New CBO/JCT report on ACA

[oldfart]

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office issued a new report on the budgetary impact of the Affordable Care Act insurance provisions. It projects substantial reductions in the costs of the ACA for 2014 and the ten year period ending in 2024.

For 2014 CBO projects insurance subsidies and costs of operating exchanges to be $17 billion, $20 billion for increases in Medicaid and CHIP, and $1 billion of tax credits for small business insurance plans. This is offset by $2 billion of revenues from penalties and secondary budget effects, making the 2014 cost $36 billion net, $5 billion under previous estimates.

For the ten year period ending 2014, the corresponding net cost is $1,383 billion, a reduction of $104 billion from previous estimates. Since enactment in 2010, the costs of the ACA have been projected at lower levels with each subsequent revision. Most notably, after 2017 (cost of $138 billion) net cost rises at about the rate of population growth until 2024 ($156 billion). The "cost curve" essentially becomes flat.

These estimates include all the significant "red herring" arguments, such as the cost of reinsurance (which is a wash, generating $186 billion of revenues and expenses over ten years).

The number of newly insured non-elderly compared to the projections without the ACA are 12 million in 2014, 19 million in 2015, and 25 million in 2016 and thereafter. The proportion of insured non-elderly rises from 80% to 89% and the number of uninsured drops from 57 million to 30 million from 2013 to 2016. This should almost half the cost of "uncompensated care" to providers.

In fairness, a part of this lowered cost is attributable to changes in the CBO baseline forecast not previously included. CBO does not break out this component, but since the baseline economic forecast has improved only modestly, most of the cost reductions are probably the result of the sign-up rates and premiums coming in under projections.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf

 

[mascale]

Many attribute the recent decline in consumer medical spending to the lingering effects of the Bush-Cheney-Ivy-League caused Great Recession. Old Times There Are Not Forgotten, Excepting Anything Relevant To Modern Economies. The general free market of rich people spending and investing amongst themselves is what matters most. Socialist China is not on radar, or its past since WWII.

Medical pricing may be under control so far, noting that lots of pharmacy cost have come down. So The Los Angeles Times, of a Blue State, Reports a health care business spending boost.

More U.S. consumers are seeking medical care, report shows - latimes.com

So if the health care industry is all that significant a sector of the economy, then (1) the ACA economic stimulus cannot be discounted, (2) The Red States and GOP are opposed to any such effects, (3) The Red States and GOP still do not recognize China, possibly a holdover from disdain with their Nixon Administration, (4) there appears to be a return to normalcy, socialist-based, and (5), the Concept of Laissez-faire in some manner relevant to anything is generally, largely, macro discounted.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(White Eyes celebrating Income Tax on same day as, Passover Pigeon--leaving the famous doorway marks associated with the breed(?)! White Eyes next celebrate famous foreclosure bunny, famously described in Matt 25:14-30, KJV and Catholic Editions. To stay indoors, or not to stay indoors: That Now White Eyes Question(?)!)

 

[emilynghiem]

Don't forget the bailout of insurance companies (est. $1.5 trillion?)
and the $24 billion est. cost to taxpayers for shutting down govt
because the implications of this bill were not worked out first, and continues to divide Congress and the nation.

I would like to see a comparison with other measures or approaches that could have cost less, WITHOUT imposing any contested mandates considered unconstitutional, and saved more lives, money, resources and time and effort -- by reforming other areas of govt at the same time (such as reforming prisons and immigration, and setting up systems of tracking and collecting restitution owed from people actually racking up costs to the public).

We could have done, and could still do better, and need to do better.

But with the controversy over the ACA as passed, the resulting division and distrust
has made not only reforms harder on this issue, but others as well due to the resulting damages from imposing legislation deemed unconstitutional by many who feel violated.

That damage is not even being taken into consideration.

It has cost not only money, in terms of legal and political battles, but also relationships and ability to work effectively on solutions that would help even MORE people than ACA covers.

How do you measure that cost in dollars and cents?

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office issued a new report on the budgetary impact of the Affordable Care Act insurance provisions. It projects substantial reductions in the costs of the ACA for 2014 and the ten year period ending in 2024.

For 2014 CBO projects insurance subsidies and costs of operating exchanges to be $17 billion, $20 billion for increases in Medicaid and CHIP, and $1 billion of tax credits for small business insurance plans. This is offset by $2 billion of revenues from penalties and secondary budget effects, making the 2014 cost $36 billion net, $5 billion under previous estimates.

For the ten year period ending 2014, the corresponding net cost is $1,383 billion, a reduction of $104 billion from previous estimates. Since enactment in 2010, the costs of the ACA have been projected at lower levels with each subsequent revision. Most notably, after 2017 (cost of $138 billion) net cost rises at about the rate of population growth until 2024 ($156 billion). The "cost curve" essentially becomes flat.

