In health-care reform, no deficit cure
Debate rages over bill's impact on costs -- and how much that matters
Frequent fliers: The Treatment of Kenny Farnsworth -- For much of a decade, he called 911 routinely for an endless list of medical issues. Now he has an endless stack of bills he is unlikely to ever pay. So what's the diagnosis?
John L. Marshall: How health-care reform can cure cancer.
CBO: Senate health plan will increase some premiums -- Premiums would increase in the individual market, but purchasers would get better coverage than under current law.
Ezra Klein: Few surprises in health-care reform.
Federal Diary: A case study in abortion funding -- D.J. Feldman was 11 weeks pregnant when she learned that her child had a fatal fetal defect and decided on an abortion.
Monday, November 30, 2009
As the long battle over health care is rejoined in the Senate this week, experts remain deeply divided over whether the legislation would rein in soaring health-care costs or simply add millions of people to a system that is already driving the nation toward bankruptcy.
Optimists say the $848 billion package drafted by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) contains all the most promising ideas for transforming the health-care system and encouraging doctors and hospitals to work more efficiently. They say it would eventually reduce both private premiums and the swelling cost of government health care for the elderly and poor.
Even pessimists don't necessarily disagree. But they see scant evidence that those ideas would quickly bear fruit, and in the short term they fear that the initiative would leave Washington struggling to pay for a new $200 billion-a-year health program even as existing programs require vast infusions of cash to care for the aging baby-boom generation.
Those concerns were magnified by the release of Reid's bill, which the Senate will begin debating on Monday. Democrats were thrilled when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the package was fully "paid for" -- meaning lawmakers had identified spending cuts and tax increases sufficient to cover the cost of expanding coverage to 30 million additional people.
But the measure would not deliver on Democrats' most ambitious claims, the CBO found. While the package would not worsen the nation's record deficits, it would not significantly improve them, either now or in the future. Reid's bill would shave less than 2 percent from deficits projected to top $9 trillion over the next decade. And it would make only "small reductions" after that, the CBO said -- about 0.25 percent of GDP -- to deficits projected to balloon to roughly 14 percent of the economy by 2035.
"The hope that health-care reform would take care of our budget problem has evaporated," said Isabel Sawhill, a fiscal expert at the Brookings Institution.
Many budget experts also worry that lawmakers may not have the stomach to keep the new taxes and spending cuts intended to pay for the package. Republicans are already planning to offer an amendment to strike more than $400 billion in proposed Medicare cuts from the package, a move that would blow a huge hole in financing for the bill.
In merging bills drafted in committee, meanwhile, Reid significantly watered down two of the most important cost-containment provisions: a tax on high-cost health insurance policies that was opposed by labor unions and an independent commission that had been designed to automatically and methodically restrain Medicare spending. Senior White House officials have called those provisions critical, but House leaders are adamantly opposed to both.
"I do give them credit for shooting for deficit reduction as a target," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the nonprofit Concord Coalition, which promotes a balanced federal budget. "But this bill is not bending the cost curve. Even if these things work, it's not of the magnitude that is needed to prevent us from going over the cliff."
As the Senate prepared to return to the debate, the White House pushed back aggressively against such criticism, touting endorsements from outside experts and publicizing a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber showing that the Senate bill would slash hundreds of dollars from annual insurance premiums in the individual market. White House Budget Director Peter R. Orszag questioned the expertise of the administration's critics, telling reporters in a hastily arranged conference call that their "loosey-goosey" anxieties were ill-informed.
In a separate interview, Orszag said health reform was never intended to reduce deficits immediately, but rather to set in motion a process that would avert a fiscal catastrophe decades down the road. The president will propose additional steps for reducing the short-term deficit in his next budget, Orszag said, though he declined to offer details. Calls are growing louder in Congress for a bipartisan commission to rebuild the tax system and cut spending on Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and Obama has expressed support for the idea.
But with health costs poised to swamp the federal budget, Orszag said, such additional efforts would be almost pointless without reform.