2 hours, 27 minutes ago
(AP:NEW YORK) Ventas Inc. said Monday that it will buy Nationwide Health Properties Inc. in a $5.8 billion stock deal, creating the nation's largest health care real-estate investment trust.
The Nationwide purchase solidifies Ventas' position as a leading owner of senior housing communities, along with real estate properties including skilled nursing facilities, hospitals, and office buildings. The move also will make the company more diverse, combining Ventas' health care facilities with Nationwide's focus on senior housing and long-term care facilities.
The company will have more than 1,300 assets in 47 states, the District of Columbia, and two Canadian provinces. That includes operating 643 senior housing facilities and 379 skilled nursing facilities.
Ventas said private pay sources will account for 70 percent of the company's net operating income. Meanwhile, senior housing will account for about 55 percent of the combined company's net operating income, with skilled nursing facilities and medical office buildings accounting for about 22 percent and 11 percent, respectively.
Health care is one of the fastest growing segments of the economy, and both companies foresee growth as the population ages with the first wave of 79 million baby boomers turning 65 in 2011. Health care spending is projected to grow to 20 percent U.S. gross domestic product by 2019, from about 18 percent today.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Health Costs Municipal Employees
jayboat How about having Municipal employees pay more than five dollars as their co-pay? Who else get health insurance with no deductibles? Make municipal employees join the GIC and pay the same co-pays and deductible as state employees. That will save the taxpayer millions of dollars.
Monday, February 14, 2011
MUNICIPAL HEALTH COSTS
A group of Massachusetts mayors, fed up with what they say is legislative inaction on skyrocketing municipal health care costs, has launched a ballot initiative for 2012 aimed at giving cities and towns more flexibility in reducing expensive benefits for employees, retirees and elected officials. Health costs in Massachusetts have added more than $1 billion to municipal budgets from 2001 to 2008, and some cities now devote close to 20 percent of their budgets to health care.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The Effect of Repealing Health Reform on the State of Massachusetts:
CMMENTS FROM SEN. KERRY
•Repeal would take away $2 billion in additional federal assistance for MassHealth, which provides health coverage to more than one million Massachusetts children, families, seniors, and people with disabilities.
•Repeal would eradicate $860 million in federal funding of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which helps to ensure that virtually every child in Massachusetts has health care coverage.
•Repeal would make health coverage more expensive by taking away $4 billion in federal subsidies to purchase health insurance to over 254,000 Massachusetts residents.
•Repeal would prevent 75,000 people in Massachusetts with incomes between 300% of poverty to 400% of poverty—most of whom are older Americans under the age of 65—from receiving subsidies to purchase health coverage.
•Repeal would increase Medicare prescription drug costs for nearly 51,837 seniors in Massachusetts.
•Repeal would cut Medicare’s annual wellness visit and free preventive services for 1 million seniors in Massachusetts.
•Repeal would eliminate financial relief to 162 employers in Massachusetts who offer retiree health benefits.
•Repeal would make it more expensive for over 102,000 small businesses in Massachusetts to offer health coverage to their employees.
•Repeal would eliminate tens of millions of dollars in funding for community health centers in Massachusetts that provide high quality health care to about 800,000 state residents.
•Repeal would abolish $128 million in grants and tax credits to 312 small biotech companies in Massachusetts who are working to develop new therapies that prevent, diagnose and treat acute and chronic diseases.
•· Repeal would increase health insurance premiums in the nongroup market by 14 to 20%, costing Massachusetts families $1,950 to $2,790 more in premiums each year.
•Repeal would eliminate payment bonuses to about 11,500 physicians in Massachusetts who practice primary care.
•Repeal would reinstate a discriminatory Medicare reimbursement provision that penalizes Massachusetts hospitals by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
•Repeal would expose nearly 4.5 million Massachusetts residents with private insurance coverage to having lifetime limits placed on how much insurance companies will spend on their health care.
# # #
•Repeal would take away $2 billion in additional federal assistance for MassHealth, which provides health coverage to more than one million Massachusetts children, families, seniors, and people with disabilities.
•Repeal would eradicate $860 million in federal funding of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which helps to ensure that virtually every child in Massachusetts has health care coverage.
•Repeal would make health coverage more expensive by taking away $4 billion in federal subsidies to purchase health insurance to over 254,000 Massachusetts residents.