These estimates include all the significant "red herring" arguments, such as the cost of reinsurance (which is a wash, generating $186 billion of revenues and expenses over ten years).

The number of newly insured non-elderly compared to the projections without the ACA are 12 million in 2014, 19 million in 2015, and 25 million in 2016 and thereafter. The proportion of insured non-elderly rises from 80% to 89% and the number of uninsured drops from 57 million to 30 million from 2013 to 2016. This should almost half the cost of "uncompensated care" to providers.

In fairness, a part of this lowered cost is attributable to changes in the CBO baseline forecast not previously included. CBO does not break out this component, but since the baseline economic forecast has improved only modestly, most of the cost reductions are probably the result of the sign-up rates and premiums coming in under projections.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf

 

[william the wie]

The big problems with Ocare do not appear to be addressed by this report.

The savings come out of the pocket of the caregivers but disproportionately from a relatively few low reimbursement and/or ultra-narrow network states. From the reports I have seen CA is the only state on both lists and should account for up to half of all horror stories on that front.

States with less than three exchange providers will have very upset constituents. Nearly half of MS had no exchange coverage the last I read. Getting all zipcodes upto say 6 exchange insurers minimum will require additional expenditures that cannot pass the house.

All politics are local and the CBO projection deals with the merely Federal and is therefore misleading.

 

[oldfart]

Don't forget the bailout of insurance companies (est. $1.5 trillion?)

I'm not sure what you are referring to. The bailout of AIG etc dealt with bond insurance, not health insurers. Did I miss something?

I would like to see a comparison with other measures or approaches that could have cost less, WITHOUT imposing any contested mandates considered unconstitutional, and saved more lives, money, resources and time and effort -- by reforming other areas of govt at the same time (such as reforming prisons and immigration, and setting up systems of tracking and collecting restitution owed from people actually racking up costs to the public).

I would think that the burden of such an analysis begins with making a proposal which the CBO could score. As far as I am aware, the "Repeal and Replace" crowd has had several years to reveal what the "Replace" would be and steadfastly refuses to put forward a proposal. Cynics would say they have none. Have you seen one? What does it include?

But with the controversy over the ACA as passed, the resulting division and distrust has made not only reforms harder on this issue, but others as well due to the resulting damages from imposing legislation deemed unconstitutional by many who feel violated.

That damage is not even being taken into consideration.

It has cost not only money, in terms of legal and political battles, but also relationships and ability to work effectively on solutions that would help even MORE people than ACA covers.

How do you measure that cost in dollars and cents?

I think you are begging the question. There is no other alternative on the table. There is not even a good faith effort to develop one; just an action to make ACA as unworkable as possible, rooting against the American people ("Let them die!") in an effort to sabotage the law. It's pretty sad to see a once powerful and intellectually vigorous conservative movement reduced to irredentism and petty politics. Not to mention mean and vicious.

 

[oldfart]

The big problems with Ocare do not appear to be addressed by this report.

The savings come out of the pocket of the caregivers but disproportionately from a relatively few low reimbursement and/or ultra-narrow network states. From the reports I have seen CA is the only state on both lists and should account for up to half of all horror stories on that front.

States with less than three exchange providers will have very upset constituents. Nearly half of MS had no exchange coverage the last I read. Getting all zipcodes upto say 6 exchange insurers minimum will require additional expenditures that cannot pass the house.

All politics are local and the CBO projection deals with the merely Federal and is therefore misleading.

I have not been following the problems you are referring to. Perhaps you could point me to a good source to catch up on these problems.

 

[Howey]

It's fun watching the right clamoring to find something wrong with the report. And failing. Hello Democrat election wins in November!

 

[Rshermr]

The big problems with Ocare do not appear to be addressed by this report.

The savings come out of the pocket of the caregivers but disproportionately from a relatively few low reimbursement and/or ultra-narrow network states. From the reports I have seen CA is the only state on both lists and should account for up to half of all horror stories on that front.

States with less than three exchange providers will have very upset constituents. Nearly half of MS had no exchange coverage the last I read. Getting all zipcodes upto say 6 exchange insurers minimum will require additional expenditures that cannot pass the house.

All politics are local and the CBO projection deals with the merely Federal and is therefore misleading.

Been waiting for a reply back to you from emilynghiem. Was not holding my breath. That would likely be fatal. So, Cmon, emily. I find this subject interesting, but I think oldfart just pinned you.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't matter.......Obamacare must fail

Even when it succeeds, Obamacare must fail

 

[Rshermr]

The big problems with Ocare do not appear to be addressed by this report.

