CBO Scores Revised House Health Care Bills

OpenCongress Blog

October 16, 2009 - by Donny Shaw

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is out with some preliminary budget numbers for two competing versions of the House health care bill that suggest things are moving in the right direction for meeting President Obama’s requirements. Changes that the House has made over the past couple months have trimmed $300 billion off the bills’ price tags and brought them down to be right in line with Obama’s total cost target of $900 billion over ten years.

The CBO’s didn’t look at the revenue side of the bills, but we already know that they are written to be deficit neutral – another of Obama’s requirement for the health care bill. The report is not publicly available yet, but it’s been leaked to the Washington Post. Here’s what they tell us:

The report from the Congressional Budget Office, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, puts the cost of one plan at $859 billion over the next decade and the other at $905 billion. The cheaper version would rely heavily on a more dramatic expansion of Medicaid, the government health plan for the poor that is funded partly by the states — meaning already-strapped governors would have to pick up more of the cost of reform.

Compared with the original package, the two new proposals would offer less generous subsidies for people who need help buying insurance and do not have access to affordable employer coverage. Additional savings would come from reducing employer tax credits.

Both packages are based on the original House framework, which proposes to extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans by expanding Medicaid eligibility and subsidizing private insurance for people who lack access to affordable coverage through an employer. Each would expand the ranks of the insured to more than 95 percent of Americans by 2019, and each would create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.

Under the $905 billion version favored by liberals, compensation rates for medical providers in the government-run insurance plan would be based on Medicare rates, which are significantly lower than private rates. That idea, which Senate liberals also support, would hold down costs for the government, according to the CBO, but it would create a problem for providers in rural areas where Medicare rates tend to run much lower than the national average.

Under the $859 billion version, administrators would negotiate rates directly with doctors and hospitals, the option preferred by moderate Democrats from rural areas.
In addition, the $859 billion proposal would shift millions more people onto Medicaid instead of offering them federal subsidies to buy private insurance. Those who purchased insurance would also get slightly less generous coverage.

These numbers all look really good when you compare them with the CBO’s scoring of the Senate Finance Committee’s health care bill. Chris Bowers at Open Left summarizes – “both House bills cover more people, at a lower cost per person covered, with politically realistic funding mechanisms, and with higher subsidies for people purchasing insurance” than the Senate Finance bill. “If the health care debate in the Senate had anything to do with the soundness of policy, numbers this would end it.”

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.

Share This Article

Sort By

Comments

Filtered Comment [ show ]

fightinbluhen51 10/16/2009 11:55am

Link Reply
+ -1

↓

↑ Overall Rating: 5.0 | 1 of 3 found useful.

Deficit neutral! HAHAHAHAHAHH! NOT, EVEN, CLOSE!
Filtered Comment [ show ]

adn11 10/16/2009 11:58am

Link Reply
+ 1

↓

↑ Overall Rating: 5.0 | 1 of 1 found useful.

THIS IS IT!! The $905 version is the most conservative bill already that can carry out the reform objectives properly and deficit neutral, as attempted by the Senate’s version. No more compromise! Any lesser versions, while also trying to cut cost, render the bill ineffective. The cost savings due to the effective sustainability of the proper bill version is a lot higher than the cutting corner versions can save by cutting the figure up front. It’s not worth it to cut corner up front with stripped versions and later realize the mistake and try to patch it up with more bills, which could incur more costs and add more complexities. Should the bill be sustainable, cost saving/deficit neutral and meeting the core objectives of the health care reform, THIS IS THE ONE!!
Filtered Comment [ show ]

Christ1sKing 10/16/2009 6:50pm

Link Reply
+ -1

↓

↑ Overall Rating: 5.0 | 0 of 1 found useful.

I have some honest questions (1) How would either plan extend insurance to 95% of Americans at all? Is this going to be forced on us? (2) Do the proposed bills penalize those who pay for their insurance? (last line quoted by the Washington Post above “Those who purchased insurance would also get slightly less generous coverage.”) (3a) Is our President tired of hearing the people’s concerns about this bill taking up 20% of our operating costs as a nation that he is in discussions behind closed doors with the leading Democratic officials? (in the opening statements above “The report is not publicly available yet.”) (3b) What about his campaign promise for more open, more transparent government?
Filtered Comment [ show ]

adn11 10/17/2009 11:00am

Link Reply
+ -1

↓

↑ Overall Rating: 5.0 | 0 of 1 found useful.

… some honest answers… (1) Just like auto insurance, are there 95% of people who are required actually have the insurance when driving? For health?! In addition to taking full responsibility, can an individual able to guarantee that s/he won’t contract a disease from somebody else or carry disease to others during social contact and from social activities? What in the mind of an individual who refuses to buy a quality and affordable health coverage? Public option and tax credit are there for reasons (3a) Costs of frauds, wastes and inefficient business models by these too big insurance companies, with the help of anti-trust exemption status, are lots more than just a trillion in ten years. Also the most expensive last ditch campaign effort with faulty “studies” that aims to deceive people will guarantee premium rises. Where is the 20% from? (3b) I’m just a student myself, and, I can find a lot of resources and discussion about this issue on the .gov websites!
Filtered Comment [ show ]

b58 10/18/2009 12:11am

Link Reply
+ -1

↓

↑ Overall Rating: 5.0 | 0 of 1 found useful.

Since when has the government done anything on budget with no over run of charges and passed anything without pork thrown in on top of a bill. If anything was saved as far as money on any kind of health care it would be spent on saving a rat or some minnow or fish or just thrown into general fund.We can look back at Social Security when it first started and Medicare when it first started.That was suppose to stay in a fund or account by it’s self and only be used for what it was setup for. After government got through dipping into the two look what is left now. Health care will be the same way if they set it up in a fund it will be dipped into and be just as broke as Social Security and Medicare is now.What ever kind of fund is set up for health care will probably be spent in general fund and our health care bills will never be paid because the government is broke again just like Social Security and Medicare is now. Passing a health care bill is a joke.

Please login or signup to post a comment.

Blog - CBO Scores Revised House Health Care Bills

Advanced Search Options

OpenCongress Blog