesAndre
TheRationalProgressive.com
04:14 PM on 09/09/2010
32 million more people covered and the cost stays the same? Sounds like a savings to me. No lets really cut costs and get the public option going.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tiggy
photo
Bettysdad
The arc of human history is to the left.
02:53 AM on 09/12/2010
How many times you going to post this?
photo
massjim
Dem? Repub? Is there a difference?
04:07 PM on 09/09/2010
With the majority against Obamacare, they barely squeaked it by when they promised it would save BILLIONS. Now, surprise, not true. Insurance companies get millions of new mandated customers, Big Pharma gets guaranteed profit levels. Can't wait for change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JamesAndre
TheRationalProgressive.com
04:15 PM on 09/09/2010
So you are good with companies dropping you because you actually end up needing medical care?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverstreet
All you need is love
04:42 PM on 09/09/2010
So you are good with companies charging so much for health care premiums and co-pays that you can't afford health care anyway. Single payer is the only option that will actually guarantee health care for all Americans.
04:30 PM on 09/09/2010
Nope! You really didn't read the bill, DID YOU?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverstreet
All you need is love
04:43 PM on 09/09/2010
You are the one who didn't read the bill. Costs go UP and for-profit health insurance companies make out like bandits.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tiggy
11:29 PM on 09/09/2010
The fact that Pharma and Insurance would make out like bandits was a trade off to get preex. in the bill.
We simply need a plan like our reps.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=8706655
03:59 PM on 09/09/2010
When will the sheeple on the left realize that Obamacare had nothing to do with lowering cost or helping people but everything to do with extorting money from the health care industry (a-la the $100 million deal with big Pharma)? Its so funny, the left wants to believe so badly that all someone has to do is say "I care" and, especially if that person is 1/2 African American, they will follow him blindly down his rookie know nothing path to serfdom.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JamesAndre
TheRationalProgressive.com
04:11 PM on 09/09/2010
That makes a kind of bigoted, partisan sense.
04:32 PM on 09/09/2010
When will the goose steppers on the right realize they are being hosed?
photo
MIKEBC
Old school Roosevelt democrat
03:42 PM on 09/09/2010
I don't care how much more it costs, no one was worried about spending when dummy bush was lying us into war or giving tax cuts to the ones who needed them the least!
04:01 PM on 09/09/2010
Yeah. Right on. Bush was bad so its ok if the Rookie in Chief lies to us and makes things even worse!
photo
massjim
Dem? Repub? Is there a difference?
04:07 PM on 09/09/2010
But these are good rainbow fairy dust lies!
11:17 AM on 09/10/2010
Candy Mountain Charlie!!! I love my Candy Mountain Obamacare plan!!! Wait, where's my kidney.