The savings come out of the pocket of the caregivers but disproportionately from a relatively few low reimbursement and/or ultra-narrow network states. From the reports I have seen CA is the only state on both lists and should account for up to half of all horror stories on that front.

States with less than three exchange providers will have very upset constituents. Nearly half of MS had no exchange coverage the last I read. Getting all zipcodes upto say 6 exchange insurers minimum will require additional expenditures that cannot pass the house.

All politics are local and the CBO projection deals with the merely Federal and is therefore misleading.

I have not been following the problems you are referring to. Perhaps you could point me to a good source to catch up on these problems.

And another. There are all sorts of "problems" with the ACA. Going from the nut case right wing claims to the more rational ones (like the hopeful but politically impossible "why not a single payer system?") But the problems that Wm. the Wie refers to just do not look good in terms of being impartially sourced.

The real hope, in my humble but correct opinion, is that the ACA can act as a platform for change over time, to a more rational and useful health care system.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Related at New data signal smaller jump in health care costs

WASHINGTON — Statisticians working with insurers to project next year's insurance premium rates say they expect to see an average increase of about 7%, well below the feared double-digit increases making recent headlines.

"The double-rate increases we've been hearing are probably exaggerated," says Dave Axene, a fellow with the Society of Actuaries, adding that there would be wide variation across the country. "That's not what we're seeing from the actuarial organizations — I guess we're being a little bit more optimistic."

Axene says that as insurers dig through the new health exchange enrollees to figure out their ages and health conditions to determine next year's premiums, he expects an overall increase of 6% to 8.5%. He bases that on work he and others within the society have done with insurance clients. Before the Affordable Care Act, premiums rose an average of 7-10% a year.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office issued a new report on the budgetary impact of the Affordable Care Act insurance provisions. It projects substantial reductions in the costs of the ACA for 2014 and the ten year period ending in 2024.

For 2014 CBO projects insurance subsidies and costs of operating exchanges to be $17 billion, $20 billion for increases in Medicaid and CHIP, and $1 billion of tax credits for small business insurance plans. This is offset by $2 billion of revenues from penalties and secondary budget effects, making the 2014 cost $36 billion net, $5 billion under previous estimates.

For the ten year period ending 2014, the corresponding net cost is $1,383 billion, a reduction of $104 billion from previous estimates. Since enactment in 2010, the costs of the ACA have been projected at lower levels with each subsequent revision. Most notably, after 2017 (cost of $138 billion) net cost rises at about the rate of population growth until 2024 ($156 billion). The "cost curve" essentially becomes flat.

These estimates include all the significant "red herring" arguments, such as the cost of reinsurance (which is a wash, generating $186 billion of revenues and expenses over ten years).

The number of newly insured non-elderly compared to the projections without the ACA are 12 million in 2014, 19 million in 2015, and 25 million in 2016 and thereafter. The proportion of insured non-elderly rises from 80% to 89% and the number of uninsured drops from 57 million to 30 million from 2013 to 2016. This should almost half the cost of "uncompensated care" to providers.

In fairness, a part of this lowered cost is attributable to changes in the CBO baseline forecast not previously included. CBO does not break out this component, but since the baseline economic forecast has improved only modestly, most of the cost reductions are probably the result of the sign-up rates and premiums coming in under projections.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf

If you actually read the report you might be forced to admit that the lower cost are largely attributable to the fact that the polices suck.

 

[oldfart]

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office issued a new report on the budgetary impact of the Affordable Care Act insurance provisions. It projects substantial reductions in the costs of the ACA for 2014 and the ten year period ending in 2024.

For 2014 CBO projects insurance subsidies and costs of operating exchanges to be $17 billion, $20 billion for increases in Medicaid and CHIP, and $1 billion of tax credits for small business insurance plans. This is offset by $2 billion of revenues from penalties and secondary budget effects, making the 2014 cost $36 billion net, $5 billion under previous estimates.

For the ten year period ending 2014, the corresponding net cost is $1,383 billion, a reduction of $104 billion from previous estimates. Since enactment in 2010, the costs of the ACA have been projected at lower levels with each subsequent revision. Most notably, after 2017 (cost of $138 billion) net cost rises at about the rate of population growth until 2024 ($156 billion). The "cost curve" essentially becomes flat.

These estimates include all the significant "red herring" arguments, such as the cost of reinsurance (which is a wash, generating $186 billion of revenues and expenses over ten years).

The number of newly insured non-elderly compared to the projections without the ACA are 12 million in 2014, 19 million in 2015, and 25 million in 2016 and thereafter. The proportion of insured non-elderly rises from 80% to 89% and the number of uninsured drops from 57 million to 30 million from 2013 to 2016. This should almost half the cost of "uncompensated care" to providers.

