CBO Paper Offers No Concrete Numbers For Single-Payer System, Giving Both Sides Sound Bites To Use In Debate
In a departure from the norm, the Congressional Budget Office's report didn't estimate about how much a switch to "Medicare for All" would actually cost, in part because such a change would so disrupt the country's economy that it would be impossible to forecast the full impact. The office did, however, lay out potential pitfalls, obstacles, challenges and rewards of moving into a different model, providing talking points to lawmakers on all sides of the issue.
The New York Times:
‘Medicare For All’ Gets Much-Awaited Report. Both Sides Can Claim Victory.
The Congressional Budget Office published a much-awaited paper about the possible design of a single-payer or “Medicare for all” system in the United States. The budget office most often provides detailed estimates about the cost of legislation. But anyone looking for many numbers in Wednesday’s long report would be disappointed. Instead, the nonpartisan office noted the many ways that legislators could devise such a system, outlining the cost and policy effects of a wide range of difficult choices. It also noted that such a system would be so different from the country’s current situation that any hard estimates would be difficult, even with all the specifics laid out. (Sanger-Katz, 5/1)
The Associated Press:
Budget Office: Caveats To Government-Run Health System
"The transition toward a single-payer system could be complicated, challenging and potentially disruptive," the report said. "Policymakers would need to consider how quickly people with private insurance would switch their coverage to a new public plan, what would happen to workers in the health insurance industry if private insurance was banned or its role was limited, and how quickly provider payment rates under the single-payer system would be phased in from current levels." (Alonso-Zaldivar and Fram, 5/1)
The Washington Post:
Medicare-For-All Plans Get A Reality Check
The analysis, issued Wednesday by the Congressional Budget Office, offers a reality check on the campaign slogans that have characterized a growing crop of Democratic presidential aspirants who champion the idea of Medicare-for-all. The report lays out “opportunities and risks” of moving every American into a single government plan that covers all or most medical services. On the plus side, it says, such a plan would produce universal coverage and probably a more efficient health system. Among the negatives: higher government spending and taxes — and potentially longer waits for some treatments and technologies. (Goldstein, 5/1)
The Wall Street Journal:
Medicare For All Could Trim Costs, Impede Care, Report Says
The report serves as a yardstick laying out possible pitfalls and advantages of instituting such a Medicare for All system, as well as the policy questions lawmakers would have to address. By consolidating administrative tasks, the report says, their costs would likely fall under the new health system. But the design of the system would determine whether it lowers overall health-care spending. A Medicare for All system would create incentives, such as access to expanded preventive care and other benefits that may improve people’s health, the report said. But it also said that extending coverage to more Americans could produce longer wait times and reduced access to care if there weren’t enough health workers. (Armour, 5/1)
Kaiser Health News:
CBO’s Report On Single-Payer Health Care Holds More Questions Than Answers
Notably, the single-payer report avoids a question that critics frequently surface: How much would this cost? How would you pay for it? That’s because there’s no uniform cost estimate for single-payer and no easy formula to apply. For one thing, the price tag depends on what services are covered — something like long-term care would make the idea much more expensive. (Luthra, 5/1)
Modern Healthcare:
CBO Warns Of Complexities, Disruption Of A Single-Payer System
Independent analyses have put the price tag of single payer at roughly $32 trillion over a decade. Yet in highlighting the potential economic disruption of a single payer overhaul, the agency pointed to one of the key reasons Medicare for All is gaining traction: the costs in the status quo. "Because healthcare spending in the United States currently accounts for about one-sixth of the nation's gross domestic product, those changes could significantly affect the overall U.S. economy," the report said. (Luthi, 5/1)
Modern Healthcare:
Humana CEO Spurns Medicare For All Proposals
Louisville, Ky.-based insurer Humana reported higher revenue and profit in the first quarter of 2019 as it experienced explosive growth in its individual Medicare Advantage plans during the latest annual open-enrollment period. So it's no surprise that Humana CEO Bruce Broussard talked up the privatized Medicare Advantage program during the company's Wednesday conference call with investment analysts, just a day after U.S. House of Representatives members held a first-ever congressional hearing on Medicare for All. Some single-payer proposals would eliminate private insurance for almost all medical care. (Livingston, 5/1)
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill —
The Hill:
House Democrats Introduce Moderate Medicare Expansion Plan
House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled a more moderate proposal for expanding health care coverage than "Medicare for All" legislation that has been advocated by a number of the party's 2020 presidential candidates. The Medicare for America Act, sponsored by Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), was released a day after Democrats held the first hearing about Medicare for All. (Weixel, 5/1)
