U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–722 2012

THE TRUE COST OF PPACA: EFFECTS ON THE 

BUDGET AND JOBS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 30, 2011 

Serial No. 112–27 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

(II)

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 4 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 8 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES

Douglas Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office ................................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 258 

Richard Foster, Chief Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services .... 47 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 268 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum ................................... 99 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 271 

David M. Cutler, Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics, Harvard 

University ............................................................................................................. 120 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 122 

Philip K. Kennedy, President, Comanche Lumber Company .............................. 137 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 139 

Rick Poore, President, Design Wear/Velocitee ...................................................... 150 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 152 

Larry Schuler, President, Schu’s Hospitality Group ............................................ 162 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 164 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Article entitled, ‘‘The Republican Response to Obamacare,’’ from Bloomburg 

Business Week, March 24, 2011, submitted by Ms. Capps .............................. 188 

Letters of March 30, 2011, from Health and Human Services to Mr. Waxman, 

submitted by Mr. Waxman .................................................................................. 190 

Working paper entitled, ‘‘The Impact of the Medicaid Expansions and Other 

Provisions of Health Reform on State Medicaid Spending,’’ by The Lewin 

Group, December 9, 2010, submitted by Mr. Cassidy ....................................... 194 

Article entitled, ‘‘New Jobs Through Better Health Care,’’ by David Cutler, 

submitted by Mr. Cassidy .................................................................................... 226 

Statement of the Small Business Majority, submitted by Mr. Waxman ............ 239 

Committee rules on the Truth in Testimony form, submitted by Mr. Waxman 250 

(1) 

THE TRUE COST OF PPACA: EFFECTS ON THE 

BUDGET AND JOBS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Pitts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Pitts, Burgess, Whitfield, 

Shimkus, Rogers, Myrick, Murphy, Blackburn, Gingrey, Latta, 

McMorris Rodgers, Lance, Cassidy, Guthrie, Upton (ex officio), 

Pallone, Dingell, Engel, Capps, Schakowsky, Gonzalez, Baldwin, 

Weiner, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Allison Busbee, Legislative Clerk; Howard Cohen, 

Chief Health Counsel; Paul Edattel, Professional Staff Member, 

Health; Julie Goon, Health Policy Advisor; Ryan Long, Chief Counsel, Health; Jeff Mortier, Professional Staff Member; Monica Popp, 

Professional Staff Member, Health; Heidi Stirrup, Health Policy 

Coordinator; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Alli Corr, 

Democratic Policy Analyst; Tim Gronniger, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; Purvee Kempf, Democratic Senior Counsel; 

Karen Lightfoot, Democratic Communications Director, and Senior 

Policy Advisor; and Karen Nelson, Democratic Deputy Committee 

Staff Director for Health. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

We had a very instructive field hearing, our first, in Harrisburg 

last week, on the 1-year anniversary of the signing of PPACA. 

What we heard about the health reform law’s costs on Pennsylvania alone was chilling. Governor Corbett stated that after the 

Medicaid expansion had gone into effect, roughly one in four Pennsylvanians would be on the program. According to the Acting Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, Gary Alexander, Medicaid currently accounts for 30 percent of the state budget. That is 

more than all but two other States: Illinois and Missouri. And if 

PPACA is fully implemented, that percentage will double to 60 percent of their state budget by fiscal year 2019–20. This is simply not 

2 

sustainable for my home state, or any other. And the numbers 

don’t look much better for the Federal Government, either. 

On March 18, 2011, CBO released its preliminary analysis of the 

President’s fiscal year 2012 budget. CBO’s estimate of total spending on coverage expansions in PPACA grew from $938 billion last 

March for fiscal years 2010 through 2019 to $1.445 trillion for fiscal years 2012 through 2021. That is a 54 percent increase in federal spending. 

As you may remember, President Obama, when he was running, 

promised his health care plan would cost $50 billion to $65 billion 

a year when fully phased in. CBO, however, projects that the real 

cost of the coverage expansions will be $229 billion in 2020 and 

$245 billion in 2021—four times the levels of spending that President Obama had promised. 

And what about the jobs PPACA was supposed to create? ThenSpeaker Pelosi stated in February of last year that the law would 

create ‘‘4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately.’’ Yet, as 

Mr. Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee last month, he 

expects the law will cost 800,000 jobs by 2021. That may be because the law contains perverse incentives for businesses not to 

grow. Small businesses are hesitant to go over 50 employees and 

incur a penalty for each full-time employee who does not have 

proper insurance, as defined by the government. 

They are also being buried under thousands of pages of regulations, with thousands more to come, with which they will have to 

comply, and they will bear the cost of compliance on their own. Or, 

like Case New Holland, a major manufacturer with operations in 

Pennsylvania, testified at the field hearing last week, they already 

expect to spend $126 million over the next decade just to comply 

with this law, and that is $126 million that won’t go towards expanding their business or creating new jobs. 

We are receiving reports almost weekly that show that the true 

cost of Obamacare is worse than what any of us expected—higher 

premiums, more federal health spending, fewer jobs, less access, 

and people losing the coverage they currently have and like. Not 

only does the law not achieve its stated goals, the true cost of 

Obamacare is too high for our States, too high for the Federal Government, and too high for the private sector. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS

The subcommittee will come to order. 

The chair will recognize himself for an opening statement. 

We had a very instructive field hearing in Harrisburg last week, on the 1-year 

anniversary of the signing of PPACA. 

What we heard about the health reform law’s costs on Pennsylvania alone was 

chilling. 

Governor Corbett stated that after the Medicaid expansion had gone into effect, 

roughly 1 in 4 Pennsylvanians would be on the program. 

According to the Acting Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, Gary Alexander, Medicaid currently accounts for 30% of the state budget—that is more than 

all but two other states (Illinois and Missouri)—and if PPACA is fully implemented, 

that percentage will double to 60% by FY19–20. 

This is simply not sustainable for my home state, or any other. 

And the numbers don’t look much better for the federal government, either. 

3 

On March 18, 2011, CBO released its preliminary analysis of the President’s FY12 

budget. 

CBO’s estimate of total spending on coverage expansions in PPACA grew from $938 billion last March (for fiscal years 2010–2019) to $1.445 trillion (for fiscal years 

2012–2021)—a 54% increase in federal spending. 

As you may remember, candidate Obama promised his health care plan would cost ‘‘$50–65 billion a year when fully phased in.’’ CBO, however, projects that the real cost of the coverage expansions will be $229 billion in 2020 and $245 billion in 2021—four times the levels of spending candidate 

Obama promised. 

And what about the jobs PPACA was supposed to create? Then Speaker Pelosi 

stated in February of last year that the law would ‘‘create 4 million jobs—400,000 

jobs almost immediately.’’ 

Yet, as Mr. Elmendorf told the House Budget Committee last month, he expects 

the law will cost 800,000 jobs by 2021. 

That may be because the law contains perverse incentives for businesses not to 

grow. 

Small businesses are hesitant to go over 50 employees, and incur a penalty for 

each full-time employee who does not have ‘‘proper insurance’’—as defined by the 

government. 

They are also being buried under thousands of pages of regulations—with thousands more to come—with which they’ll have to comply. And they’ll bear the cost 

of compliance on their own. 

Or, like Case New Holland—a major manufacturer with operations in my district -which testified at the field hearing last week, they already expect to spend $126 

million over the next decade just to comply with the law. And that’s $126 million that won’t go towards expanding their business and creating jobs. 

We are receiving reports almost weekly that show that the true cost of Obamacare 

is worse than what any of us expected—higher premiums, more federal health 

spending, fewer jobs, less access, and people losing the coverage they currently have 

and like. 

Not only does the law not achieve its stated goals, the true cost of Obamacare 

is too high for our states, too high for the federal government, and too high for the 

private sector. 

I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I yield the remainder of my time 

to Dr. Burgess. 

Mr. PITTS. I will yield the remainder of my time to Dr. Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for the recognition. 

Today we are faced with the question, is the Affordable Care Act 

affordable? We don’t know. We didn’t know when this committee 

passed a health care bill last year called H.R. 3200. Mercifully, that 

bill died a natural death in the Speaker’s office and H.R. 3590, as 

everyone knows, was signed into law a year and a week ago. 

But even today, we don’t know about the essential benefits package. We don’t know about the cost of setting up the exchanges. All 

of this remains shrouded between a veil of obscurity. 

After the bill became law, our actuary from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released his findings to the Congress 

and estimated the overall national health expenditures would be 

increased by some $311 billion, a significant difference from the 

$142 billion in savings that was advertised merely a month before. 

So I authored last year a Resolution of Inquiry requesting the 

transfer of internal Health and Human Services communications 

related to the date of Mr. Foster’s report. The Congressional Budget Office and the Chief Actuary do model different things, and this 

has been pointed out to me by some of our witnesses this morning. 

But both are essential components to determining the cost, the true 

cost of the Affordable Care Act, and really should have made available to the Members of Congress before, before, before the vote was 

taken last year. 

4 

If the intent of reforming the health care system was indeed to 

bend the cost curve, then it looks like mission accomplished. Unfortunately, we bent it in the wrong direction. 

Now, I acknowledge that the Congressional Budget Office had an 

impossible job, and most Members of Congress do recognize that, 

and I guess I would just ask the question, if we rely solely on the 

Congressional Budget Office when we know they have an impossible job, if we rely solely on their numbers, are we in fact not facing reality. What if their assumptions are off by just a little bit? 

The result of maybe 5 percent of employers dropping coverage and 

moving employees into the exchanges. What effect does that have 

on the cost of the subsidies in the exchanges when that kicks in 

a few years’ time? Probably an average of tens of billions of dollars. 

Why was Congress negligent in our responsibility to see the impact that this law would have on the health care system, the cost 

of the health care system? The Administration knew that it would 

take Mr. Foster time to complete his model, but did the Administration push us to have that vote before we could have access to 

the actual date? And this is the question that needs to be answered 

this morning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are back from another week off in Congress and it is time for the Republicans to try 

to repeal, defund, or criticize the health care reform again. It is 

pretty clear that the Republicans believe that if you just keep saying the same thing over and over again, it will start to be believed. 