•Repeal would prevent 75,000 people in Massachusetts with incomes between 300% of poverty to 400% of poverty—most of whom are older Americans under the age of 65—from receiving subsidies to purchase health coverage.
•Repeal would increase Medicare prescription drug costs for nearly 51,837 seniors in Massachusetts.
•Repeal would cut Medicare’s annual wellness visit and free preventive services for 1 million seniors in Massachusetts.
•Repeal would eliminate financial relief to 162 employers in Massachusetts who offer retiree health benefits.
•Repeal would make it more expensive for over 102,000 small businesses in Massachusetts to offer health coverage to their employees.
•Repeal would eliminate tens of millions of dollars in funding for community health centers in Massachusetts that provide high quality health care to about 800,000 state residents.
•Repeal would abolish $128 million in grants and tax credits to 312 small biotech companies in Massachusetts who are working to develop new therapies that prevent, diagnose and treat acute and chronic diseases.
•· Repeal would increase health insurance premiums in the nongroup market by 14 to 20%, costing Massachusetts families $1,950 to $2,790 more in premiums each year.
•Repeal would eliminate payment bonuses to about 11,500 physicians in Massachusetts who practice primary care.
•Repeal would reinstate a discriminatory Medicare reimbursement provision that penalizes Massachusetts hospitals by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
•Repeal would expose nearly 4.5 million Massachusetts residents with private insurance coverage to having lifetime limits placed on how much insurance companies will spend on their health care.
# # #
Monday, June 28, 2010
Health Care Reform Update
It's been three months since health care passed and insurance companies still aren't out of the doghouse.
President Obama issued a stern warning Tuesday that the providers shouldn't use the new law "as an opportunity to enact unjustifiable rate increases," Reuters reports. He added that states and the federal government would monitor industry activity to ensure that won't happen.
The meeting between the president and insurers was the first of its kind since the law passed.
The White House has had to toe a careful line with insurance companies, which the Wall Street Journal notes will determine how seamless the transition to the new law will be. At the same time, officials have continued to point to industry problems as proof that the pricey overhaul was necessary.
Obama followed up the meeting by unveiling a "patients' bill of rights" that highlights aspects of the bill that are being implemented soon, including expanding coverage to children with chronic illnesses and eliminating limits on lifetime or annual insurance coverage, AP reports.
The White House also unveiled a $250-million fund to boost primary care.
The U.S. has long faced a shortage of primary-care doctors as medical students opt for specialized fields that pay more. But primary care is the sector of medicine that can help bring about some of the biggest cost savings -- by focusing on preventative care long before chronic conditions surface.
The funds being spent to train primary-care doctors and subsidize nursing school would create about 1,700 new doctors and nurses to address the gap. But it'll take a lot more than that to solve the problem.
The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that there will be a shortage of 47,000 primary-care doctors by 2025, according to the Washington Post .
The health care law included $1.5 billion to boost the sector, and this money represents a part of that fund. There is another $410 million set aside to help poor Americans get health training, the Los Angeles Times adds.
Insurance companies have started making changes ahead of new regulations in the law.
One unexpected outcome is that the companies are spending more money on customer service. As government officials prepare to create an open marketplace with health products by 2014, insurers are trying to boost their image to be competitive in that market.
That includes opening up retail storefronts to answer questions, offering wellness classes, improving customer service calls, and making insurance information more understandable.
"We see the stakes in terms of customer service going higher and higher," a Cigna rep told the Los Angeles Times .
Insurers add that the added customer service will limit confusion about how the new health law affects them.
Companies are also putting emphasis on preventative care to prevent costlier and more serious health conditions in the future, the New York Times reports.
Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania pays the salaries of nurses in doctor's offices to ensure that patients with chronic conditions take care of themselves and avoid visits to the emergency room.
Meanwhile, lawmakers put off what to do about Medicare cuts for another six months.
Their last-minute fix to avoid a 21 percent cut in what doctors get paid for treating Medicare patients came barely in time.
Thousands of physicians will receive the reduced amounts of reimbursement as checks were mailed before lawmakers ended the debate. While the doctors can file paperwork to get paid in full, the situation highlights the funding problems Medicare faces, Forbes writes.
"Chances are seniors soon will be staring at higher premiums, and slimmer benefits, for Medicare Advantage," CQ reports. That program allows private health care plans in Medicare.
