The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that roughly four million fewer Americans will likely gain insurance coverage in 2014 and three million fewer in 2022 as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. Most of the drop in coverage will be the result of states exercising their option to not expand Medicaid.
In previous estimates of the cost and impact of the Affordable Care Act, the CBO assumed all states would effectively have no option whether to take part in the Medicaid expansion. But now that the Supreme Court has ruled the original scheme is unconstitutionally coercive, the CBO has created new projections assuming at least some states will not take part in the expansion at first. Given the number of Republican governors publicly claiming they will reject the Medicaid expansion, the CBO is probably correct to assume at least some would stay true to their word.
The CBO assumes that in 2022 roughly six million fewer people will be enrolled in Medicaid primarily as a result of the Court’s decision. Among those who would have been eligible for the expansion, roughly two-third would have incomes below the poverty line and would be effectively out of luck (they live in states that do not cover that segment under the current program). A third will make between 100-138% of the federal poverty level. These people would technically qualify for exchange subsidies but fewer of them will sign up because insurance on the exchange would be more expensive for them than Medicaid would have been. On a per person basis, covering this group of low income people via the exchange will be significantly more costly for them personally and for the federal government. From the CBO Analysis:
For the average person who does not enroll in Medicaid as a result of the Court’s decision and enrolls in an exchange instead, estimated federal spending will rise by roughly $3,000 in 2022—the difference between estimated additional exchange subsidies of about $9,000 and estimated Medicaid savings of roughly $6,000.
[...]
With those factors taken into account, the federal costs for each additional person enrolling in the exchanges (most of whom would have enrolled in Medicaid under CBO and JCT’s prior estimate) will be approximately $9,000 in 2022, on average. That amount is calculated by dividing the total increase in federal spending in the exchanges in 2022 ($28 billion) by the number of additional enrollees (3 million people). The extra exchange costs per person are larger than the decrease in Medicaid costs per person primarily because, in CBO’s and JCT’s estimation, private health insurance plans in the exchanges will pay providers at higher rates than Medicaid pays and will have higher administrative costs than Medicaid, although there are other, partially offsetting, factors as well.
While the per capita cost for each new person covered would go up significantly, the CBO projects the ACA will cost roughly $84 billion less over ten years, since the law would cover far fewer people on net. All these estimated are based on trying to guess what policy decision states will make in the future, so the estimates are subject to a large degree uncertainty.




16 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
“But now that the Supreme Court has ruled the original scheme is unconstitutionally coercive,”
Coercive for states but not for the citizens? What intellectual garbage coming from the SJC. Roberts place your lips on that corporate phallic symbol and inhale quickly, like Taney did for the slaveholders. That will be your legacy. The new “American Life Tax!” Servitude to state based health insurers like fugitive slave laws!!! BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At the rate the economy is faltering there will be far more people left out of medicaid than 3-4 million. People will get poorer but not poor enough.
Perry has said he “will not extend Medicaid coverage to a single person who does not already have it”.
I can see you are little upset over this.
Hey, me too.
Hmmmmmmmm, perhaps that’s the plan?????
I love it. It will cost 84 billion less. You’re kidding right? Those people are gonna get sick and they will go to the emergency room. Who pays for that?
I guess he just wants to save a few bucks?
There are actually nations in Latin America that are democracies that offer decent health care at an affordable price, and their leaders actually answer to the populace rather than oligarchs/corporations. What a novel concept.
But that shit ain;t never gonna work here until we pass campaign finance reform and term limits. And that will, of course, be NEVER.
I think that Australia, New Zealand function fairly well.
But, everything “down there” is upside down and backwards.
Just a little! :)
If only we had a Thoma Paine instead a Rush Limbaugh.
At least we ain’t got locust.
(Old Japanese saying)
The difference is that in other countries people actually get very upset when the government does not function for critical issues, whereas in the US, we prioritize acting “civilized” no matter how much abuse our politicians dole out to us. Registered democrats wait faithfully for the democratic party to turn around from their conservative tailspin, much like how in Futurama when Fry’s dog waited years for him to come back.
The people who go to the ER will pay for it. If you go there, they have to treat you, at least enough to keep you alive for a while, but its not free. You get a bill. For the doctor, X-ray, lab test, everything. You can’t walk away from it any more than you can any other bill without having your credit ruined or going bankrupt.
This is why, if you have a heart attack, you should hope nobody finds you to call the EMTs until you are already dead.
Heh, do you really think a poor person who can’t afford health care to begin with is really going to care about their credit score? As if they probably have much of one to begin with….
The ER bill is going to be a write off that the taxpayers end up eating(and the debt will get sold for pennies on the dollar as well so loan collecting parasites can attempt to lean on someone for obtaining the money already written off that they bought for pennies on the dollar.)
That’s only in terms of geography. Here, geography may be right side up, but everything that matters is inverted.
In all the bleating about the importance of the precious, precious mandate to curb “adverse selection” they just assumed states would go along with the Medicaid expansion. Now we have a REAL adverse selection problem with red states refusing to implement it.