Insurance Blog

Finance Blogs » Insurance Blog » New CBO numbers on Obamacare

New CBO numbers on Obamacare

By Jay MacDonald ·
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Posted: 9 am ET

The latest analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on the likely economic impact of health care reform offers a measure of validation to supporters and opponents both as the landmark 2010 law nears its day of reckoning in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The CBO estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cost the government $48 billion less through 2021 than previously projected. The revised estimated net cost – $1.08 trillion, down from $1.13 trillion, over the coming decade – mostly reflects lower estimates for subsidies and tax credits necessary to roll out the planned state health insurance exchanges in 2014.

But the CBO also slightly increased its projection for the number of workers who will either not be offered or will opt out of employer-sponsored health insurance. The CBO previously estimated that number at about 3 million by 2019. The revised estimate is that a reduction of 3 to 5 million workers is more likely from 2019 through 2022.

Reform opponents have long predicted a mass migration from employer-based health insurance programs under health care reform due to the expanded availability of Medicaid and subsidies through state health insurance exchanges. They claim that those who land on Medicaid and subsidized plans will erode the savings promised by the Affordable Care Act.

The CBO says that their revised projection actually represents "several shifts in coverage," all of them intentional. Here's how they did the math:

  • From the CBO: "About 11 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will not have an offer under the ACA. That estimate represents about 7 percent of the roughly 161 million people projected to have employment-based coverage under prior law. The businesses that choose not to offer coverage as a result of the ACA will tend to be smaller employers and employers with predominantly lower-wage workers."
  • Another 3 million workers will qualify for subsidized insurance because their employer plan will be deemed unaffordable.
  • About 9 million people who would not have been covered by an employer-sponsored plan prior to health care reform will be covered under the ACA, "which will lead some employers who would not have offered coverage in the absence of the ACA to offer it and will lead some people who would not have taken up their employer’s offer of insurance to do so" under the individual mandate, according to the CDO.

In sum: 11 million + 3 million depart employer plans + 9 million join employer plans = 5 million fewer on employer-based plans.

Is that a bad thing? Jessica Banthin and Paul Jacobs of the CBO’s Health and Human Resources Division don't think so. They wrote the following.

The scenario with the largest reduction in employment-based coverage actually lowers the cost of the ACA to the federal government relative to the baseline projections because the extra costs for Medicaid and exchange subsidies are more than offset by the increased revenues resulting from higher taxable compensation among workers who receive higher wages in lieu of health benefits.

Interesting proposition. Would you rather have your wages docked to pay for your employer-based health insurance or take that money in cash and shop for your own coverage in the upcoming state exchanges?

Follow me on Twitter.

Subscribe to Bankrate newsletters today!

Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages comments. We ask that you stay on topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, and illegal content. Please keep in mind that we reserve the right to (but are not obligated to) edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.
May 01, 2012 at 1:51 am

Ted,Please look back at prior posts; you directed that parapragh you just quoted toward Brian, not me. Indeed, my comment from 7:47 P.M. on December 22 was my first post in this thread, so how could I possibly know that you'd want me to respond to something you directed toward Brian before I was to speak? That simply defies logic.Further, I did not change the subject typical of a liberal . You averred that this potential upward change in payroll tax rate was not a tax increase and I succinctly addressed that point which you had brought up.I think that everyone is tiring of hearing you call everyone younger than you selfish. I am not engaging you about future generations or any other topic; my comments were confined to your misunderstanding perhaps willful misunderstanding of the definition of the word increase , which, upon being proven wrong, you have neglected to address. Perhaps you should address that or don't ask me another question , especially one that you addressed toward another person.Since no question was actually posed to me in this thread before I posted my comment, I reiterate my initial question to you which I asked in my very first post in this thread: what do you hope to accomplish by trying to confuse your readers by saying up is down, day is night, black is white?

April 05, 2012 at 4:48 pm

Only the CITIZENS who PAY for medical care should VOTE (for or against) or RECEIVE it-----DUH!!!!!!!!!!! Being able to vote yes to have someone else to pay YOUR bills, YOUR cost of living, and the cost of raising YOUR children seems unconstitutional to me. If it hasn't happened already, the people voting YES and receiving the benefits of other people's hard work will outnumber those who are actually working for a living and so it will pass EVERYTIME!!! The government will ALWAYS need more money to give handouts to people who are too lazy to even learn english. Don't EVEN get me started...........