Millions of seniors could be affected if the program is eliminated, as industry analysts expect it eventually will be. They would have to find other insurance or switch back to regular Medicare with its higher premiums.
The Seattle Times highlights the frustration seniors feel over the confusing debate. But the article adds that seniors stand to have better care under the new health care overhaul.
The media may be to blame for some of the public's confusion on health care.
A Pew review of how journalists covered the health care debate found that Americans found it difficult to understand and got more confused, not less, over time.
While acknowledging that health care is a complex topic, the study concludes that "the debate centered more on politics than the workings of the health care system."
Health care opponents did a better job of getting their message out than those who supported it, partly because of the time conservative talk show hosts devoted to that perspective, Pew adds.
The report has prompted a flurry of comments on blogs like the Huffington Post , which highlighted a graph that shows how much time was devoted to descriptions of the plan versus the politics and strategy of the debate. The latter got double the attention.
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein blamed public confusion about health care on the media's bias towards timely news rather than explaining the nuts and bolts of what has already happened.
"The media cover those points of controversy, and people tune in, but they missed the beginning, and now everyone is talking about the bill's third CBO score, not about how the thing actually works," he wrote.
Indian outsourcers haven't had trouble seeing that the health care law presents new opportunities for them.
As the U.S. health care industry looks to trim costs and make health care more affordable, many administrative services could be outsourced to countries with cheaper labor costs.
"The new law is a potential gold mine for Indian outsourcers and medical service providers," Medical Tourism Magazine writes.
Ambreen Ali writes for Congress.org.
Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Moratorium Against Medicare Cuts Extended to Nov 30, 2010
by Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees on June 25
View more calls to action »
ElectionElection Candidates & Info
Register to Vote
SoapboxSoapbox Alerts
Create an Alert
More ResourcesToday's House Schedule
Today's Senate Schedule
Committee Hearing Search
Capitol Hill Basics
Add Us to Your Site
Tell A Friend About Us
Copyright 2010 © Congress.org All rights reserved · A CQ-Roll Call, Inc. publication
Contact UsFrequently Asked QuestionsAdvertisePrivacy PolicyTerms & Conditions
President Obama issued a stern warning Tuesday that the providers shouldn't use the new law "as an opportunity to enact unjustifiable rate increases," Reuters reports. He added that states and the federal government would monitor industry activity to ensure that won't happen.
The meeting between the president and insurers was the first of its kind since the law passed.
The White House has had to toe a careful line with insurance companies, which the Wall Street Journal notes will determine how seamless the transition to the new law will be. At the same time, officials have continued to point to industry problems as proof that the pricey overhaul was necessary.
Obama followed up the meeting by unveiling a "patients' bill of rights" that highlights aspects of the bill that are being implemented soon, including expanding coverage to children with chronic illnesses and eliminating limits on lifetime or annual insurance coverage, AP reports.
The White House also unveiled a $250-million fund to boost primary care.
The U.S. has long faced a shortage of primary-care doctors as medical students opt for specialized fields that pay more. But primary care is the sector of medicine that can help bring about some of the biggest cost savings -- by focusing on preventative care long before chronic conditions surface.
The funds being spent to train primary-care doctors and subsidize nursing school would create about 1,700 new doctors and nurses to address the gap. But it'll take a lot more than that to solve the problem.
The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that there will be a shortage of 47,000 primary-care doctors by 2025, according to the Washington Post .
The health care law included $1.5 billion to boost the sector, and this money represents a part of that fund. There is another $410 million set aside to help poor Americans get health training, the Los Angeles Times adds.
Insurance companies have started making changes ahead of new regulations in the law.
One unexpected outcome is that the companies are spending more money on customer service. As government officials prepare to create an open marketplace with health products by 2014, insurers are trying to boost their image to be competitive in that market.
That includes opening up retail storefronts to answer questions, offering wellness classes, improving customer service calls, and making insurance information more understandable.
"We see the stakes in terms of customer service going higher and higher," a Cigna rep told the Los Angeles Times .
Insurers add that the added customer service will limit confusion about how the new health law affects them.
Companies are also putting emphasis on preventative care to prevent costlier and more serious health conditions in the future, the New York Times reports.
Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania pays the salaries of nurses in doctor's offices to ensure that patients with chronic conditions take care of themselves and avoid visits to the emergency room.
