CBO: Health Care Overhaul to Cost More Than Initially Projected
My column yesterday looked at the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the president's budget proposal. The CBO did not offer a friendly assessment: It expects the economy to be more sluggish and federal debt and deficits to be significantly higher than the estimates put forth by the administration. One thing I didn't note, however, is that the office is now projecting the health care overhaul to cost $54 billion more than it initially estimated. This isn't due to any change to the legislation itself. Instead, it's a technical readjustment based on a more refined model. Thanks to those adjustments, CBO now expects that more individuals will end up in subsidized health insurance exchanges rather than on Medicaid, which despite its many problems is comparatively cheaper for taxpayers. Over the next decade, the difference is estimated to cost us just slightly less than the $61 billion Republicans are proposing to cut from the federal budget.
Revised estimates like these tell us two things: First, it highlights the uncertain nature of CBO's scoring. CBO is trying to predict the future, at least in some sense. But inevitably there are things it doesn't know, can't know, and will get wrong. To its credit, CBO has been entirely up front about this. But legislators on both sides of the aisle tend to use the office's estimates as if they're fact. We really don't know what the long term, overall budgetary effects of an incredibly complex law like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be.
So to some extent, we should take this revised estimate with a grain of salt. CBO isn't god, and it doesn't actually have a crystall ball revealing how many people will end up in the exchanges; it really is impossible to consistently and accurately predict that sort of human behavior years in advance. But we have a much better idea of what sort of subsidies people in the exchange are likely to receive. Consequently, what we can see from this re-estimate is that if more people do in fact end up in the exchanges than projected, or if Congress extends the subsidies to more people than planned—both of which are distinctly plausible outcomes—then the expected cost of the law will grow significantly beyond what was initially estimated.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm not god either, but I predict that, if the Supreme Court rules the mandate Constitutional, the health care overhaul will cost a *lot* more than CBO estimates.
'Cost more than initially projected' - Is anyone surprised?
Will anyone be surprised when the $54B is just another ridiculously low estimate?
Most likely not.
I'm a little surprised that the CBO projects a mere $54b overrun.
Wait, were we supposed to use constant dollars?
They're leaving room to be wrong in the future.
What were the initial Medicaire/Medicaide estimations?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So their delta is +5% per year. If its a compounding 5% its going to get expensive by 2014.
The one advantage to Obamacare is this:
If your goal is to bring down the cost of health insurance and services provided to the lower and middle class, you should do the exact opposite of everything that's in Obamacare.
It's a roadmap for success!
Are you joshing?
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
I know I'm a lonely crackpot crying in the wilderness, but stop calling it health care overhaul, goddammit!
Fuck, Brooks, I can't even get him to call it ObamaCare.
For awhile he was progressing and had abandoned the noxious acronym, but now he's backsliding and using the full formal name of the act.
I just want alt text.
Saw your post about ACOs the other day. New from the NEJM: "With this rapid movement toward ACOs, one would expect that the previous government demonstration of the model would have produced promising results that warranted its rapid expansion. Our analysis of the results from the demonstration suggests otherwise."
http://healthpolicyandreform.n.....query=home
Dude, I don't know about you but sending a check to the insurance company magically cures my ills.
They're leaving room to be wrong in the future.
Why wait?
The suspense.
We would hate to kill the suspense...
Is there an echo around here?
Name one social program that cost less than initially projected.
Slavery!
Assume a can opener...
Come to think of it, the commerce clause is the STEVE SMITH of constitutional law...
This just in:
Liz Taylor is still dead.
Water is wet.
The sun rose in the east.
Health Care Overhaul to Cost More Than Initially Projected.
Well, April 17 is a full moon, so... we will know then!
"CBO: Health Care Overhaul to Cost More Than Initially Projected[.]"
Grass is typically green, news at 11!!
Do you mean to say that insuring 30 million people by plundering from that shrinking number of actual taxpayers is going to cost more than was touted previously?
Say it isn't so... BRB, need to check on my unicorn...
Not anymore, I just ate it.
Yum!
Don't forget to save what comes out.
who could've seen that coming ?
thank you for you share
see
MOU SI