In fairness, a part of this lowered cost is attributable to changes in the CBO baseline forecast not previously included. CBO does not break out this component, but since the baseline economic forecast has improved only modestly, most of the cost reductions are probably the result of the sign-up rates and premiums coming in under projections.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf

If you actually read the report you might be forced to admit that the lower cost are largely attributable to the fact that the polices suck.

Actually I read all CBO reports in full before referring to them including methodological notes. Obviously you do not. Perhaps you could point to anything in the report I missed?

I do not appreciate someone thinking they know what I do or do not read. You have no way of knowing, other than by my posting. Of course you have no reputation to lose as everyone knows you for making things up out of thin air, as you did this post, and as a bald faced liar.

Go back and crawl under your rock. You are disgusting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office issued a new report on the budgetary impact of the Affordable Care Act insurance provisions. It projects substantial reductions in the costs of the ACA for 2014 and the ten year period ending in 2024.

For 2014 CBO projects insurance subsidies and costs of operating exchanges to be $17 billion, $20 billion for increases in Medicaid and CHIP, and $1 billion of tax credits for small business insurance plans. This is offset by $2 billion of revenues from penalties and secondary budget effects, making the 2014 cost $36 billion net, $5 billion under previous estimates.

For the ten year period ending 2014, the corresponding net cost is $1,383 billion, a reduction of $104 billion from previous estimates. Since enactment in 2010, the costs of the ACA have been projected at lower levels with each subsequent revision. Most notably, after 2017 (cost of $138 billion) net cost rises at about the rate of population growth until 2024 ($156 billion). The "cost curve" essentially becomes flat.

These estimates include all the significant "red herring" arguments, such as the cost of reinsurance (which is a wash, generating $186 billion of revenues and expenses over ten years).

The number of newly insured non-elderly compared to the projections without the ACA are 12 million in 2014, 19 million in 2015, and 25 million in 2016 and thereafter. The proportion of insured non-elderly rises from 80% to 89% and the number of uninsured drops from 57 million to 30 million from 2013 to 2016. This should almost half the cost of "uncompensated care" to providers.

In fairness, a part of this lowered cost is attributable to changes in the CBO baseline forecast not previously included. CBO does not break out this component, but since the baseline economic forecast has improved only modestly, most of the cost reductions are probably the result of the sign-up rates and premiums coming in under projections.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf

If you actually read the report you might be forced to admit that the lower cost are largely attributable to the fact that the polices suck.

Actually I read all CBO reports in full before referring to them including methodological notes. Obviously you do not. Perhaps you could point to anything in the report I missed?

I do not appreciate someone thinking they know what I do or do not read. You have no way of knowing, other than by my posting. Of course you have no reputation to lose as everyone knows you for making things up out of thin air, as you did this post, and as a bald faced liar.

Go back and crawl under your rock. You are disgusting.

You read them all in full? All of them? Seriously?

I actually started a thread pointing out the problem with your claim that Obamacare will lower costs, and actually quoted the part of the report I just referenced that talks about why the CBO says they were wrong. It took me a few days because, unlike people who get all their quotes from news releases, I actually took the time to read through the report and find out what it said.

Perhaps you have come across a progressive idiot trumpeting the fact that the CBO has said that Obamacare will cost less than expected. The part they don't mention is why it will cost less.

A crucial factor in the current revision was an analysis of the characteristics of plans offered through the exchanges in 2014. Previously, CBO and JTC had expected that those plans’ characteristics would closely resemble the characteristics of employment-based plans throughout the projection period. However, the plans being offered through the exchanges this year appear to have, in general, lower payment rates for providers, narrower networks of providers, and tighter management of their subscribers’ use of health care than employment-based plans do.

…

The lower exchange premiums and revisions to the other characteristics of insurance plans that are incorporated into CBO and JCT’s current estimates have small effects on the agencies’ projections of exchange enrollment. Although lower premiums will tend to increase enrollment, narrower networks and more tightly managed benefits will tend to reduce the attractiveness of plans and thereby decrease enrollment. The net effect on projected enrollment in the exchanges is small.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45231-ACA_Estimates.pdf

In other words, the policies have limited networks and more hoops to jump through to get the benefits that are offered. This will result in fewer choices for the people that get stuck with the plans, but all is good because they get to claim that the fact that the costs will go up slightly slower than expected proves they were right all along.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/obama...re-sucks-progressives-celebrate-low-cost.html

Can I just call you a lying sack of shit right now, or do you want to keep pretending you read the entire fucking report and just managed to skip over the tow paragraphs that destroyed your claim about how wonderful Obamacare is, and how it is actually working to lower the cost of health care, even thought the CBO has never actually said that is occurring?