Meanwhile, lawmakers put off what to do about Medicare cuts for another six months.
Their last-minute fix to avoid a 21 percent cut in what doctors get paid for treating Medicare patients came barely in time.
Thousands of physicians will receive the reduced amounts of reimbursement as checks were mailed before lawmakers ended the debate. While the doctors can file paperwork to get paid in full, the situation highlights the funding problems Medicare faces, Forbes writes.
"Chances are seniors soon will be staring at higher premiums, and slimmer benefits, for Medicare Advantage," CQ reports. That program allows private health care plans in Medicare.
Millions of seniors could be affected if the program is eliminated, as industry analysts expect it eventually will be. They would have to find other insurance or switch back to regular Medicare with its higher premiums.
The Seattle Times highlights the frustration seniors feel over the confusing debate. But the article adds that seniors stand to have better care under the new health care overhaul.
The media may be to blame for some of the public's confusion on health care.
A Pew review of how journalists covered the health care debate found that Americans found it difficult to understand and got more confused, not less, over time.
While acknowledging that health care is a complex topic, the study concludes that "the debate centered more on politics than the workings of the health care system."
Health care opponents did a better job of getting their message out than those who supported it, partly because of the time conservative talk show hosts devoted to that perspective, Pew adds.
The report has prompted a flurry of comments on blogs like the Huffington Post , which highlighted a graph that shows how much time was devoted to descriptions of the plan versus the politics and strategy of the debate. The latter got double the attention.
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein blamed public confusion about health care on the media's bias towards timely news rather than explaining the nuts and bolts of what has already happened.
"The media cover those points of controversy, and people tune in, but they missed the beginning, and now everyone is talking about the bill's third CBO score, not about how the thing actually works," he wrote.
Indian outsourcers haven't had trouble seeing that the health care law presents new opportunities for them.
As the U.S. health care industry looks to trim costs and make health care more affordable, many administrative services could be outsourced to countries with cheaper labor costs.
"The new law is a potential gold mine for Indian outsourcers and medical service providers," Medical Tourism Magazine writes.
Ambreen Ali writes for Congress.org.
Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Moratorium Against Medicare Cuts Extended to Nov 30, 2010
by Uniformed Services Disabled Retirees on June 25
View more calls to action »
ElectionElection Candidates & Info
Register to Vote
SoapboxSoapbox Alerts
Create an Alert
More ResourcesToday's House Schedule
Today's Senate Schedule
Committee Hearing Search
Capitol Hill Basics
Add Us to Your Site
Tell A Friend About Us
Copyright 2010 © Congress.org All rights reserved · A CQ-Roll Call, Inc. publication
Contact UsFrequently Asked QuestionsAdvertisePrivacy PolicyTerms & Conditions
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Medicare Savings over time Health Care Reform
The new health reform law wrings $390 billion in savings from Medicare over the next decade to help pay for health care reforms—but spending on the program will continue to rise.
How can the new legislation reduce Medicare costs and still spend millions more dollars on improvements like closing the gap in drug coverage and offering free preventive care? Here’s a quick lesson in Medicare math.
These are cuts in future increases, not cuts in services, experts explain.
Medicare spending has grown about 8 percent annually over 20 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, an independent arm of Congress. The law could slow down the annual increase in spending to about 6 percent over the next 20 years, the CBO has reported.
For example, of the projected $390 billion in savings—the latest estimate from Congressional Research Service—$196 billion comes from smaller increases in payments to hospitals, nursing homes, home health workers and other medical providers. But physicians who work in primary care will be rewarded with a 10 percent bonus. Hospitals that prevent readmissions or hospital-acquired infections will be paid more than those that do not. The American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association were among the many health care organizations that backed the legislation, along with advocacy groups.
Medicare Advantage Another piece of the $390 billion savings, about $136 billion, comes from reductions in subsidies paid to private health insurance plans, called Medicare Advantage, that provide medical and drug coverage to about one of four people in Medicare. Currently, Medicare pays the private plans an average of 14 percent more to care for a member than it would cost if that person remained in traditional Medicare.
In 2012, the government will start lowering these overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans. Insurers contend they will be forced to cut benefits. But the law prohibits plans from reducing or eliminating essential guaranteed Medicare benefits. It also protects plan members by requiring that at least 85 cents of every dollar insurers receive is spent on benefits.
Guarantees The law also requires Medicare to spend more wisely. For example, a new independent Medicare advisory board is expected to save the program $16 billion over 10 years. Cracking down on fraud and waste will save an estimated $7 billion. Even bonus payments and innovations aimed at improving patient care are intended to produce a long-term payoff: People who get more effective treatment can recover more quickly from medical setbacks, and that saves Medicare money, too.
Finally, the law comes with a Medicare warranty in Section 3601: Nothing in the law can cut current Medicare benefits, and the Medicare savings it achieves “shall extend the solvency of the Medicare trust funds, reduce Medicare premiums and other cost-sharing for beneficiaries, and improve or expand guaranteed Medicare benefits and protect access to Medicare providers.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Insurance Situations
How can the new legislation reduce Medicare costs and still spend millions more dollars on improvements like closing the gap in drug coverage and offering free preventive care? Here’s a quick lesson in Medicare math.
These are cuts in future increases, not cuts in services, experts explain.
Medicare spending has grown about 8 percent annually over 20 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, an independent arm of Congress. The law could slow down the annual increase in spending to about 6 percent over the next 20 years, the CBO has reported.
For example, of the projected $390 billion in savings—the latest estimate from Congressional Research Service—$196 billion comes from smaller increases in payments to hospitals, nursing homes, home health workers and other medical providers. But physicians who work in primary care will be rewarded with a 10 percent bonus. Hospitals that prevent readmissions or hospital-acquired infections will be paid more than those that do not. The American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association were among the many health care organizations that backed the legislation, along with advocacy groups.
Medicare Advantage Another piece of the $390 billion savings, about $136 billion, comes from reductions in subsidies paid to private health insurance plans, called Medicare Advantage, that provide medical and drug coverage to about one of four people in Medicare. Currently, Medicare pays the private plans an average of 14 percent more to care for a member than it would cost if that person remained in traditional Medicare.
In 2012, the government will start lowering these overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans. Insurers contend they will be forced to cut benefits. But the law prohibits plans from reducing or eliminating essential guaranteed Medicare benefits. It also protects plan members by requiring that at least 85 cents of every dollar insurers receive is spent on benefits.
Guarantees The law also requires Medicare to spend more wisely. For example, a new independent Medicare advisory board is expected to save the program $16 billion over 10 years. Cracking down on fraud and waste will save an estimated $7 billion. Even bonus payments and innovations aimed at improving patient care are intended to produce a long-term payoff: People who get more effective treatment can recover more quickly from medical setbacks, and that saves Medicare money, too.
Finally, the law comes with a Medicare warranty in Section 3601: Nothing in the law can cut current Medicare benefits, and the Medicare savings it achieves “shall extend the solvency of the Medicare trust funds, reduce Medicare premiums and other cost-sharing for beneficiaries, and improve or expand guaranteed Medicare benefits and protect access to Medicare providers.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Insurance Situations
Health Care Cost Increase Is Projected
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — A government analysis of the new health care law says it will not slow the overall growth of health spending because the expansion of insurance and services to 34 million people will offset cost reductions in Medicare and other programs.
The study, by the chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, provides a detailed, rigorous analysis of the law.
In signing the measure last month, President Obama said it would “bring down health care costs for families and businesses and governments.”
But Mr. Foster said, “Overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion,” or nine-tenths of 1 percent, compared with the amounts that would otherwise be spent from 2010 to 2019.
In his report, sent to Congress Thursday night, Mr. Foster said that some provisions of the law, including cutbacks in Medicare payments to health care providers and a tax on high-cost employer-sponsored coverage, would slow the growth of health costs. But he said the savings “would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions.”
The report says that 34 million uninsured people will gain coverage under the law, but that 23 million people, including 5 million illegal immigrants, will still be uninsured in 2019.
Republicans said the report vindicated their concerns about the law, which was approved without a single Republican vote. The White House pointed to bright spots in the report and insisted that the law would help bring down costs. In 2004, when Mr. Foster raised questions about cost estimates by the Bush administration, Democrats lionized him as a paragon of integrity.
Mr. Foster says the law will save Medicare more than $500 billion in the coming decade and will postpone exhaustion of the Medicare trust fund by 12 years, so it would run out of money in 2029, rather than 2017. In addition, he said, the reduction in the growth of Medicare will lead to lower premiums and co-payments for Medicare beneficiaries.
But, Mr. Foster said, these savings assume that the law will be carried out as written, and that may be an unrealistic assumption. The cuts, he said, “could become unsustainable” because they may drive some hospitals and nursing homes into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.”
Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said that fear was unfounded.
Mr. Foster’s report, which analyzes the effect of the law on national health spending of all types, has a different focus from studies by the Congressional Budget Office, which concentrated on federal spending and revenues and concluded that the law would reduce budget deficits by a total of $143 billion over 10 years.
In his report, Mr. Foster made these points:
¶The government will spend $828 billion to expand insurance coverage over the next 10 years. Expansion of Medicaid accounts for about half of the cost. The number of Medicaid recipients will increase by 20 million, to a total of 84 million in 2019.
¶People who go without insurance and employers who do not provide coverage meeting federal standards will pay $120 billion in penalties from 2014 to 2019. Individuals will pay $33 billion of that amount, while employers pay $87 billion.
¶The law will reduce consumers’ out-of-pocket spending on health care by $237 billion over 10 years, to a total of $3.3 trillion.
Cuts in federal payments to private Medicare Advantage plans will “result in less generous benefit packages,” the report said. By 2017, it said, “enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans will be lower by about 50 percent, from its projected level of 14.8 million under the prior law to 7.4 million under the new law.”
More in Money & Policy (19 of 50 articles)
Senate Bill Sets a Plan to Regulate Premiums
Read More »
Close
WASHINGTON — A government analysis of the new health care law says it will not slow the overall growth of health spending because the expansion of insurance and services to 34 million people will offset cost reductions in Medicare and other programs.
The study, by the chief Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, provides a detailed, rigorous analysis of the law.
In signing the measure last month, President Obama said it would “bring down health care costs for families and businesses and governments.”
But Mr. Foster said, “Overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion,” or nine-tenths of 1 percent, compared with the amounts that would otherwise be spent from 2010 to 2019.
In his report, sent to Congress Thursday night, Mr. Foster said that some provisions of the law, including cutbacks in Medicare payments to health care providers and a tax on high-cost employer-sponsored coverage, would slow the growth of health costs. But he said the savings “would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions.”
The report says that 34 million uninsured people will gain coverage under the law, but that 23 million people, including 5 million illegal immigrants, will still be uninsured in 2019.
Republicans said the report vindicated their concerns about the law, which was approved without a single Republican vote. The White House pointed to bright spots in the report and insisted that the law would help bring down costs. In 2004, when Mr. Foster raised questions about cost estimates by the Bush administration, Democrats lionized him as a paragon of integrity.
Mr. Foster says the law will save Medicare more than $500 billion in the coming decade and will postpone exhaustion of the Medicare trust fund by 12 years, so it would run out of money in 2029, rather than 2017. In addition, he said, the reduction in the growth of Medicare will lead to lower premiums and co-payments for Medicare beneficiaries.
But, Mr. Foster said, these savings assume that the law will be carried out as written, and that may be an unrealistic assumption. The cuts, he said, “could become unsustainable” because they may drive some hospitals and nursing homes into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.”
Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said that fear was unfounded.
Mr. Foster’s report, which analyzes the effect of the law on national health spending of all types, has a different focus from studies by the Congressional Budget Office, which concentrated on federal spending and revenues and concluded that the law would reduce budget deficits by a total of $143 billion over 10 years.
In his report, Mr. Foster made these points:
¶The government will spend $828 billion to expand insurance coverage over the next 10 years. Expansion of Medicaid accounts for about half of the cost. The number of Medicaid recipients will increase by 20 million, to a total of 84 million in 2019.
¶People who go without insurance and employers who do not provide coverage meeting federal standards will pay $120 billion in penalties from 2014 to 2019. Individuals will pay $33 billion of that amount, while employers pay $87 billion.
¶The law will reduce consumers’ out-of-pocket spending on health care by $237 billion over 10 years, to a total of $3.3 trillion.
Cuts in federal payments to private Medicare Advantage plans will “result in less generous benefit packages,” the report said. By 2017, it said, “enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans will be lower by about 50 percent, from its projected level of 14.8 million under the prior law to 7.4 million under the new law.”
More in Money & Policy (19 of 50 articles)
Senate Bill Sets a Plan to Regulate Premiums
Read More »
Close
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)