Just fire up the old talking points, throw in a little righteous indignation and you are good to go. And that would be just fine if we 

were all talk-radio stars, but we are not. We have a job to do. We 

are legislators. We are supposed to be trying to turn the economy 

around and create jobs. But here we are to talk again about the 

Affordable Care Act, which is just the Republicans’ reheated arguments about repeal and replace, except they forgot to replace it 

with anything to speak of. 

The Republicans seem to wish that if they just click their heels 

three times, we could return to that magical time in the last decade 

when they controlled both Houses of Congress and the White 

House and, as they would tell it, business prospered and fiscal responsibility was the name of the game, except that is not what 

happened. When President Bush came to office, he inherited a surplus projected to total $5.6 trillion over 10 years, and he managed 

to swiftly squander that, leaving President Obama a nicely 

wrapped $1.3 trillion deficit in 2009. Under President Bush’s 

watch, the number of uninsured increased by 6 million nationwide. 

Small businesses, which make up the majority of the uninsured in 

America, were hurt especially hard during this time. While 57 percent of small businesses were able to offer health insurance in 

5 

2000, only 46 percent were able to by the end of the Bush Administration, and it would have just gotten worse. By the time President 

Obama took office, national health expenditures surpassed $2.4 

trillion in 2009, more than three times as much as it was in 1990. 

The percentage of income families spent on employer-sponsored 

health insurance rose from 12 to 22 percent from 1999 to 2009 during the Bush Administration, and those without insurance were 

even worse off. For many families who had worked hard, saved 

hard and planned for the worst, they couldn’t stay in the black if 

their kid got sick or denied health insurance for life due to a preexisting condition or if they themselves got sick with a tough disease and quickly ran through their insurance plan’s annual limits. 

So understanding this, President Obama and the Congress including this committee didn’t just sit around and whine about the 

previous 8 years under Bush; they stood up and led. And we are 

very proud of the health care reform, the economic certainty, insurance reform, and coverage expansions will offer families across the 

Nation. We are glad that small business owners like Rick Poore, 

who will testify later this morning, are now eligible for tax credits 

today to cover their employees, and in the future Rick will be able 

to leverage the purchasing power of small business owners across 

the Nation through the State exchanges so that more of his money 

can be invested in his business and more of his energy can be devoted to innovation. 

I am very proud that the Affordable Care Act will control health 

care spending by making important delivery system changes that 

reward quality, not quantity of care. We are proud that Americans 

will no longer be held hostage to insurance companies as a result 

of the reforms in our legislation, and I will remind you that the 

Congressional Budget Office has estimated the Affordable Care Act 

will reduce the deficit by $124 billion by 2019 and further cuts the 

deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. 

So if the Republicans want to spend another Wednesday morning 

discussing the true effects of the Affordable Care Act today, I am 

game, but I think we really need to get back to work and try to 

create jobs instead of wasting our time trying to repeal health reform. I mean, it is how many weeks now since you first repealed 

the act and of course the Senate rejected it? We have had nothing 

but hearings for the most part on either repealing the bill, repealing part of the bill, defunding the bill, now, you know, another 

hearing talking about the financial aspects of the bill. It just never 

seems to end. 

So I would now yield the remaining time to my colleague from 

California, Representative Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. To underscore what you 

have just said, we have been in session for over 10 weeks now and 

the Majority has yet to produce a plan to create jobs or strengthen 

the economy. Instead, our Republican colleagues are here yet again 

to live in the past and attack the Affordable Care Act. 

Many of the claims we are going to hear today about the socalled true cost of the Affordable Care Act are likely to be shocking 

but that is not because the Affordable Care Act is dangerous or because it is not working. Instead, it is because these claims are at 

best gross exaggerations and at worst complete fabrications. Let us 

6 

be clear: the Affordable Care Act is the largest deficit-reducing bill 

enacted by Congress in the last decade. It will reduce the deficit 

by $210 billion over the next 10 years, and by $1.2 trillion over the 

following decade, and it will do so while continuing to help families 

and small businesses. 

And as I yield back, the very sections of the bill the Republicans 

are trying to defund are the provisions which will reduce the deficit. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes 

the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes for 

an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too thank you for 

holding this hearing. We just did mark the 1-year anniversary of 

the health care bill being signed into law last week yet today will 

be the committee’s first chance to fully explore the true fiscal impact the law will have on our Nation’s budget and job creation. 

Last week the CBO noted that the coverage provisions of PPACA would cost $1.445 trillion for fiscal year 2012 through 2021. This 

is up from a 10-year cost estimate of $938 billion when the bill was 

signed into law. This is not a change in CBO scoring. Indeed, the 

CBO estimates for the overlapping years are remarkably consistent. The larger figure simply proves that if you take away some 

of the gimmicks, mainly paying for only 6 years of benefits in the 

first decade, that the cost far exceeds $1 trillion and will likely top 

$2 trillion over a full 10 years. 

We have also heard about how PPACA imposes a paperwork 

nightmare on small businesses. The law, as we know, requires a 

tax filing for every transaction over $600. The House has voted to 

repeal this massive paperwork cost on American employers. However, our job does not end there. PPACA includes dozens of new paperwork requirements that force businesses to report to HHS, the 

Department of Labor, and the IRS. Job creation is our top priority, 

which is why we cannot ignore the fact that PPACA reduces employment. 

In recent testimony before the House Budget Committee, Mr. Elmendorf stated that 800,000 jobs would be lost because of the new 

health care law. We should be creating jobs, not destroying them, 

which is why many of us believe that we should repeal this job-destroying bill. Many of us believe that we must repeal the uncertainty that it is causing businesses and the hundreds of billions of 

dollars in new taxes and mountains of paperwork. 

I would yield the balance of my time to Dr. Gingrey. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. We just marked the one-year 

anniversary of the health care bill being signed into law. Yet today will be the committee’s first chance to fully explore the true fiscal impact the law will have on our 

country. 

Since PPACA was signed into law, most revelations have fallen into one of the 

following categories: 1) news that the law will cost much more than our Democrat 

colleagues told us—imposing a massive burden on future generations; 2) news that 

7 

job creators are facing higher financial and administrative costs as a result of 

PPACA 3) news that health care costs will rise, and 4) news that PPACA has jeopardized both access to and the quality of health care for American seniors, job creators, and families. 

First, let’s discuss the true monetary cost of PPACA. Last week, the Congressional 

Budget Office noted that the coverage provisions of PPACA would cost $1.445 trillion from FY2012–2021. This is up from a ten-year cost of $938 billion when the 

bill was signed into law last March. This is not a change in CBO’s scoring. Indeed, 

the CBO estimates for the overlapping years are remarkably consistent. The larger 

figure simply proves that Washington Democrats tried to hide the true ten-year cost 

of the bill by delaying its startup. Based on these new estimates, the real ten-year 

cost of the law will be $2 trillion if we are lucky and much more if we are not. 

Second, let’s look at the economic costs. Job creators around the country have spoken loud and clear. PPACA imposes massive new burdens on them that stifle 

growth and job creation. Many of the country’s largest employers reported hundreds 

of millions of dollars in losses as a result of this law—jeopardizing investment and 

jobs when we need them the most. 

The Majority scheduled a hearing last year to examine the losses companies were 

forced to report because of the law, indicating doubt that the law they championed 

could force such immediate harm. However, the hearing was abruptly cancelled 

when it became clear that the facts undermine the case for PPACA. Rather than 

study these massive new costs, my Democrat colleagues decided to sweep the matter 

under the rug. 

We have also heard how PPACA imposes a paperwork nightmare on small businesses. The law requires a tax filing for every transaction over $600. The House has 

voted to repeal this massive paperwork cost on America’s employers. However, our 

job does not end there. PPACA includes dozens of new paperwork requirements that 

force businesses to report to HHS, the Department of Labor, and the IRS. 

Employers who originally supported PPACA are growing increasingly skeptical. In 

a recent interview, the CEO of Starbucks explained that upon further inspection, 

the new health care law would impose too great of a burden on job creators. 

We have also heard from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug 

Elmendorf, on how PPACA reduces employment. In recent testimony before the 

House Budget Committee, Mr. Elmendorf stated that 800,000 jobs would be lost because of PPACA. 

Third, we must consider the cost to patient care, in both access and quality. We 

already know low-income Americans face significant access problems in the Medicaid program because of low reimbursement rates for providers. PPACA extends 

the same problems to Medicare by reducing payment rates to unsustainable levels. 

As CMS Chief Actuary Rick Foster’s analysis shows, Medicare payments fall sharply 

below those of private insurers and even below the Medicaid program. 

Finally, the health care law has actually increased the cost of health care coverage -exactly the opposite of what proponents claimed would happen. As Mr. Foster 

has noted, the health care law increases overall national health expenditures by 

$311 billion. CBO has told us that by 2016, individual premiums will rise by $2,100 

as a result of PPACA. 

To date, HHS has issued more than 1,000 waivers to exempt health plans and 

employers from the expensive new regulations imposed by health care law. Last 

week, a member of this committee and supporter of the law suggested his hometown 

should receive a waiver. I think we should go one step further: we should lift the 

burden of PPACA from all Americans and repeal it. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing. The American people deserve to know 

the true costs of this law. I would like to thank Larry Schuler from the great state 

of Michigan for agreeing to testify and present his perspectives on the new law. Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the chairman for yielding. 

Mr. Chairman, it was just interesting to hear the ranking member of the subcommittee a few minutes ago talk about how the 

Democrats came to the rescue after 8 years of Republican inaction 

on health care reform, essentially saying just don’t sit there, do 

something. Well, I think my colleague, Dr. Burgess, a fellow OB/ 

GYN physician, would remember our OB/GYN motto, don’t just do 

something, sit there, in managing labor and delivery. And the point 

I am making is to rush to judgment to do something just to get 

8 

something done oftentimes is a huge mistake, and I think that is 

the way our side of the aisle feels in regard to PPACA, the Affordable Care Act, because it doesn’t accomplish any of the goals that 

were set out. It is not good for patients. It is not good for consumers. It is certainly not good for corporate America and it is not 

good for the taxpayer. 

So bottom line is, this is a bad bill, not that the idea of reforming 

health care is a bad thing to do but certainly the priority of doing 

it as a number one or number two thing in the 111th and 110th 

Congress when we had 16 million people out of work in this country and probably 25 million underemployed, an unemployment rate 

of 10 percent, deficits. He said they inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit. 

