Update: The Reed amendment was rejected in floor consideration by a 46-51 vote.
The Senate is currently considering the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and there are a number of issues at stake. Most notably, this bill has the potential to bring the issue of sequester relief to a head, with Senate Democrats and the White House threatening to block passage of the bill due the use of war spending (Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO) to allow defense spending to rise above sequester levels. There are also military compensation reforms in the bill, although there is less controversy there since the White House generally supports them.
The NDAA, largely reflecting the Congressional budget resolution, would authorize defense appropriations totaling $605 billion for FY 2016, including $516 billion for regular defense spending, in line with the sequester-level caps, and $89 billion in OCO funding, which is not subject to spending caps. CBO estimates that $50 billion of this OCO funding would be used for war-related activities, with the remaining $39 billion to be explicitly used to backfill regular defense spending (actually slightly larger than the budget resolution's $38 billion slush fund). We’ve written many times about the problem with using this slush fund to get around the spending caps and how it is much more preferable to lift the spending caps and offset them with other savings as they did in 2013. Although this has been a growing trend on the margins, this year's budget and appropriations utilize this gimmick to an unprecedented degree, increasing war spending well above the President's request as opposed to past years when appropriations typically matched the request.
Update: This blog was updated on June 30 to reflect a CBO estimate published on June 23. Our original estimate was $13 billion, based on staff calculations and information published in The Hill.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently advanced a bill (H.R. 6) unanimously intended to facilitate research into and the development of medical cures. The bill finds savings from elsewhere in the budget to pay for its $12 billion cost, abiding by pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules.
The 21st Century Cures Act intends to promote biomedical research, streamline drug and device development, and make the development of cures more efficient. Among other things, it reauthorizes the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through FY 2018, creates a $2 billion per year NIH Innovation Fund through 2020, makes several changes to facilitate drug development and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, utilizes health IT and telehealth to increase access to new developments, and creates a flexible $110 million per year Cures Innovation Fund through 2020.
Update (6/12/15): A new CBO score estimates that repealing IPAB will cost $7.1 billion over ten years, with all of the cost recorded after 2021. The text has been updated to reflect this score.
The House Ways and Means Committee today will markup several bills, including repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and the medical device tax. You can find out more about the markup on the Ways and Means Committee website.
Unlike full ACA repeal, these policies stand a chance of overcoming a Presidential veto due to the bipartisan support already exhibited for each: as of this writing, the medical device tax repeal bill in the House (HR 160) has 281 cosponsors while the IPAB repeal bill (HR 1190) has 233 cosponsors. However, repealing these policies without offsetting savings from health care or revenue would be a mistake. IPAB, in particular, should not be abolished without a replacement that can similarly restrain long-term Medicare cost growth.
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) has estimated that repealing the 2.3 percent medical device tax would cost $26.5 billion over ten years. However, JCT estimates that the amendment in the nature of a substitute that is expected to replace the bill in markup will reduce revenues by $24.4 billion over the same period.
Although the original co-sponsors of the bill, Reps. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) and Ron Kind (D-WI), said they expect the bill to be offset, no cost-savers have been produced yet. We suggested bundling payments for inpatient care as one option, which not only would produce enough savings to fully offset repeal but also achieve much of its savings from providers cutting their medical device costs. Thus, the medical device industry would still be asked to contribute to deficit reduction, but in a more efficient manner. There are many other options available as well, as we showed at the time and in our latest health care options.
