PDA

View Full Version : CBO: Republican Health Plan would cost $61 billion




Knightskye
11-05-2009, 05:05 PM
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10705/hr3962amendmentBoehner.pdf

It's not like it's $750 billion compared to the Democrats' $1.8 trillion (yeah, it's not $1.055 trillion or "below 900 billion" like you've been hearing). There's an actual large difference between the amounts.


Regulatory reforms in the small group and nongroup markets, including
establishing AHPs and individual membership associations, and allowing
states to establish interstate compacts with a unified regulatory structure;
 A State Innovations grant program to provide federal payments to states that
achieve specified reductions in the number of uninsured individuals or in the
premiums for small group or individually purchased policies; 1
 Federal funding for states to use for high-risk pools in the individual
insurance market and reinsurance programs in the small group market; and
 Changes to health savings accounts (HSAs) to allow funds in them to be
used to pay premiums under certain circumstances, to make net contributions
to HSAs eligible for the saver’s credit, and to provide a 60-day grace period
for medical expenses incurred prior to the establishment of an HSA.

Limits on costs related to medical malpractice (“tort reform”), including
capping noneconomic and punitive damages and making changes in the
allocation of liability. CBO expects that those limits would reduce health
1 We expect that states would also spend several billion dollars to help achieve the targets specified under the
State Innovations program.
Honorable John A. Boehner
Page 4
care costs directly—by reducing premiums for medical liability insurance
and associated costs—and indirectly by slightly reducing the utilization of
health care services. Over the 2010–2019 period, those changes would
reduce spending on mandatory programs by about $41 billion and would
increase revenues by $13 billion as an indirect effect of reducing the costs of
private health insurance plans (which would result in a shift of some
workers’ compensation from nontaxable health insurance benefits to taxable
wages).
 Requirements that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopt
and regularly update standards for electronic administrative transactions that
enable electronic funds transfers, claims management processes, and
verification of eligibility, among other administrative tasks. Those provisionswould result in about $6 billion in federal savings in Medicaid. In addition,
those standards would result in an increase in revenues of about $13 billion
as an indirect effect of reducing the costs of private health insurance plans.
 Establishment of an abbreviated approval pathway for follow-on biologics
(biological products that are highly similar to or interchangeable with their
brand-name counterparts), which would reduce direct spending by an
estimated $5 billion and increase revenues by about $1 billion over the
2010-2019 period.
 An increase in funding for HHS’s investigations into fraud and abuse, which
would increase direct spending by an estimated $3 billion during the next
10 years.

It's a preliminary analysis, so the final estimate might change, but what do you think of the bill? Would Dr. Paul vote for it?

specsaregood
11-05-2009, 05:45 PM
Would Dr. Paul vote for it?

I'd wager, NAY.

Knightskye
11-06-2009, 02:32 PM
I'd wager, NAY.

Would he favor spending any money at all? Or just through the tax code, like having all medical expenses 100% deductible?

amonasro
11-06-2009, 02:37 PM
Or just through the tax code, like having all medical expenses 100% deductible?

This. I believe he's talked about medical deductions in the past.