 Jill Wechsler
|
Everyone wants to transform the nation's healthcare system to curb unnecessary spending and make coverage more fair and efficient.
Unfortunately, the U.S. healthcare bill keeps rising faster than the rest of the economy, and many proposals for cutting costs
won't yield big savings, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Prevention and disease management programs could lessen the need for expensive care for some patients, but such initiatives
have costs, especially if provided for large populations. Anti-obesity and anti-smoking campaigns that enable people to live
longer, moreover, increases future demand for care. Wider adoption of health IT may make operations more efficient, but implementation
will be costly upfront. And comparative research on which drugs and medical procedures are most effective may not save much
money in the near term.
Overall, the outlook is dim. CBO projects that the nation will spend $2.6 trillion for healthcare in 2009, 17% of gross domestic
product and rising to 20% of GDP by 2017. Federal expenditures for Medicare and Medicaid will grow from $720 billion in 2009
to about $1.4 trillion by 2019, and the number of uninsured will rise from 45 million to about 54 million.
ASSESSING TRADEOFFSIn anticipation of a serious effort to overhaul federal health programs, CBO has looked closely at how more than 100 reform
proposals would affect costs and coverage over the next 10 years. Reducing the tax exclusion for employer contributions to
worker health insurance, for example, would increase federal revenues by $450 billion through 2018, but also boost the number
of uninsured by several million.
Replacing the exclusion with broader deductions for insurance premiums would generate more gains. Allowing self-employed workers
to deduct health insurance premiums from income would reduce revenues by some $37 billion, and extending that deduction to
everyone with individual coverage would double the cost.
There's a slight gain from permitting sale of health insurance through associations, while requiring large employers to "play
or pay" for coverage would generate almost $50 billion in fees. More expensive is establishing a national high-risk pool for
people unable to obtain individual coverage, which would cost the government more than $15 billion through 2019. And a national
reinsurance program that subsidizes all high-cost beneficiaries could rack up more than $750 billion in outlays.
At the same time, requiring states to use community rating for small-group premiums would save money but prompt many healthy
individuals to drop coverage.
The government would gain about $5 billion from medical malpractice reform that sets a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damage
awards, a $500,000 cap on punitive damages, and other limits. Cutting outlays for prescription drugs is more promising: CBO
projects hefty savings by requiring manufacturer rebates on products covered by the Medicare drug benefit and by approving
generic versions of biotech therapies.
Closing up the "donut hole" in Part D is much too expensive to expect.
The analysts also predict gains from revised payment methods for Medicare Advantage plans. The government would save about
$160 billion over 10 years by setting benchmarks equal to local fee-for-service per capita, using competitive bidding to set
benchmarks, or adopting a "premium support" system that has MA plans compete for enrollees with traditional Medicare.
Jill Wechsler, a veteran reporter, has been covering Capitol Hill since 1994.