|Potential Offsets for Medical Device Tax Repeal|
|Memo: Repeal Medical Device Tax||-$24 billion|
|Expand bundled payments for inpatient care||$25 billion|
|Reduce state Medicaid provider taxes to 4.5 percent of patient revenues||$35 billion|
|Reduce Medicare coverage of hospital "bad debts"||$30 billion|
|Encourage use of generic drugs by low-income Part D beneficiaries||$20 billion|
|Equalize payments for similar services performed in different settings||$20 billion|
|Increase Medicare Advantage coding intensity adjustment||$20 billion|
|Increase Medicaid drug rebates||$10 billion|
|Move up "Cadillac tax" by one year to 2017||$35 billion|
|Eliminate tax breaks for oil and gas companies||$40 billion|
|Increase cigarette tax by 50 cents||$35 billion|
|Close "John Edwards/Newt Gingrich" loophole||$35 billion|
|Limit tax benefit of retirement accounts||$30 billion|
|Eliminate tax exclusion for private activity bonds||$30 billion|
|Require Social Security numbers for refundable portion of child tax credit||$25 billion|
|Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for second homes and yachts||$15 billion|
Source: CBO, JCT
Earlier this week, Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the Medicaid Generic Drug Price Fairness Act, a bill designed to hold down spending on generic drugs in Medicaid. The bill, which has also been introduced in the House by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), is a reprise of similar legislation introduced in the last Congress.
Skyrocketing Generic Drug Prices
The legislation comes in the wake of a huge jump in generic drug prices in 2014 -- even among certain drugs that have been on the market for a considerable amount of time -- without a clear cause. In some cases, the generic drug is now barely cheaper than the brand-name equivalent that benefited from patent protection. Forbes cites a report showing that several drug groups at least doubled in price and some jumped by much more than that. A few drugs whose prices jumped by an order or two of magnitude drew the particular ire of Sen. Sanders and Rep. Cummings last year.
Some of the price increases are almost certainly the result of raw material shortages or price markups for specific compounds needed in production, but many experts suspect that consolidating market power among generic drug producers and decreasing competition may be playing a significant role. Generic drug-makers, including during testimony at Sen. Sanders' Subcommittee hearing late last year, have generally refused to clarify what the causes have been.
CRFB has released a new compendium of over 150 options to reduce mandatory spending and raise revenue. Despite declining in deficits in recent years, the debt is still projected to rise substantially over the long term. In addition, a series of upcoming Fiscal Speed Bumps will force lawmakers to make decisions about spending and revenue that could require large amounts of offsets, or potentially add almost $2 trillion to the debt.
Click here to see the full list of options.
Our list of options is meant to assist in finding fiscally responsible Speed Bump solutions, achieve some of the unspecified savings in the budget resolution, and help make the country's fiscal situation sustainable.
This paper updates and expands a health care and revenue options report released during the fiscal cliff discussions in late 2012. The new list also focuses on revenue and health care but also includes options for other mandatory (non-health, non-Social Security) spending that may be useful in the months ahead.
A group of House Democrats introduced a bill yesterday to repeal the tax on high-cost health insurance plans, commonly known as the "Cadillac tax," set to take effect in 2018. The repeal joins a similar House Republican bill released back in February. Needless to say, repealing the tax would be very expensive - CBO has estimated the tax raises $87 billion through 2025 while raising growing amounts over time - and likely counter-productive to health care cost control efforts. Importantly, the tax already seems to be having clear effects on the design of employer-provided health plans and has shown itself to be an important tool to slow private health spending growth (and may be playing a role in the recent slowdown). At the very least, lawmakers should plan to offset the lost revenue from repeal, but they should focus on policies that can also bend the health care cost curve.
The Cadillac tax is a 40 percent excise tax on employer-provided health insurance plan premiums that exceed $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. Those thresholds are adjusted for inflation in future years so they would provide tighter limits over time since health care costs have almost always grown faster than inflation. As a result, it will raise growing amounts of revenue over time.
Lawmakers cleared their second Fiscal Speed Bump of the year - the expiration of the one-year "doc fix" - earlier this month, scuttling the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula for good by adding $141 billion to deficits through 2025 ($175 billion with interest). As a result, CBO's last baseline in March is now slightly out of date, and the agency usually doesn't release new ten-year numbers until August, so here's our estimate of what the baseline looks like in the post-SGR world.
