President Obama speaks about healthcare reform from the Rose Garden of the White House on Friday.
(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)Photos (1 of 1)
How expensive is proposed healthcare legislation?
It doesn't rein in the government's runaway costs for Medicare and Medicaid, says the director of the Congressional Budget Office.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer/ July 17, 2009 edition
Reporter Peter Grier discusses the current cost of federal healthcare and how much this will grow if reform legislation passes Congress as is.
Reporter Peter Grier
Washington
The steadily rising cost of healthcare may be the biggest single fiscal problem facing the US government today.
The stimulus bill? Bank and auto bailouts?
Those are all big expenses, to be sure, but they are one-time payouts limited in their long-term effect compared with the big federal health entitlement programs of Medicare and Medicaid.
This is one of the reasons it’s significant that Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), told the Senate on Thursday that proposed health care legislation does not rein in the government’s runaway costs for medical programs.
“In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Mr. Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee.
On Friday, a key House committee passed its chamber’s version of health-reform legislation, but critics complained that it, too, would do little or nothing to slow US health payouts. Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats appear to have seized on the cost issue, either to slow the movement of the health bill or curb its scale and price.
“Instead of rushing through one expensive proposal after another, we should take the time we need to get things right,” said Senate Republican leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Slowing the rate of growth for healthcare spending is one of President Obama’s goals for healthcare. The other is expanding health coverage to millions who now lack it.
Healthcare costs are not exactly a new problem for Uncle Sam, of course. Spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy for decades.
Unless things change, that will continue in the future. Measured relative to the nation’s gross domestic product, almost all the projected growth in the federal deficit will be caused by rising interest payments on the national debt and increased Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security costs, according to CBO’s just-updated long-term budget outlook.
Medicare and Medicaid are the monsters in that list. Absent changes in federal law, their cost will grow from 5 percent of US GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035.
By 2080, the two programs would be about the same size, relative to GDP, as the entire US budget is today, projects CBO.
And it’s not the retirement of a flood of baby boomers that is pushing up that spending. Well, that is part of it, but not the main part.
According to CBO’s recent budget update, if current law is not changed, 56 percent of the cost growth in Medicare and Medicaid over the next 25 years will be attributable to what it delicately calls “excess cost growth.”
That is, more than half of rising health costs are projected to be the result of an increase in medical spending per person, over and above normal inflation. This, in turn, is mainly the result of new medical technology, drugs, and other health-related innovations.
“Excess cost growth is the primary factor driving the growth of federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid, even over the intermediate term,” concludes CBO.
As to the health-reform bills currently being considered in Congress, their effect on costs may not be quite as bad as advertised, say supporters.
CBO’s cost predictions do not take into account savings from increased efficiencies included in the bills, such as the increased computerization of medical records, they point out.
“Comprehensive health care reform means finding ways to deliver health care more efficiently, and that will help us restrain the rate of growth of government spending over the long run. We can’t start that soon enough,” said Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former CBO chief, in an analysis posted on the Brookings website Thursday.
Comments
2. Thoughtful | 07.17.09
Until the people who make the purchase decisions and buy services are the same folks as the people who actually, directly foot the bill, the cost of healthcare will never get better.
The economic disconnect between perceived value of services, and their asking price, is the systemic problem at the root. When was the last time you received an “Estimate for Services” from a doctor or hospital? I’d bet most who read this never have.
3. Jack | 07.17.09
If we are fearful and affected by paralysis, then nothing will be done. There will always be an argument against any solution or proposal. It is time to act now and get it done. We can fine tune it later. McConnell is quoted saying “Instead of rushing through one expensive proposal after another, we should take the time we need to get things right.” My response to him is that the government has been trying to get the “right” (PUN INTENDED) health care bill for the past 60+ years (since FDR), we haven’t anything to show for it. It is time to stop the foot dragging and delay tactics and get a health care bill passed. We can fix any problems later. It’s not like once a health care bill pass, it is permanently written in stone and can’t be changed. We can fine tune it later. If we do nothing and continue to wring our hands, it may be another 60 years before we see universal health care in this country.
4. Jeremy McGuire | 07.17.09
Health care has always been and will always be rationed, by economic means, by the insurance industry’s profit motive and by the availability of health care professionals. The thing that the insurance companies don’t admit to is that, whether it is called a tax or it is called a premium, it’s still your money and it will still cost you plenty depending on the demand for health care. But, with the insurance companies, what you spend in premiums may not be returned to you in services if they cut into profits too much. The main difference under a Public Option is that services cannot be refused if they are needed.
5. devonte’e | 09.09.09
americans being able to get affordable health insurance Is very much needed. A person being able to get health insurance when they have a pre existing condition is long over due.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.




1. Big Jim | 07.17.09
The government could not a lemonade stand effectively. It would be open at midnight with one overpaid worker, ice tea mix, and a fork. How can they run health care? Well at least there is no end to our tax money.