The US is spending trillions less on health care — and uninsured rates are at an all-time low

[Sgent]

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11981610/health-spending-slowdown-obamacare

The United States is spending trillions — yes, trillions — less on health care than government forecasters expected when Obamacare passed in 2010.

Back then, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated that the United States would spend $23.7 trillion on health care between 2014 and 2019.

But the forecasting agency has regularly and repeatedly revised spending estimates downward over the past six years. In 2015, it estimated that health care would cost the United States $2.6 trillion less over that same five-year period, a new analysis from the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation shows.

...

The health care law significantly reduced certain Medicare payments. It also created dozens of new programs that pay hospitals based on the quality of care they provide, not just the quantity.

[tonyt53]

1. I'm still waiting for the rollout of the grades for healthcare providers.

Some people will complain that their rates are going up. yeah, some are, but most of those are the bottom tier of the pricing. The people that bought those lesser priced plans are utilizing then at a higher percentage than those with plans that cost more.

[SouthernDemLinda]

17. Michael Moore: Obamacare sends over $100 billion annually to insurers

Michael Moore, in a New York Times op-ed, Moore called Obama’s signature health care law "awful."

"The Affordable Care Act is a pro-insurance-industry plan implemented by a president who knew in his heart that a single-payer, Medicare-for-all model was the true way to go," Moore said. "By 2017, we will be funneling over $100 billion annually to private insurance companies."

[leftstreet]

2. Trillions less than 'projected'

Also, from the article:

A bit of this has to do with lower-than-expected health insurance enrollment.

[LWolf]

3. On health care or health insurance?

They aren't the same thing.

I often didn't get needed care before the ACA because, after paying premiums, there was nothing left for copays and deductibles.

Today my premium is higher and my deductible is higher, and I still don't get care for anything except the most immediate, drastic needs.

I'm paying more for the same non-level of care.

[Gene Debs]

19. This. +100,000

[840high]

20. +100,001

[bonemachine]

4. Trillions less?

We are spending trillions less than when again?

[Travis_0004]

5. Quote from article:

One big way private insurers have held down costs is by asking consumers to pay a larger and larger chunk of their medical bills.

[aggiesal]

13. This is a great quote ...

Make the consumers foot more of the bill.

This reminds me of my first foray into corporate shenanigans ...

I the 70's during the oil embargo, NIPSCO (Northern Indiana Public Service COmpany),
during one of the harsh winters asked their users to not set their thermostat's higher
than 68 degrees Fahrenheit. A lot of their customers did exactly that, to the point that
NIPSCO reported falling earnings. So what did they do? They started charging more for
their heat, so that they could still maintain their projected profits.

Everyone got pi$$ed, and decided to forego NIPSCO's recommendation and started
sitting their thermostats to whatever they wanted.

Again playing into NIPSCO's hands by using more at the higher rate.

[SDJay]

6. My Wife Is a Consultant

at a very large firm. She's just been made a principal. I say that just so folks understand that she knows WTF she's doing and she does it very well.

Anyway, for several years now she's been immersed in consulting with healthcare organizations. Basically, ever since the ACA passed. After all of this, she is completely and totally convinced that this entire system is all but set up to fall into single payer within 10 or 20 years. It's not sustainable as-is and eventually the healthcare providers and the consumers are going to triangulate on the insurance companies.

[Old Codger]

7. Honestly

I really thing that single payer would have happened much much sooner without this huge gift to health insurance companies... did nothing whatsoever to lower actual health costs just gave a lot of money to them so they could pretend to offer something of value...

[HenryWallace]

8. The ACA has been an interesting little dead end!

The really substantial economic benefits to society will come only with universal coverage. The ACA remains a system that rations medical care by market forces; again look at much of the discussion of the cost of Sander's proposals; it boiled down to how much of a positive impact universal health care would be (not if there would be one at all).