Well, how about the next year when it was $1.6 trillion? Who inherited that? And how about the $5 trillion worth of additional 

debt that was piled on to the taxpayer by the Democrat Majority 

since they took control in 2007? So I think their priorities are all 

wrong and backwards in regard to this, and I am really interested 

in hearing from our witnesses, the first panel, of course, CBO, Mr. 

Elmendorf, and our CMS Actuary, Mr. Foster, because we need 

this information. 

So if there is any time remaining, I will just yield that back. Mr. 

Upton controls the time I guess. 

Mr. UPTON. I yield to Ms. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I want to welcome our witnesses today, and to 

the witnesses and my colleagues, I would just remind you all, in 

Tennessee we had an experiment called TennCare. TennCare eventually consumed 35.3 percent of our State’s budget before Governor 

Bredesen took action to try to get this under control. This was public option health care and it was the experiment for public option 

health care, and I would like to hear from our witnesses today if 

there ever been any, any project where you gambled on making all 

these short-term expenses in order to receive long-term savings. 

From our research work, you can’t find an example. It is one of the 

dangers we have in Obamacare. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentlelady and now recognizes 

the ranking member, Mr. Waxman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I find this hearing to be sadly ironic. The Republican members 

of the House have frequently complained about the growth in 

spending in government health programs. We hear on a daily basis 

about how Medicare and Medicaid are jeopardizing the financial 

health of this country, and about how it is time that we had an 

adult conversation about spending. Yes, let’s have an adult conversation. Adult conversations start with facts. 

These are the facts. When President Bush came to office, he inherited a surplus projected to total $5.6 trillion over 10 years. 

When President Obama came to office, he inherited a deficit in 

2009 of $1.3 trillion for that one year alone. The deficit widened, 

I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, beVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
9 

cause we went into the deepest recession since the Great Depression, which meant fewer revenues and greater expenditures, widening the deficit more. 

President Bush did not think national debt was a high priority. 

Instead, rather than pay it off, he passed a series of reckless tax 

increases that enriched the wealthy at the expense of everyone 

else. Those tax cuts, like the Medicare prescription drug bill and 

two wars launched under President Bush, were not paid for. They 

were charged straight to the national credit card. And that is how 

you take a $5.6 trillion surplus and turn it into a massive deficit. 

Health care has played a role in this drama. In the future, increasing numbers of baby boomers and stubborn health care spending growth will put pressure on our budget, without question. But 

the deficit crisis we find ourselves in is a man-made crisis, in fact, 

it is a Republican-made crisis. 

CBO projects that growth in Medicare under the Affordable Care 

Act, will be slowed to historically low rates on a per capita basis, 

to just 2 percent per year over the next 2 decades, compared to a 

4 percent per capita historically. Projected spending on Medicare 

would fall well below even projected annual growth in GDP per 

capita, which CBO pegs at 3.7 percent over the next 10 years. Medicaid, too, has historically had slow growth on a per capita basis 

relative to private health plans. Over the last decade, Medicaid 

costs grew 4.6 percent per person per year, compared to 7.7 percent 

for employer-sponsored premiums. 

Now, the gentleman on the other side of the aisle said he didn’t 

know why we went into this reform of health care. Well, things 

were not great. Fifty million people couldn’t get health insurance. 

Health care costs were increasing so rapidly. We needed to do 

something. The Republicans evidently said let things go as they are 

going and they were going in the wrong direction. 

The Affordable Care Act has been the largest deficit-reducing bill 

passed by Congress in the last decade so it is true to its name, affordable care. So our current deficit crisis right now is not about 

health care. 

In addition, the Affordable Care Act covers 32 million Americans. 

Republicans never offered anything to do that. The health care bill 

stops insurance practices that would deny care to people who have 

to look to the private market. It would protect them from being excluded because of previous conditions and other arbitrary insurance 

practices, which they had to do because they didn’t have everybody 

else in the pool. 

Well, let us go back to our adult conversation. Republicans keep 

telling us that we can’t afford the reforms to Medicare that the 

ACA proposed. Now they are telling us that once we repeal the 

ACA, we need to pass much larger cuts to Medicare and Medicaid 

in order to pay for tax cuts for the very richest Americans. Majority 

Leader Eric Cantor said in a speech just last week, talking about 

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: ‘‘We are going to have to 

come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we 

want America to be what we want America to be.’’ 

How dare he say these programs cannot exist. This is not the 

America people want. The Affordable Care Act is entitlement reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
10 

form done responsibly. It is time we stopped trying to repeal it and 

moved on to real work and real legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I just think that we hear these complaints, complaints, complaints from the other side of the aisle. What do they 

have to offer? If what they have to offer is to cut back on Medicare 

and Medicaid and Social Security, they will create jobs because the 

elderly and the poor are going to have to find work but they are 

not going to find them, they are just going to have to do without 

the care and we are going to have more uninsured. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair thanks the 

gentleman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was supposed to use less time 

and yield it to Mr. Dingell. At some point can we give him a 

minute? May I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dingell be given 

1 minute? 

Mr. PITTS. Is there any objection? Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend. I have an 

excellent statement. It denounces this hearing. It denounces the 

purposes of my Republican colleagues. It denounces the fiction that 

we are going to be hearing this morning from the other side of the 

aisle. I would urge my colleagues to read it. It will benefit everybody, and I am sure you will enjoy reading this and I thank you, 

and I ask unanimous consent to submit my remarks. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

Today, nearly 4 months into the 112th Congress, this Committee is holding yet 

another political show for the benefit of pundits here inside the Beltway. 

It is abundantly clear that without major reform to our health system the status 

quo is unsustainable. After hard decisions, hours of debate and deliberation, Congress passed and the President signed the Affordable Care Act. 

Defunding the Affordable Care Act is not legislating. This is like taking an eraser 

to an answer on a test, and then leaving it blank because you don’t have a better 

solution. 

If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to defend the Nation’s bottom 

line, then why did they offer H.R. 2, repealing the Affordable Care and increasing 

the federal deficit by $210 billion? 

If my friends on the other side of the aisle want to create jobs, why repeal the 

Affordable Care Act, which will add 400,000 jobs a year for the next 10 years? 

American families need help now. They need protection from insurance companies 

dropping their coverage, they need help in providing health coverage for their college students, and they need help to afford their prescriptions under Medicare— 

these are all real solutions ACA provides to families today and solutions my friends 

on the other side of the aisle would repeal and replace with nothing. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

We have two panels today. Each of the witnesses has prepared 

an opening statement that will be placed in the record. I will now 

introduce the first panel of two witnesses. 

Our first witness is Doug Elmendorf, who is the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office. Before he came to CBO, Mr. Elmendorf was a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the 

Brookings Institution. Next, we will hear from Rick Foster, who 

11 

serves as the Chief Actuary at the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 

Mr. Elmendorf, we ask you to please summarize. You are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement at this time. 

STATEMENTS OF DOUGLAS ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE; AND RICHARD FOSTER, 

CHIEF ACTUARY, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID 

SERVICES 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS ELMENDORF 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you, Chairman Pitts, Congressman 

Pallone and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about CBO’s analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and last year’s Reconciliation Act. Together with our colleagues on the staff of the Joint Committee on 

Taxation, we provided to the Congress numerous analyses of this 

act and the legislation leading up to it, and my written statement 

summarizes that work. 

In brief, we estimate that the legislation will increase the number of non-elderly Americans with health insurance by roughly 34 

million in 2021. About 95 percent of legal non-elderly residents will 

have insurance coverage in that year compared with a projected 

share of 82 percent in the absence of that legislation and about 83 

percent today. The legislation generates this increase through a 

combination of a mandate for nearly all legal residents to obtain 

health insurance, the creation of health insurance exchanges operating under certain rules and through which certain people will receive federal subsidies and the significant expansion of Medicaid. 

According to our latest estimate, the provisions of the law related 

to health insurance coverage will have a net cost to the Treasury 

from direct spending and revenues of $1.1 trillion during the 2012– 

2021 decade. That amount is larger than CBO’s original estimate 

of the cost of those provisions during the 2010–2019 decade that 

represented the 10-year budget window when the legislation was 

originally estimated. That increase is due almost entirely to the 

shift in the budget window. As you can see in figure 2 in front of 

you, the revisions in any single year are quite small. 

In addition to the provisions related to insurance coverage, 

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act also reduce the growth of Medicare’s payments for most services, impose certain taxes on people 

with relatively high income and made various other changes to the 

tax code, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs. As you can see 

in figure 1, those provisions will on balance reduce direct spending 

and increase revenues, providing an offset to the cost of the coverage provisions. According to our latest comprehensive estimate of 

the legislation, the net effect of all the changes in direct spending 

and revenues is a reduction in budget deficits of $210 billion over 

the 2012–2021 period. 

Not surprisingly, observers have raised a number of challenges 

to our estimates. Let me comment briefly on the three most common areas of concern that I have heard. First, some analysts have 

asserted that we have misestimated the effects of the changes in 

law. Those concerns run in different directions. Some analysts beVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
12 

lieve that the subsidies will be more expensive than we project 

while others maintain that the Medicare reforms will save more 

money than we project. Certainly, projections of the effects of this 

legislation are quite uncertain and no one understands that better 

than the analysts at CBO and JCT. Our estimates depend on myriad projections of economic and technical factors as well as on assumptions about the behavioral responses of families, businesses 

and other levels of government. All of these projections and assumptions represent our objective and impartial judgment based on 

our detailed understanding of federal programs, careful reading of 

the research literature and consultation with outside experts. In 

addition, our estimates depend on a line-by-line reading of the specific legislative language. Our goal is always to develop estimates 

that are in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes, and 

we believe we have achieved that goal in this case. 

A second type of critique of our estimates is that budget conventions hide or misrepresent certain effects of the legislation. I will 

mention two of the prominent examples that I have heard. As one 

example, the numbers I have just cited involve changes in direct 

spending and revenues because that is what is relevant for pay-asyou-go procedures and because those changes will occur without 

any additional legislative action. However, PPACA and the Reconciliation Act will also affect discretionary spending that is subject 

to future appropriations. We noted many times that we expect the 

cost to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue Service of implementing the legislation will probably be about $5 billion to $10 billion each over the next decade. 

PPACA also includes authorizations for future appropriations. 

Those referring to specific amounts total about $100 billion over 

the decade with most of that funding applied to activities that were 

being carried out under prior law such as programs of the Indian 

Health Service. 

Another example of concern about budget conventions involves 

the Hospital Insurance trust fund, which covers Medicare part A. 

The legislation will improve the cash flow in that trust fund by 

hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. Higher balances in the fund will give the government legal authority to pay 

Medicare benefits for longer than otherwise but most of the savings 

will pay for new programs rather than reduce future budget deficits, and therefore will not enhance the government’s economic 

ability to pay Medicare benefits in future years. We wrote about 

those issues as the legislation was being considered in the Congress. 

A third type of critique is that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act 

will be changed in the future in ways that will make deficits worse. 

As with all of CBO’s cost estimates, the ones for this legislation reflect an assumption that the legislation will be implemented in its 

current form. We do not intend to predict the intent of future Congresses that might choose to enact different legislation. At the 

same time, we emphasize that the budgetary impact of this legislation could be quite different if key provisions were changed and we 

highlighted certain provisions that we expect might be difficult to 

sustain for a long period of time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elmendorf follows:] 

13 


71722.001

Congressional Budget Office 

Statement of 

Douglas W. Elmendorf 

Director 

CBO's Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation 

Enacted in March 2010 

before the 

Subcommittee on Health 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

March 30, 2011 

CONGRESSIONAL B1JDCET ornCE 

SECOND AND [) STREETS, S.\v·. 

WASHINGTDK, D.C. 20'51'5 
14 


71722.002

Chairman Pins, Congressman Pallone, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to testifY about the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) analysis of the Patient Ptotection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148) 

and the ptovisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

(hereafter called "the Reconciliation Act," P.L. 111-152) that are related to health care. 

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have provided the 

Congress with extensive analyses of the legislation both before and after its enactment 

in March 2010. My statement summarizes the major results of those analyses-in 

particular, the projected effects of those laws on the federal budget (over the first 

10 years and the subsequent decade), health insurance coverage, Medicare, premiums 

for health insurance, and labor markets. 

Summary 

Among other things, PPACA and the Reconciliation Act will do the following: establish a mandate for nearly all legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; create insurance exchanges through which certain individuals and families will 

receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing health insurance 

coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; permanently reduce the growth 

of Medicare's payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected ro 

occur under prior law); impose an excise tax on health insurance plans with relatively 

high premiums; impose certain taxes on individuals and families with relatively high 

income; and make various other changes to the federal tax code, Medicare, Medicaid, 

and other programs. 

Estimated Effects on Health Insurance Coverage 

CBO and JCT estimate that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act will increase the 

number of non elderly Americans with health insurance by abour 32 million in 2016 

and about 34 million in 2021.1 About 95 percent of legal nonelderly residents will 

have insurance coverage in 2021, compared with a projected share of about 82 percent in the absence of that legislation (and an estimated 83 percent currently). In 

2021, approximately 24 million people will purchase their own coverage through 

insurance exchanges, and Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program 

(CHIP) will have roughly 17 million additional enrollees, CBO and JCT estimate. 

Compared with the number projected under prior law, about 6 million fewer people 

will purchase individual coverage directly from insurers, and about 1 million fewer 

people will obtain coverage through their employer. About 23 million nonelderly residents will remain uninsured: About one-third of that group will be unauthorized 

immigrants, who are not eligible to participate in Medicaid or the insurance 

exchanges; another quarter will be eligible for Medicaid but are not expected to enroll; 

1. See Congressional Budget Office, "Estimate of the Effecrs of the Insurance Coverage Provisions 

Contained in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care ACt (Public Law 111-148) and the Health 

Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (I'L. 111-152)" (March 201l). 
15 


71722.003

Table 1. 

Estimated Budgetary Effects of the Enactment of PPACA and 

the Health Care Provisions of the Reconciliation Act 

(Billions of dollars, by fiscal year) 

March 2010 February 2011 March 2011 

Estimates Estimates Estimates 

2010- 2012- 2012- 2012- 2012- 2012-

2019 2019 2019 2021 2019 2021 

Effects on the Federal Budget Deficit 

Insurance coverage provisions3 

Gross cost 938 931 934 1,390 971 1,445 

Net cost 788 778 733 1,042 794 1,131 

Other provisions affecting direct spending -492 -498 -477 -732 n.a. n.a. 

Other provisions affecting revenues -420 -412 -376 -520 n.a. n.a. 

Net Increase or 

Decrease ( -) in the Deficit -124 -132 -119 -210 n.a. n.a. 

Memorandum: 

Effects on Outlays 401 393 417 604 n.a. n.a. 

Effects on Revenues 525 524 536 813 n.a. n.a. 

Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. 

Notes: The March 2010 estimates come from CBO's cost estimates for PPACA and the Reconciliation 

Act released in March 2010. The February 2011 estimates were produced using the CBO 

baseline projections of revenues and outlays available in early 2011, and the March 2011 

estimates were taken from CBO's March 2011 baseline projections. 

PPACA = Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Reconciliation Act = Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; n.a. = not available. 

a. The gross cost of insurance coverage provisions reflects additional spending for Medicaid and 

the Children's Health Insurance Program, exchange subsidies and related spending, and tax 

credits for small employers. The net cost of insurance coverage provisions reflects that spending 

partly offset by penalties paid by uninsured individuals and employers, excise taxes on highpremium insurance plans, and other effects of the provisions on tax revenues and outlays. 

and the remaining fraction will include individuals who are ineligible for subsidies, 

are exempt from the individual mandate, choose not to comply with the mandate, or 

have some combination of those characteristics. 

Estimated Budgetary Effects from 2012 to 2021: Direct Spending and 

Revenues 

The legislation will have a number of effects on the federal budget-including added 

spending to subsidize the purchase of health insurance and increased outlays for Medicaid, as well as reductions in outlays for Medicare and added revenues from taxes, 

fees, and penalties. On net, CBO and JCT's latest comprehensive estimate is that the 

effects of the two laws on direct spending and revenues related to health care will 

reduce federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1). 

2 
16 


71722.004

The Most Recent Comprehensive Estimate. CBO and JCT's most recent comprehensive estimate of the budgetary impact of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act was in 

relation to an estimate prepared for H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care 

Law Act, as passed by the House of Representatives on January 19, 2011. H.R. 2 

would repeal the health care provisions of those laws. CBO and JCT estimated that 

repealing PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would 

produce a net increase in federal deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period as 

a result of changes in direct spending and revenues. 2 Reversing the sign of the estimate 

released in February provides an approximate estimate of the impact over that period 

of enacting those provisions. Therefore, CBO and JCT effectively estimated in February that PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act will produce a net decrease in federal deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period as a 

result of changes in direct spending and revenues. The projected net reduction in 

deficits is the difference between $813 billion in projected additional revenues and 

$604 billion in projected additional outlays. 

The provisions related to health insurance coverage-which affect both outlays and 

revenues-were projected to have a net cost of$1,042 billion over the 2012-2021 

period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1 ,390 billion, offset in part by $349 billion in receipts and savings (primarily revenues from 

penalties and other sources). The other provisions related to health care and revenues 

will reduce budget deficits by an estimated $1,252 billion over that 10-year periodincluding $520 billion in revenues, mostly from new taxes and fees, and $732 billion 

in outlay savings for Medicare and other federal health care programs (see Figure 1). 

Those outlay savings reflect the net effect of some provisions that will reduce direct 

spending-such as lower payment rates in Medicare-and others that will increase 

direct spending, such as the expansion of Part D benefits and mandatory funding for 

a number of grant, research, and other programs. 

Comparison with the March 2010 Estimate. That February 2011 estimate differs 

somewhat from the estimate that CBO prepared when the legislation was being considered. In March 2010, CBO andJCT estimated that PPACA and the provisions of 

the Reconciliation Act related to health care would produce a net reduction in federal 

deficits of $124 billion over the 2010-2019 period as a result of changes in direct 

spending and revenues. 3 The difference between the two estimates does not reflect 

any substantial change in the estimation of the overall effects of the two laws. CBO 

has seen no evidence to date that the steps that will be taken to implement the 

2. See Congressional Budget Office, cost esrimate for H.R. 2, tne Repealing tne Job-Killing Health 

Care Law Act (February 18, 2011). That document and the others by CBO tbat are cited in tbis 

testimony are available on the agency's Web site (www.cbo.gov); many of the documents that were 

published in 2009 and 20 I 0 are contained in Congressional Budget Office, Selected CEO 

I'ub/i[wions Related to HCilltb Care 2009-20]0 (December 2010). 

3. See Congressional Budget Office, cost estimate for H.R. 4872. the Reconciliation Act of2010 

(March 20, 20 I 0). 

3 
17 


71722.005

Figure 1. 

Estimated Effects of PPACA and the Health Care Provisions 

of the Reconciliation Act on the Federal Budget 

(Billions of dollars, by fiscal year) 

250 

200 Net Changes from Insurance Coverage Provisions 

Net Changes in Other Revenues 

150 Net Changes in Other Spending 

100 

50 

-50 

-100 

-150 

-200 

-250 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. 

2020 2021 

Notes: These estimates from February 2011 were produced using the CBO baseline projections of 

revenues and outlays available in early 2011. 

Coverage provisions include the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans. 

PPACA = Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Reconciliation Act = Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

legislation-or the ways in which parricipants in the health care and health financing 

systems will respond to that legislation-will yield overall budgetary effects that diffcr 

signitlcantly from the ones projected earlier. 

Instead, the difference between the two estimates is primarily attributable to the different time periods they cover. In particular, including the years 2020 and 2021 in the 

analysis results in a substantially larger estimated decrease in budget deficits; in those 

two years alone, the legislat ion will decrease federal deficits by a total of about $90 billion. Over the eight years that are common to the two analyses-20 12 to 2019-

enactment of PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act was 

4 
18 


71722.006

Figure 2. 

Comparison of CBO's 2010 and 2011 Estimates for 

PPACA and the Health Care Provisions of the 

Reconciliation Act 

(Billions of dollars, by fiscal year) 

200 

150 

100 

50 

o 

~50 

-100 

-150 

--- Net Cost of Coverage Provisions ........... - ,- - t 

,/ '" '" '" 

",,,,"'\ '" March 2010 

Estimates 

Estimates 

i 

March 2011 

Estimates 

February 2011 

Estimates 

Net Increase or Decrease in the Deficit 

2010 20n 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 

Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. 

Notes: The March 2010 estimates, which cover 2010 to 2019, come from CBO's cost estimates for 

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act released in March 2010. The March 2011 estimates were 

taken from CBO's March 2011 baseline projections for 2011 to 2021; the February 2011 estimates, based on a cost estimate covering 2012 to 2021, were produced using CBO's baseline 

projections of revenues and outlays available in early 2011. 

Coverage provisions include the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans. 

PPACA = Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Reconciliation Act = Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

projected last March to reduce federal deficits by $132 billion, whereas the February 

2011 estimate implies that the Iegislarion will reduce deficits by $119 billion (see 

Figure 2). 

The Most Recent Estimate of the Effects of Coverage Provisions. CEO's baseline budget projections that were issued earlier in March 2011, like the baseline projections 

issued in January 2011 and August 2010, reflect the impact of PI'ACA and the Reconciliation Act on revenues and various spending programs." In some cases, those 

eHeets are implicit in broader revenue or spending categories, so the total projected 

Ii. Sec Congressional Budget omcc, i~,rhm%in' 

201l). 

f!/it(Ctl/i",· _'() I:> (March 18, 
19 


71722.007

impact of the laws cannot be readily identified; in other cases, the impact of those 

laws can be separately identified. The provisions related to expanding health insurance 

coverage fall in the latter category; compared with the estimate released in February, 

they are now projected to increase deficits by an additional $90 billion over the 2012-

2021 period, bringing the total net cost of those provisions as result of changes in 

direct spending and reven ues to $1,131 billion over that period.) CBO has not 

updated its estimate of the effects of the other provisions of the legislation because 

those effects are not separated out in the agency's baseline projections. 

How does the current estimate of the cost of expanding health insurance coverage 

compare with the estimate that was prepared when the laws were enacted? Again, the 

difference between the two estimates is primarily attributable to the different time 

periods they cover. Over the eight years that are common to the two analyses (2012 to 

2019), the provisions related to health insurance coverage were projected last March 

to result in gross costs of $931 billion and net costs (after accounting for penalty payments, receipts from the new excise tax on high-premium health insurance plans, and 

certain other effects) of $778 billion. CBO and JCT now estimate gross costs of 

$971 billion and net costs of $794 billion over that eight-year period, increases of 

4 percent and 2 percent, respectively.6 

The estimates summarized above focus on direct spending and revenues because those 

are the figures that are relevant for the pay-as-you-go law and Congressional rules and 

because those effects will occur without any additional legislative action. The legislation will also affect discretionary spending (that is, spending subject to future appropriation action) in ways that are discussed below. Following standard procedures for 

the Congressional budget process, the estimates do not include any effects of the legislation on overall economic output. However, last summer, CBO estimated that the 

effects of the legislation on overall employment would be small. 

Estimated Budgetary Effects from 2012 to 2021: Discretionary Spending 

Discretionary costs will arise from the effects of the legislation on several federal agencies and on a number of new and existing programs. CBO expects that the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

will incur costs of between $5 billion and $10 billion each over 10 years to carry out 

their responsibilities for implementing the legislation. 

PPACA includes a number of authorizations for future appropriations, which might 

or might not result in additional appropriations. CBO estimated that such provisions 

authorizing specific amounts, if fully funded, would result in appropriations of 

5. See Congressional Budget Office, "Estimate of rhe Effects of the Insurance C:oyerage Provisions 

Contained in the Patient Protection ,md AHt)rdahle Care Act (Puhlic Law 111-148) and the Health 

Care and Education Reconciliation Act of2010 (P.L. 111-152)" (Match 2011), cited earlier. 

6. Over that eight-year period (2012 to 2019), the current estimate of the net COst of the coverage 

provisions ($794 billion) is about 8 percent highe,. than the February 2011 estimate ($733 billion)-hut the latter was about 6 percent lower than the March 2010 estimate ($788 hillion). 

6 
20 


71722.008

$106 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Updating those estimates for the 2012-

2021 period would result in authorizations of just under $100 billion. However, most 

of those authorizations-accounting for about $85 billion-are for activities that 

were already being carried out under prior law or that were previously authorized and 

that PPACA authorized for future years; for example, that amount includes an estimated $39 billion for ongoing activities of the Indian Health Service and $34 billion 

for continued grants to federally qualified health centers. 7 

Impact on the Federal Budget Beyond the First 10 Years 

CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year projection period, 

but certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact 

oflegislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested analyses of 

the long-term budgetary impact of the broad changes in the health care and health 

insurance systems that will result from these laws. That impact, however, becomes 

more and more uncertain the farther into the future one projects. Over a longer time 

span, a wide range of changes could occur-in people's health, in the sources and 

extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care-that are very 

difficult to predict but that could have a significant effect on federal health care 

spending, both under current law and under the law prior to passage ofPPACA and 

the Reconciliation Act. 

Therefore, CBO developed a rough outlook for the second decade after enactment by 

grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories and assessing the rate at 

which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories will increase over time. 

On the basis of its February 2011 analysis, CBO effectively projected that PPACA 

and the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal budget deficit_ by an amount in a 

broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for the 2022-

2031 period, assuming that all ptovisions of the legislation were fully implemented. 

That estimate has not been updated since the February analysis. 

Other Effects of the Legislation 

CBO has also analyzed the legislation's impact on the "federal budgetary commitment 

to health care," a term that the agency uses to describe the sum of net federal outlays 

for health programs and tax preferences for health care; on premiums for health insurance; and on labor markets. 

Effects on the Federal Budgetary Commitment to Health Care. In its February 2011 

analysis, CBO estimated that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act would increase the 

federal budgetary commitment to health care by $464 billion over the 2012-2021 

period. The net increase in that commitment is driven ptimarily by the expansion in 

coverage, which would be partly offset by other factors such as the decrease in other 

7. PPACA and the Reconciliation Act also include mandatory appropriations for certain grants, 

research, and other programs. The costs of those provisions are included in the estimates of the legislation's effects on direct spending. 

7 
21 


71722.009

federal health care spending (primarily for Medicare) and the imposition of the excise 

tax on high-premium insurance policies in 2018. 

In contrast, CBO anticipates that those laws will decrease the federal budgetary commitment to health care in the decade following the 1 O-year projection period, assuming that the provisions of current law remain unchanged. The estimated effect in later 

years differs from that in the first decade because the budgetary impact of provisions 

that reduce the commitment is projected to grow faster than the impact of provisions 

that increase it. 

Effects on Health Insurance Premiums. Under PPACA and the Reconciliation Act, 

premiums for health insurance in the individual market will be somewhat higher than 

they would otherwise be, CBO and JCT estimate, mostly because the average insurance policy in that market will cover a larger share of enrollees' costs for health care 

and provide a slightly wider range of benefits. 8 The effects of those differences will be 

offset in part by other factors that will tend to reduce premiums in the individual 

market; for example, purchasers in that market will tend to be healthier than they 

would have been under prior law, leading to lower average costs for their health care. 

Although premiums in the individual market will be higher on average, many people 

will end up paying less for health insurance-because the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market will receive subsidies via the insurance exchanges. 

Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers will be 

slightly lower than they would otherwise be; premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through small employers may be slightly higher or slightly lower. 

Effects on Labor Markets. The legislation will affect some individuals' decisions abour 

whether and how much to work and some employers' decisions about hiring workers. 

CEO estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in 

the economy by a small amount-roughly half a percent-primarily by reducing the 

amount of labor that workers choose to supply. That net effect reflects changes in 

incentives in the labor market that operate in both directions: Some provisions of the 

legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, 

and other provisions will encourage them to work more. Moreover, many people will 

be unaffected by those provisions and will face the same incentives regarding work as 

they otherwise would have. 

Because the legislation will affect individuals' decisions on both whether to participate 

in the workforce and the number of hours they work, its effect on employment is difficult to predict. If the legislation did not affect the average number of hours worked 

per employed person, CBO projects that it would reduce household employment in 

2021 by abour 800,000. However, because the legislation will probably affect average 

8. See Congressional Budget Office, lerrer to the Honorable Evan Rayh providing an anaIvsis of health 

imurance premiums under rhe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (November 30, 2009). 

8 
22 


71722.010

hours worked among those employed, the effect on employment will be somewhat 

different. 

Uncertainty Surrounding the Estimates 

The projections of the budgetary impact and other impacts of health care legislation 

are quite uncertain because assessing the effects of making broad changes in the 

nation's health care and health insurance systems-or of reversing scheduled 

changes-requires assumptions about a broad array of technical, behavioral, and economic factors. CBO and JCT, in consultation with outside experts, have devoted a 

great deal of care and effort to analYLing health care legislation in the past few years, 

and the agencies strive to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distriburion 

of possible outcomes. Nevertheless, the actual ourcomes will surely differ from those 

estimates. 

As with all of CBO's cost estimates, the estimates described in this testimony reflect 

an assumption that the provisions of current law otherwise remain unchanged 

throughout the projection period and that the legislation being analyzed is enacted 

and implemented throughout that period in its current form. CBO's responsibility ro 

.the Congress is to estimate the effects of proposals and of current law as written and 

not to forecast future legislation. The budgetary impact of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act could be quite different if key provisions of that original legislation are subsequently changed or not fully implemented. 

In fact, CBO's cost estimate for the legislation noted that it will put into effect a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. The combination of those policies, prior law regarding payment rates for physicians' services in 

Medicare, and other information has led CBO to project that the growth rate of 

Medicare spending (per beneficiary, adjusted for overall inflation) will drop from 

abour 4 percent per year, which it has averaged for the past two decades, to about 

2 percent per year on average for the next two decades. It is unclear whether such a 

reduction can be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or 

will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care (relative to the situation under 

prior law). Also, the legislation includes a provision that makes it likely that exchange 

subsidies will grow at a slower rate after 2018, so the shares of income that enrollees 

have to pay will increase more rapidly at that point, and the shares of the premiums 

that the subsidies cover will decline.9 Such possibilities could lead to pressure on lawmakers to adjust those policies. 

9. For further discussion of some of these issues. see Congressional Budget Office, "The Effects of 

Health Ref()[1n on the Federal Blldger," Directors Blog (April 12. 2010) and "Uncertainty in 

Estimates for Health Care Legislation," Directors Blog (March 19,2010). 

9 
23 


71722.011

Overview of the Budgetary Effects in the First Decade 

On March 20, 2010, CBO and JCT published estimates of the budgetary impact of 

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act. Those estimates covered 2010 through 2019, the 

period used for Congressional budget enforcement procedures when the legislation 

was being considered (in calendar years 2009 and early 2010). 

CBO subsequently incorporated PPACA and the Reconciliation Act into its baseline 

budget projections published in August 20 I 0 and January 2011. Revisions to baseline 

projections reflect the enactment of legislation, changes in CBO's economic forecast, 

and updates to the agency's projection methods and assumptions. Revisions to baseline projections can result in new estimates of the effects of existing laws that appear 

separately in the projections. However, such revisions do not resulr in new estimates 

of the effects of existing laws that are interwoven with the effects of other laws. For 

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act, the effects of the provisions related to insurance 

coverage can be separately identified in CBO's baseline projections, but many of the 

effects of other ptovisions cannot be separately identified. 

On February 18, 20 II, CBO and J CT published an estimate of the budgetary impact 

ofH.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, which would repeal 

PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act. That cost estimate covered 2012 through 2021, the period covered by CBO's current baseline projections. Reversing the sign of that estimate provides an approximate estimate of the 

impact of PPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act over 

that later time period. The figure is only apptoximate because the cost estimate for 

H.R. 2 did not include the effects of funding ptovided by the health care legislation 

that has already been obligated or spent and because it incorporated the effects of subsequent legislation that modified certain aspects of the original legislation. 

Most recently, CBO released its March 2011 baseline projections. As with the preceding two sets of baseline projections, the latest ones incorporated the budgetary impact 

ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act. However, as noted above, many of the effects 

of provisions not related to health insurance coverage cannot be separately identified. 

The evolution of estimates does not indicate any substantial change in the overall 

effects ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act from what CBO and JCT projected in 

March 2010. In its ongoing monitoring of developments, CBO has seen no evidence 

to date that the steps thar will be taken to implement that legislation-or the ways in 

which partici pants in the health care and health financing systems will respond to that 

legislation-will yield overall budgetary effects that differ significantly from the ones 

projected earlier. 

CBO will continue to update its budget projections as the outlook for various economic and technical factors changes. In cases in which PPACA and the Reconciliation 

Act created a new flow of spending or revenues that is tracked separately-such as 

outlays for the subsidies ptovided through the insurance exchanges or collections of 

new excise taxes-the direct effects will be observable and can be compared with the 

10 
24 


71722.012

original estimates. But any indirect effects of those provisions on other aspects of the 

budget will not be identifiable. Moreover, for provisions that affect an existing flow of 

spending or revenues-such as Medicare outlays or income tax receipts-the effects 

will not be identifiable. Therefore, comparing all elements of the laws' ultimate 

impact with the amounts estimated at the time of their enactment will not be 

possible. 

Estimates of the Impact of Enacting PPACA and the Reconciliation Act 

Made in March 2010 

In March 2010, CBO and JCT estimated that enacting PPACA and the Reconciliation Act would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 

2010-2019 period as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues. lO That figure comprised $124 billion in net reductions deriving from the health care and revenue provisions of those laws and $19 billion in net reductions deriving from the education provisions. 

The net decrease in deficits from enacting all of those provisions except those affecting 

education had three major components (see Table I on page 2): 

• PPACA and the Reconciliation Act contained a set of provisions designed ro 

expand health insurance coverage that was estimated to increase federal deficits. 

The costs of those coverage expansions-which include the cost of the subsidies to 

be provided through the exchanges, higher outlays for Medicaid and the Children's 

Health Insurance Program, and tax credits for certain small employers-will be 

partially offset by revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans 

and net savings from other coverage-related effects. For the 2010-2019 period, 

those provisions yielded estimated gross costs of $938 billion and estimated net 

costs (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $788 billion. 

• The legislation also included a number of other provisions that were estimated to 

reduce net federal outlays (primarily for Medicare) by $492 billion over the 2010-

2019 period. 

• Apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage, the legislation will 

increase federal revenues in various ways, mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance payroll tax and imposing fees on certain manufacturers and insurers. The 

additional revenues were estimated to equal $420 billion over the 2010-2019 

period. 

All told, those provisions ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act were estimated to 

increase direct spending by $401 billion and ro increase revenues by $525 billion over 

10. See Congressional Budget Office, cost estimate for H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 201 0 

(March 20, 2010). 

11 
25 


71722.013

the 2010-2019 period, yielding the net estimated savings of$124 billion over those 

10 years (as noted above). 

Estimates of the Impact of Repealing PPACA and the Health Care-Related 

Provisions of the Reconciliation Act Made in February 2011 

In February 2011, CBO and JCT estimated that repealing PPACA and the healthrelated provisions of the Reconciliation Act would produce a net increase in federal 

deficits of $21 0 billion over the 2012-2021 period as result of changes in direct 

spending and revenues.!! Reversing the sign of the estimate released in February provides an approximate estimate of the impact of those provisions over that period. 

Therefore, CBO and JCT effectively estimated in February that PPACA and the 

health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act will produce a net decrease in federal deficits of $21 0 billion over the 2012-2021 period as result of changes in direct 

spending and revenues. 

That net decrease in deficits has the same three major components as the net decrease 

in deficits estimated last March: 

• The provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage were estimated to 

yield gross costs of $1 ,390 billion and net costs (after accounting for the offsets 

mentioned above) of $1 ,042 billion over the 2012-2021 period. 

• The other provisions affecting direct spending were estimated to reduce net federal 

ourlays (primarily for Medicare) by $732 billion over the 2012-2021 period. 

• The provisions affecting federal revenues (apart from those related to insurance 

coverage) were estimated to increase revenues by $520 billion over the 2012-2021 

period. 

Altogether, those provisions ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act were estimated to 

increase direct spending by $604 billion and to increase revenues by $813 billion over 

the 2012-2021 period. 

The estimated 1 O-year reduction in deficits for enacting PPACA and the Reconciliation Act that is implied by the February estimate differs from the 10-year reduction in 

deficits that CBO and JCT estimated in March 2010 for enactment of that legislation. The difference between the two estimates is primarily attributable to the different time periods they cover. In particular, including the years 2020 and 2021 in the 

analysis results in a substantially larger estimated decrease in budget deficits; in those 

two years alone, the legislation will decrease federal deficits by a total of about $90 billion, CBO estimates. That larger decrease in deficits in later years reflects the fact that 

the net COStS of the coverage provisions are projected to rise more slowly than the 

combined effect of the factors that will reduce deficits (the decrease in other direct 

11. See Congressional Budget Office, cost estimate for H.R. 2, the Repealing rhe Joh-Killing Health 

Care La,v /\et (February 18, 201l). 

12 
26 


71722.014

spending and the increase in other revenues). Over the eight years that are common to 

the two analyses-2012 to 2019-enactment ofPPACA and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act was projected last March to reduce federal deficits by 

$132 billion, whereas the February 2011 estimate shows that those provisions will 

reduce deficits by an estimated $119 billion (see the second and third columns of 

Table 1 on page 2). 

The remaining (relatively modest) differences between the two estimates arise from 

several factors. First, some of the funding provided by the legislation has been obligated or spent and thus is not included in the estimate of the effects of repealing the 

legislation. Second, subsequent legislation has already modified the laws enacted last 

March, so the estimate of H.R. 2 did not include a reversal of all of the provisions of 

the original legislation. Specifically, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 

2010 (P.L. 111-309) increased the amount that could be recovered from enrollees in 

insurance exchanges whose actual income in a year differed from the figure used to 

determine their tax credit for health insurance premiums. That legislation was estimated to reduce net federal payments for subsidies through the health insurance 

exchanges. Third, the estimates prepared last March were based on the projections of 

economic conditions, health care costs, federal spending and revenues, and other factors that CBO published in March 2009. In particular, the economic outlook is now 

somewhat different, and CBO and JCT made a number of technical changes to their 

spending and revenue projections related to the provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act. 

Updated Estimates of the Impact of the Coverage Provisions of PPACA and the 

Reconciliation Act Made in March 2011 

CBO's March 2011 baseline projections include somewhat different estimates for the 

coverage provisions ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act. Specifically, over the 

2012-2021 period, those provisions are now estimated ro yield gross costs of 

$1,445 billion and net costs (after accounting for the offsets mentioned above) 

of $1, 131 billion (see Table 2). 

The March 2011 estimate of the net cost of the insurance provisions represents a 

$90 billion increase (over 10 years) since the previous estimate. CBO made a number 

of technical modifications to its models for health insurance coverage; as a result of 

those modifications, slightly fewer low-income people are projected to be eligible for 

Medicaid, and slightly more are expected to be eligible for subsidies through the 

health insurance exchanges. Altogether, the upward revision of $90 billion reflects the 

following changes: a $47 billion reduction in the impact on Medicaid and CHIP outlays; a $100 billion increase in exchange subsidies and related spending; a $41 billion 

reduction in revenues from other effects of the coverage provisions (including the 

excise tax on high-premium insurance plans); and smaller changes in other payments 

related to coverage provisions. 

CBO's current estimate of the net cost of the coverage provisions differs from the original estimate issued in March 2010 primarily because of the different time periods 

13 
27 


71722.015

Table 2. 

Estimated Budgetary Effects of the Insurance Coverage 

Provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act 

(Billions of dollars, by fiscal year) 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 

Effects on the Federal Budget Deficit 

Medicaid and CHIP outlays" 30 55 77 84 87 93 97 105 

Exchange subsidies and 

related spending'" 23 55 87 104 115 123 130 137 

Small-employer tax credits' 8 5 2 2 2 

Total, 

2012-

2021 

627 

777 

41 --- Gross Cost of Insurance 

Coverage Provisions 4 60 118 169 189 204 218 229 245 1,445 

Penalty payments by 

uninsured individuals -2 -5 -5 -5 -5 -6 -6 -34 

Penalty payments by employers' -4 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -81 

Excise tax on high-premium 

insurance plans -12 -20 -24 -29 -87 

Other effects on tax 

revenues and outlays' -4 -13 -17 -20 -22 -22 -22 -113 --- Net Cost of Insurance 

Coverage Provisions 7 9 9 59 104 142 157 155 158 164 174 1,131 

Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 

Notes: These estimates were produced using CBO's March 2011 baseline projections of federal 

revenues and outlays. They do not include federal administrative costs that would be subject 

to appropriation. 

Positive numbers indicate increases in the deficit, and negative numbers indicate reductions 

in the deficit. Numbers may not add up to totals because of rounding. 

PPACA = Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Reconciliation Act = Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; CHIP = Children'S Health Insurance Program. 

a. Under current law, states have the flexibility to make programmatic and other budgetary 

changes to Medicaid and CHIP. CBO estimates that state spending on Medicaid and CHIP in the 

2012-2021 period would increase by about $60 billion as a result of the coverage provisions. 

b. Includes spending for high-risk pools and the net budgetary effects of proposed collections and 

payments for reinsurance and risk adjustment 

c. Numbers may not match those shown in the table "CBO's March 2011 Baseline: Health Insurance Exchanges" located on CBO's Web site because different related items were included in the 

two tables. 

d. The effects of this provision on the deficit include the associated effects of changes in taxable 

compensation on tax revenues. 

e. The effects are almost entirely on tax revenues. CBO estimates that outlays for Social Security 

benefits would increase by about $4 billion over the 2012-2021 period and that the coverage 

provisions would have negligible effects on outlays for other federal programs. 

14 
28 


71722.016

covered in the analysis. Over the eight-year period that is common to both analyses 

(2012 to 2019), the net cost of the coverage provisions estimated in March 2011 

($794 billion) is 2 percent higher than the March 2010 estimate ($778 billion) (see 

Figure 2 on page 5). For those years, the current estimate is 8 percent higher than the 

February 2011 estimate ($733 billion), bur that projection was 6 percent lower than 

the March 2010 estimate. 

Effects on Discretionary Spending 

Implementing PPACA and the Reconciliation Act will affect not only direct spending 

and revenues but also annual spending subject to furure appropriation actions. Those 

effects on disctetionary spending arise from provisions of the legislation that affect a 

variety of federal programs and agencies. The legislation establishes a number of new 

programs and activities, and it authorizes new funding for existing programs. By its 

nature, however, discretionary spending is subject to future acts of the Congress 

through the annual appropriation process; that process could lead to greater or smaller 

costs than the sums authorized by PPACA. 12 

The discretionary costs associated with last March's legislation fall into two broad 

categories: 

• The costs that will be incurred by federal agencies to implement the new policies 

established by the legislation, such as administrative expenses for the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services in carrying out 

key requirements of the legislation, and 

• Explicit authorizations for spending by a variety of grant and other programs; in 

many cases, specified funding levels for one or more years are provided in the legislation, although in other cases, the legislative language authorizes the appropriation 

of "such sums as necessary." 

CBO estimated that costs to the IRS of implementing the eligibility determination, 

documentation, and verification processes for premium and cost-sharing credits 

would probably total between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years. In addition, 

CBO estimated that HHS would require similar amounts over 10 years to implement 

the changes in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. 

] 2. In addition to such spending that is subject to appropriations, PPACA and the Reconciliation Act 

created a number of new programs or requirements for which the legislation provided direct appropriations. Those amounts that were appropriated by the legislation are included in CBO's estimate 

of direct spending (as disCllssed previously). 

15 
29 


71722.017

CBO estimated that the provisions authorizing the appropriation of specific amounts, 

if fully funded by future laws, would result in appropriations of $1 06 billion over the 

2010-2019 period. I) Updating those estimates for the 2012-2021 period would 

result in authorizations of just under $100 billion. I4 Most of those authorizationsamounting to about $85 billion-were for activities that were already being carried 

out under prior law or that were previously authorized and that PPACA authorized 

for future years; for example, that amount includes an estimated $39 billion for ongoing activities of the Indian Health Service and $34 billion for continued grants ro federally qualified health centers. I 5 

The estimates discussed above are not included in CBO's estimate of direct spending 

under PPACA and the Reconciliation Act or in the effects of that legislation on deficits (as discussed earlier in this testimony) because the newly authorized funding is 

subject to future appropriation actions. The budgetary costs for carrying out those 

authorizations will be counted at the time and to the extent that the authorized 

amounts are appropriated, as is the case for all discretionary funding authorized and 

then ultimately appropriated by the Congress. 

Effects on Insurance Coverage 

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act included numerous provisions that will affect 

insurance coverage, including the following: 

• The requirement that nearly all legal U.S. residents obtain health insurance; 

• The establishment of health insurance exchanges and the provision of subsidies for 

certain individuals and families who purchase coverage through the exchanges; 

• The requirements that insurers accept all applicants, not limit coverage for preexisting medical conditions, and not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees' 

health; 

• The requirement that insurers extend coverage for dependent children up to 

age 26; 

13. CBO has not estimated the amount of appropriations required to implement activities for which 

PPACA authorized the appropriation of "such sums as necessary." 

14. The estimate of authorizations of specific amounts is lower for the 2012-2021 period than for the 

2010-2019 period because it excludes the amounts authorized for 2010 or 2011 and because, in 

most cases, the authorization period expires before 2020. 

15. For more information, see Congressional Budget Office, !crrer ro the Honorable Jerry Lewis abour 

potential effects of the Patient Protection ,1l1d }\ftcHdablc Care Act all discretionary spending (May 

11,2010); and "Additional Information about the Potential Discretionary Costs oflmplcl11enring 

PPACA" (May 12, 2010). 

16 
30 


71722.018

• The expansion of Medicaid coverage to include most nonelderly people with 

income below 138 percent of the federal poverty level;!6 

• The penalties on certain employers if any of their workers obtain subsidized coverage through the exchanges; 

• The tax credits for small employers that offer health insurance; and 

• The excise tax on insurance policies with relatively high premiums. 

Changes in Insurance Coverage and Federal Budgetary Flows 

According ro CBO and JCT's most recent estimates, PPACA and the Reconciliation 

Act will increase the number of nonelderly Americans with health insurance by about 

32 million in 2016 and about 34 million in 2021 (see Table 3). The share oflegal 

nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2021 will be about 95 percent, compared with a projected share of about 82 percent in the absence of that legislation (and 

an estimated 83 percent currently). About 23 million nonelderly residents will remain 

uninsured; about one-third of that group will be unauthorized immigrants, who are 

not eligible to participate in Medicaid or the insurance exchanges; another quarter 

will be eligible for Medicaid but are not expected ro enroll; and the remaining fraction 

will include individuals who are ineligible for subsidies, are exempt from the mandate 

to obtain insurance, choose to not comply with the mandate (and take the risk of paying a penalty), or have some combination of those characteristics. 

That projected increase of 34 million in the number of insured people in 2021 reflects 

a number of differences relative to circumstances in the absence of PPACA and the 

Reconciliation Act. Approximately 24 million people will purchase their own coverage through insurance exchanges, and Medicaid and CHIP will have roughly 17 million additional enrollees. Pardy offsetting those increases will be net reductions, relative to the number projected under prior law, of about 6 million people purchasing 

individual coverage directly from insurers and about 1 million people obtaining coverage through their employer.!7 

CBO and JCT estimate that PPACA and the provisions of the Reconciliation Act 

affecting health insurance coverage will result in a net increase in federal deficits 

of $1,131 billion over fiscal years 2012 through 2021. That estimate includes a 

16. The legislation established the eligibility threshold for Medicaid at ! 33 percent of the federal poverty level, but 5 percent of applicants' income is disregarded, raising the effective threshold to 

138 percen t ofrhe federal poverty level. 

17. Under the legislation, certain employers can allow all of their workers ro choose among rhe plans 

available in rhe exchanges, but rhose enrollees will not be eligible to receive subsidies via the 

exchanges (and thus are shown in 1able 3 as entollees in employment-based coverage rather than as 

enrollees in plans purchased via the exchanges). Nearly 4 million people arc projected ro obtain 

coverage in that way in 2021, bringing the total number of people enrolled in exchange plans ro 

about 28 million in that year. 

17 
31 


71722.019

Table 3. 

Estimated Effects of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act on 

Insurance Coverage 

(Millions of nonelderly people, by calendar year) 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 

Effects on Insurance Coverage, by Source 

Coverage Under Prior Law' 

Medicaid and CHIP 37 37 37 36 35 35 35 35 35 36 35 

Employer 152 154 157 159 161 163 163 163 163 163 162 

N ongroup and otherb 25 25 25 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 30 

Uninsured' 55 55 54 54 53 53 54 54 55 56 57 

Total 269 271 272 274 276 277 279 281 282 284 285 

Increase or Decrease (-) in Coverage 

Medicaid and CHIP 12 16 16 16 16 16 17 

Employer 3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 

Nongroup and otherb -3 -4 -5 -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 

Exchanges 9 14 22 23 23 24 24 24 

Uninsured' -3 -3 -3 -21 -26 -32 -33 -33 -33 -34 -34 

Uninsured and Insured Populations Under Current Law 

Nonelderly Uninsured People' 52 51 51 32 27 21 20 21 22 23 23 

Insured People as a Percentage of the 

Nonelderly Population 

All U.S. residents 81 81 81 88 90 93 93 92 92 92 92 

U.S. residents except 

unauthorized immigrants 83 83 83 90 93 95 95 95 95 95 95 

,-------------------------------------------------- Continued 

$627 billion increase in net federal outlays for Medicaid and CHIP and $777 billion 

in exchange subsidies and related spending_ In addition, the tax credit for certain 

small employers who offer health insurance is estimated to cost $41 billion over 

10 years. Those costs will be pardy offset by higher revenues or lower costs, totaling 

about $314 billion over the 10-year budget window, from four sources: an increase in 

net revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, totaling $87 billion; penalty payments by uninsured individuals, increasing revenues by $34 billion; 

penalty payments by employers, increasing revenues by $8] billion; and other budgetary effects, mostly on tax revenues, associated with shifts in the mix of taxable and 

nontaxable compensation resulting from changes in employment-based health insurance coverage, which will decrease deficits by $113 billion. IS 

18. Changes in the extent of employment-based health insurance affect federal revenues because most 

payments for rhat coverage are tax-preferred. If employers increase or decrease the amount of compensation they provide in the form ofhealrh insurance (relative to prior-law projections), CBO and 

JCT assume that offsetting changes will occur in wages and other forms of compensation-which 

are generally taxable-to hold IOtal compensation roughly the same. Such effects also arise for specific elements of the legislation (such as the tax credits for small employers); those effects are 

included within the estimates for those elements. 