The new law increases debt by about one percentage point of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2025, from 77 percent to 78 percent. It also increases ten-year deficits and health care spending by about one-tenth of a percent of GDP while slightly increasing interest spending from 2.9 to 3 percent of GDP in 2025. Not surprisingly, the law slightly increases the share of spending going to health care and interest.
|The New Ten-Year Budget Outlook (Percent of GDP)|
Source: CRFB calculations based on CBO data
*Includes net Medicare, Medicaid/CHIP, and health insurance exchange subsidies
This morning, Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) delivered an important speech in New Hampshire on the need for entitlement reform. The speech not only focused on the need to address the rapid growth of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but actually put forward a plan to begin addressing these issues. By our rough estimate -- and depending on many of the details -- this plan would save over $1 trillion in the next decade alone while significantly improving the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Below is a short summary of Governor Christie's plan.
Social Security Reform
In his speech, Governor Christie called for Social Security reform, explaining that the program "is slowly working its way to insolvency – which the actuaries say will come in the early 2030s, less than 20 years from now... as the number of workers relative to the number of beneficiaries continues to shrink."
To address Social Security's looming insolvency, Christie proposes a number of changes. The most significant policy, in terms of savings, would be to raise the normal retirement age by two months per year from age 67 in 2022 (as under current law) to age 69, and then index it for life expectancy. At the same time, his plan would raise the earliest eligibility age from 62 to 64.
In addition, Christie proposes to calculate COLAs based on the more accurate chained CPI (with a benefit bump-up for 85 year olds), to phase out Social Security benefits for the highest earning seniors (phased out between $80,000 and $200,000 of non-Social Security income), and to eliminate the payroll tax for senior workers.
There's a simple way to make the $141 billion House-passed Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) bill more fiscally responsible: don't exempt it from PAYGO.
As currently written, not only would the SGR legislation add $500 billion to the debt by 2035, but it includes a provision (in Section 525 of the bill for those reading along at home) exempting it from the pay-as-you-go law specifically designed to prevent Congress from adding to the debt over the course of a year.
This PAYGO loophole not only codifies the debt increases within the bill, but it also makes it more difficult for the Congress to follow through on achieving the Medicare savings in the House and Senate Budgets.
Luckily, there is an easy solution. By simply striking Section 525 and removing the PAYGO loophole, the Senate would effectively require Congress to identify $141 billion or more of deficit reduction by the end of the year.
This wouldn't require savings to take place immediately and wouldn't hold up passage of the SGR bill, but it would allow Congress the time it needs to identify savings and reforms to ensure they don't add to the nation's credit card over the long-run. And if Congress fails to find those savings, an automatic mandatory cut would reduce the cost of Medicare and (to a much lesser extent) several other smaller mandatory programs by about $15 billion per year until savings are identified.
Notably, striking the PAYGO Loophole would not impact any of the spending or savings currently in the bill.
Lawmakers often lament the difficulty of reforming Medicare and other health care programs, but the difficulty is not a lack of viable options. One particularly lush source of ideas to examine is the President’s budget.
His budget offers $435 billion in health care savings, which would pay for reforming the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), new health initiatives (some of which are in the SGR bill), and repealing the Medicare sequester while leaving an additional $100 billion for deficit reduction. On top of many reforms found in previous budgets, it also includes efforts to improve the delivery system and enact payment reforms – as well as new spending – not seen in previous budgets.
Here are a few highlights of the proposed savings:
- Allow the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary to negotiate certain drug prices: Although this item is budget-neutral, it would let the Department negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers to lower the price of high-cost prescription drugs and biologics for Medicare Part D. This policy is in addition to other proposed drug payment reforms in the budget that save $165 billion.
- Equalize payments for similar care performed in different sites of service: A trend in Medicare is the shift of ambulatory care from doctors' offices to hospital outpatient facilities, the latter of which receives a higher reimbursement from the government. The budget proposes to equalize payments for services that can be well provided in physician offices, regardless of whether that care is provided in a hospital outpatient department, physician's office, or an Ambulatory Surgery Center. CBO estimates that this would save $13 billion over the next decade.