Politicos, policy wonks, and citizens will all be eagerly waiting Monday for a possible Supreme Court’s ruling on the ACA. Speculation in particular is focus on whether the individual mandate provision will survive, and what that would require from lawmakers as a response. But lost in all of the coverage is the unsustainable growth in our nation’s health care costs.
On Monday, we presented a budgetary analysis of the effect the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act could have on the budget. Naturally, we relied on CBO for the estimates, but in the case of eliminating the individual mandate alone, there have been a variety of estimates about what could happen.
It is no secret to those following the news that the Supreme Court will soon make a decision on the constitutionality of pieces of the Affordable Care Act. There have been many discussions of the health policy implications of the decision, which are obviously very important. However, given the name of our organization, we'll discuss the budgetary implications of the possible rulings.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has released its June 2012 report, detailing ways in which Congress can improve Medicare to better control costs and improve care.
Actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services have published a new report detailing their projections for health care spending growth from 2011 to 2021. The growth rates they project may be good news for the economy and the budget as well if they pan out.
In our recent analysis of CBO's Long-Term Budget Outlook, we elaborated on how the overall federal debt is on an unsustainable path. Just twelve years from now, under CBO’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario (AFS), debt will surpass 100 percent of GDP, and by 2038, it will exceed 200 percent. Driving this debt growth are the increasing costs of Social Security and especially Medicare and Medicaid.
Critics of CBO scoring like to cite past predictions that widely missed the mark. Sometimes, too, critics compare apples to oranges, and that is the case with the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) again this week. As reported by National Journal, Congressman Phil Roe (R-TN) claims in referring to CBO's report on the fiscal cliff, "Remember that the CBO estimated two years ago that the Affordable Care Act would be $900 billion, and 24 months later it’s $1.7 trillion.
Yesterday, Medicare trustee Charles Blahous and former chief economist for Vice President Biden Jared Bernstein had a debate about the fiscal consequences of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The event, hosted by e21 at the National Press Club, discussed Blahous's recent paper on the ACA that claimed the law would increase the deficit, contrary to CBO projections.
Yesterday, Zeke Emanuel advanced an interesting proposal for Social Security and Medicare in a blog at The New York Times: varying the retirement ages for lifetime earnings. This policy is a response to a common criticism of raising the retirement ages that increases in life expectancy over time have been uneven across income groups. Emanuel's idea would work as follows:
Donald Marron, who recently wrote a blog post on how budget limits are treated in Congressional rules, wrote a piece today detailing how Medicare Part A rules could be altered so that savings in Part A could not be used to both reduce the deficit and extend the life of the Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund. Here's his take: