A project of the George Washington University's Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

CRS report finds deficit reduction would have limited impact on ACA

Posted on October 4, 2012 | No Comments

PDF Version
Details
Library
Implementation Briefs

According to a report released by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) earlier this week, the impact of the sequestration on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be limited. The CRS brief reported that the ACA includes many provisions that provide a vast amount of support to increase coverage, fund states to establish exchanges, and test demonstration projects and programs. The report found that the majority of the Budget Control Act of 2011 cuts do not target the ACA’s mandatory provisions to expand insurance coverage. Some mandatory ACA spending would be affected, such as the funds allocated to small-employer tax credits to help offset the cost of covering all employees. The other mandatory appropriations under the ACA would, for the most part, be subject to about a 7.6 percent reduction under the sequestration. Additionally, the Budget Control Act would reduce Medicare provider spending by approximately $11.1 billion in 2013. Medicaid spending is exempt from the law.

In another report also released earlier this week, CRS outlined funding allocations for the discretionary ACA programs. The report cited the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate that the ACA discretionary spending provisions, if fully funded, would result in about $106 billion worth of spending from 2010 to 2019. The CRS report found that most of this discretionary spending would be subject to an 8.2 percent reduction under the Budget Control Act.

No Comments

Public comments are closed.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an analysis exploring various deficit reduction options. The CBO report reviews the magnitude and causes of the federal government’s budgetary imbalance, various options for bringing spending and taxes into closer alignment, and criteria that lawmakers and the public might use to evaluate different approaches to deficit reduction. According to the report, repealing of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) coverage expansion while keeping the rest of the law in place would generate $150 billion in 2020. Such a repeal would also increase the number of uninsured Americans to 29 million in the same year. CBO noted that the report does not mention the Medicare premium support model, as CBO does not have a current estimate of the proposal.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released today an update on the budgetary impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Although overall projections are similar to those released in prior years, there are several important changes in this year's updated estimates. For example, in March 2010 when the ACA was enacted, CBO estimated that the number of uninsured individuals would fall by 32 million by 2019. Now CBO estimates that the number will only fall by 31 million by 2019, but by 33 million by 2022. The projections regarding health insurance coverage has also changed...
In their recent publication, "Building Tomorrow's Healthcare System: The Pathway to High Quality, Affordable Care," BlueCross BlueShield Assocation (BCBSA) calls for incentives to reward safety and reinforce primary care. One of the nation's largest insurance companies, BCBSA encourages federal government to adopt "value-based purchasing" and urges individuals eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in managed care plans. The Association also wants faster implementation of these types of programs in order to show savings more quickly.
In her New England Journal of Medicine article, "Hard Choices--Alternatives for Reining in Medicare and Medicaid Spending," Dr. Meredith B. Rosenthal of the Harvard School of Public Health compares and contrasts the two most prominent proposals to reform health care: Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" and the White House's Affordable Care Act (ACA). She summarizes the main arguments supporting and opposing the two plans. The beauty of Ryan's plan is that by fixing the federal government's contribution to Medicare and Medicaid to a formula unrelated to the growth of overall health care costs, it would guarantee controlled federal spending growth. However, this would also shift financial risk to beneficiaries and state governments. The ACA alters the landscape for control federal health care spending by creating new institutions intended to facilitate progress toward reform and by directly altering payment formulas for Medicare and Medicaid. The downside of this cost savings portion of the ACA is that implementation of payment and delivery reforms is complex.
A new report, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and authored by researchers at the Urban Institute, examines the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on health insurance coverage and U.S. health care spending. The report, "America Under the Affordable Care Act," estimates that the cost of uncompensated care to uninsured individuals would fall more than 60 percent if the ACA were fully implemented in 2010. The report estimates that if fully implemented in 2010, the ACA would also provide insurance to nearly 28 million currently-uninsured Americans.
In an article published in Health Affairs, actuaries with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services project US health spending will grow at a rate .2 percent faster under health reform than projected under prior law (6.3 percent instead of 6.1) over the next decade. They also estimate the administrative costs for health reform will be $2.4 billion for the US Department of Health and Human Services, $37.7 billion in state and federal costs for establishing insurance exchanges, and an increase of $31 billion in state and federal administrative costs for Medicaid.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislative branch agency responsible for estimating the cost of legislation, issued two reports on July 24th related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The first report, revised cost and health insurance coverage estimates for the ACA in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius[1]. In that ruling, the Court concluded the individual requirement to purchase health insurance coverage, while not a reasonable exercise of congressional Commerce Clause authority, is constitutional as a tax under congressional Spending Clause authority. The Court also held that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, requiring states to cover all non-elderly individuals with incomes below 133[2] percent of the federal poverty level was unconstitutional. However, rather than striking the requirement, the Court precluded the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from enforcing the mandate by withholding all Medicaid funds. As a result of the ruling, states now have the option of expanding coverage to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and will receive enhanced federal matching funds as provided under the law, but are not required to expand coverage.[3]