At its extremes and by design, it accepts death as the appropriate outcome for society's most vulnerable. It is hard to imagine an ethical system under which the would be considered "moral."

It primary value was that of movement.

[RiverNoord]

15. Well...

I live in Minnesota, where we have a very active state-based ACA exchange, and have bought unsubsidized policies since it began. Last year I had gall bladder removal surgery and ended up having to get a CPAP machine due to severe sleep apnea. Total out of pocket costs for me including premiums - $6K. It was a lot of money, but a lot less than I would have paid under my employer's plan.

And... I take 5 medications, each of which costs under $10 a month all year 'round, whether I hit the deductible or not.

If I lost my job, I'd still have my insurance plan and its premiums wouldn't suddenly change. If I remain in Minnesota, I don't have to worry about big changes in my health insurance based solely on the new employer's plan.

On top of that, we have somewhere between the 2nd and 4th lowest percent of uninsured people in the country.

Of course there are underinsured people, and single payer is the only thing that ultimately makes sense. But the ACA hasn't been a dead end at all in Minnesota. That's because - one, we pay higher state taxes than people in most states, and two - we tend to not mind all that much, as we compare the costs to the substantial quality of life benefits and pretty decent economy, each of which have a lot to do with a financially healthy state government.

I am entirely for single payer, but there's no model of health care that doesn't have some rationing of medical care by market forces. The nature of the market changes in universal health care models, but supply and demand will always differ, leading to rationing based entirely on which regions or types of diseases and injuries need more resources than are available at the time, mostly nurses and doctors.

[spooky3]

14. I'm glad to hear this. Thanks.

[zipplewrath]

9. The government is

Individuals are paying more. The government (through medicare and Medicaid payments) and the insurance companies are paying less, but individuals are seeing higher copays, deductibles and premiums. And really these "savings" are "costs went up less than we predicted". Prices haven't actually gone down. The rate of inflation of health CARE costs is still higher than general inflation, not to mention wage growth. And we still pay whole integer multiples more (on the order of 3 - 7 times more) than industrialized countries with government run health care systems.

[byronius]

10. For me -- five hundred dollars per month less than before.

Better package, similar copays. There's no way I could have kept our health insurance without the ACA. Perhaps it's a state-by-state thing -- but I'm a big fan. Single-payer would be better, but this was a major boost for me personally and professionally.

Just sayin'.

[zipplewrath]

11. One of the few

People with pre-existing is another crowd that is probably paying less. But the VAST majority of people are not. The ACA expanded coverage by about 5%. About half of those are probably paying less health CARE costs. The rest of us are paying more, and with higher premiums.

[bhikkhu]

16. Three years with no increase on my employee-sponsored plan

The rates before then were going up every single year, by single or double digits.

[Midnight Writer]

18. My 10 to 20% annual increases have dropped to 1 or 2%

A couple of years ago, I actually saw my premiums fall by 4%. I have recently had some serious chronic health issues, with multiple hospital stays and surgeries, and while it wasn't cheap, it was not catastrophic financially.

Speaking only for myself, I am happier with my health insurance over the last five years.

[zipplewrath]

21. One of the few

I happy for you and jealous all at the same time. I've been seeing 5+% each year for the last 5. Only good thing lately was that they put an out of pocket maximum on the prescriptions as well (but separate from the out of pocket cost of medical care).

And my situation isn't all that rare.

[AntiBank]

12. Less health spending is good news for budgets — not so much for consumers

Budgeteers will likely cheer the slower health cost growth. Less spending on health care means more money for the government to spend on other things like education or infrastructure.

But for individual consumers, slower health spending likely doesn’t feel cheaper at all. In fact, it probably feels more expensive: One big way private insurers have held down costs is by asking consumers to pay a larger and larger chunk of their medical bills.

Deductibles and copays have steadily grown over the past decade. Separate research shows that patients use less health care when they have to pay more. Sometimes they cut out unnecessary care — but patients will also skimp on the care they need, too.