18 
32 


71722.020

(Millions of nonelderly people, by calendar year) 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 

Memorandum: 

Exchange Enrollees and Subsidies 

Number with unaffordable offer 

from employer' 

Number of unsubsidized exchange 

enrollees 

* 1 

1 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Average exchange subsidy per 

subsid~ed enrollee (Dollars) 4,610 5,320 5,450 5,630 6,120 6,460 6,740 7,080 

Sources: Congressional Budget Office; staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. 

Notes: These estimates were produced using CBO's March 2011 baseline projections of federal 

revenues and outlays. 

Figures for the non elderly population include only residents of the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia. 

PPACA = Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Reconciliation Act = Health Care and 

Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; CHIP = Children's Health Insurance Program; 

* = between -500,000 and 500,000 people. 

a. Numbers reflect average annua(enrollment; people reporting multiple sources of coverage were 

assigned a primary source. To illustrate the effects of the 2010 health care legislation, which is 

now current law, changes in coverage are shown relative to coverage projections in the absence 

of that legislation, or under "prior law." 

b. Other coverage includes Medicare. The effects of the proposal are almost entirely on nongroup 

coverage. 

c. The count of uninsured people includes unauthorized immigrants and people who are eligible 

for, but not enrolled in, Medicaid. 

d. Workers who would have to pay more than a specified share of their income (9.5 percent in 

2014) for employment-based coverage could receive subsidies through an exchange. 

Effects on Employment-Based Insurance 

On balance, the number of people obtaining coverage through their employer will be 

about 1 million lower in 2019 through 2021 under PPACA and the Reconciliation 

Act than under prior law, CEO and JCT estimate. The net change in employmentbased coverage under that legislation will be the result of several flows, which can be 

illustrated using the estimates for 2019: 

• About 6 million to 7 million people who would have had an offer of employmentbased coverage under prior law will not have an offer under current law. That estimate represents about 4 percent of the roughly 160 million people projected to 

have employment-based coverage. The businesses that choose to not offer coverage 

as a result of last year's legislation will tend to be smaller em ployers and employers 

with predominantly lower-wage workers-people who will be eligible for Medicaid 

or subsidies through the exchanges-although some workers who will not have 

19 
33 


71722.021

employment-based coverage because of the legislation will not be eligible for such 

subsidies. Whether those changes in coverage will derive from existing coverage 

that is dropped or a lack of new offers of coverage is difficult ro determine. 

• Another 1 million to 2 million people will have an offer of employment-based cov 

erage but will be covered via the exchanges instead. Under the legislation, workers 

with an offer of employment-based coverage will generally be ineligible for 

exchange subsidies, but that "firewall" will presumably be enforced imperfectly, 

and an explicit exception to it will be made for workers whose offer of employment-based coverage is deemed unaffordable. 

• About 7 million to 8 million people not covered by an employment-based plan 

under prior law will have that coverage under PPACA. That estimate reflects the 

combined impact of the insurance mandate, the penalties for employers, and the 

tax credits for small employers-which will lead some employers who would not 

have offered coverage before to the passage ofPPACA to offer it and will lead some 

people to take up existing offers. 

Some commentators have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT do not expect a 

much larger reduction in employment-based insurance coverage owing to PPACA 

and the Reconciliation Act, in light of the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid and 

the subsidies for individual insurance coverage created by that legislation. However, 

the legislation leaves in place substantial financial advantages for many people ro 

receive insurance coverage through their employers, and it provides some new incentives for employers to offer insurance coverage ro their employees. The key considerations include these: 

• Although workers with low family income whose employers do not offer health 

insurance will be eligible for coverage through Medicaid or for significant subsidies 

through the insurance exchanges, middle-income workers will not be eligible for 

Medicaid and will be eligible for more moderate subsidies through the exchanges, 

and high-income workers will not be eligible for any subsidies. Most large firmswhich are the predominant source of health insurance now-have a mix of higherincome and lower-income workers, so not all of their employees would be eligible 

for exchange subsidies if those employers decided not to offer coverage. Furthermore, nondiscrimination provisions in the Internal Revenue Code discourage firms 

from offering health insurance benefits ro more highly paid employees while not 

offering them to lower-paid employees. 

• Employment-based insurance receives a significant subsidy through the tax exclusion for employer-paid premiums, which will provide a continuing incentive for 

employers to offer coverage (even after high-premium plans face an excise tax 

beginning in 2018). The value of the tax exclusion for workers who obtain health 

insurance through their employer is usually proportional to their combined tax 

rates for payroll taxes and for federal and state income taxes-which usually do not 

20 
34 


71722.022

apply to the employer's contribution to the insurance premiums or to the 

employee's contribution. For higher-income workers, that tax subsidy typically 

amounts to 25 percent or more of the premiums. The subsidy will not be available 

to workers whose employers drop coverage and who end up purchasing insurance 

through an exchange. 

• The administrative COSts involved in operating and managing health insurance 

plans will be higher in the exchanges than they will be for large employers, principally because administering plans (including handling enrollment and the payment 

of premiums) for many individual policyholders is more expensive than administering them for a single employer. That advantage for employers will encourage 

employees to continue seeking employment-based coverage and thus will encourage employers to keep offering it. 

• The mandate and penalties for individuals will lead more workers to want health 

insurance coverage. Because employers design benefit packages to appeal to their 

current and potential workers, that increased demand for health insurance will 

tend to boost the number of employers that offer insurance and the number of 

workers who obtain it. 

• PPACA and the Reconciliation Act applied both stick> and carrots to employers to 

encourage them to offer insurance to their employees. Firms with more than 50 

employees that do not offer insurance and have at least one employee who receives 

an exchange subsidy are subject to a penalty of up to $2,000 per full-time worker 

(beyond the first 30 such workers). Firms with fewer than 25 employees and with 

average annual wages ofless than $50,000 may be eligible for a tax subsidy that 

covers a percentage of the premiums. Before 2014, for the smallest and lowest-wage 

firms, the credit covers up to 35 percent of the employer's payments for premiums; 

for 2014 and later, the credit will cover up to 50 percent of the employer's payments but only for two years. 

• Employers who drop coverage and leave their employees to purchase insurance on 

their own will generally have to raise their cash compensation to compete with 

employers who continue to offer health insurance. Some evidence of such substitution has been found in studies that examine the wages of workers with differing 

job-related insurance benefits. Further evidence of such subsriturion can be seen at 

the aggregate level, where the share of national income devoted to compensation 

has been fairly steady during the past few decades, as rising costs of health benefits 

have been offset by slower growth of wages and salaries. 

Other analysts who have carefully modeled the nation's existing health insurance system and the changes in incentives for employers to offer insurance coverage created by 

last year's legislation have reached conclusions similar to those of CBO and JCT. The 

Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concluded 

that, on net, about 1 million fewer people would have employment-based coverage 

21 
35 


71722.023

under PPACA in 2019. 19 Analysts at the Urban Institute estimated that such coverage 

would have diminished by about half a million people, on net, if the legislation had 

been fully implemented in 2010. 20 Analysts at the Lewin Group predicted a net 

reduction in employment-based coverage of about 3 million people, assuming full 

implementation in 2011. 21 Other analysts have concluded that employment-based 

coverage might increase: Analysts at RAND estimated that the number of workers 

offered, although not necessarily enrolled in, employment-based coverage would 

increase, on net, by about 14 million when the health care legislation was fully 

phased in. 22 

There is clearly a tremendous amount of uncertainty about how employers and 

employees will respond to PPACA and the Reconciliation Act, and there is little direct 

evidence on the issue up to now. Models of the insurance system are based on 

observed differences in behavior in response to more modest changes in incentives, 

but last year's legislation is much more sweeping in its nature. 

Recent surveys of employers regarding their plans for offering health insurance coverage after Medicaid has been expanded and insurance exchanges are in place are 

broadly consistent with CBO and JCT's analysis. However, those surveys probably do 

not convey much real information at this point, because firms do not know very 

much yet about how last year's legislation will affect the market for health insutance. 

For example, firms have not experienced the added demand for coverage from their 

workers who will be subject to the insurance mandate, and very little evidence exists 

about how the insurance exchanges will operate. 

Effects on Medicaid and CHIP Coverage 

CBO and JCT estimate that rhe coverage provisions ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act will increase the number of Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries by about 

19. Richard S. Foster, Estimated Financial ETfocts of the "Patient Protecti"n and Affordable Care Act, " as 

Amended (Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, April 22, 2010), www.cms.gov/ActuariaIStudiesIDownloadsl 

PPACA .. 2010-04-22.pdf. 

20. Matthew Buettgens, Bowen Garrett, and John Holahan, America Under the Affordable L(ue Act 

(Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, December 2010), www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412267-

america-under-aca.pdf. 

21. The Lewin Group, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA): Long Tenn Costs for GOllernments, Employers, Famifies and Providers, Staff Working Paper No. 11 (Falls Church, Va,: The Lewin 

Group, June 201 0), www.lewin.com/coment/publications/LewinGroupAnalysisPatientProtectionandAffordabieCareAct20 10, pdf, 

22, Christine Eibner, Peter 5, Hussey, and Federico Girosi, "The Effects of the Affordable Care Act on 

Workers' Health Insurance Coverage," New England Joul'I1al of Medicine, voL 363, no, 15 (2010), 

p, 1394. RAND analysts also estimated that the Senate-passed bill (H.R. 3590) would increase 

employment-hased coverage, on net, by about 6 million people in 2019. See Jeanne S. Ringel and 

others, Analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR. 3590) (Washington, D.C: 

RAND Corporation, February 2010), www.rand,orglconrenr!dam!randipubslrcsearch_hrids! 

2010IRAND_RIl9514,pdf 

22 
36 


71722.024

17 million in 2021 and will increase federal spending for those programs by $627 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 2 on page 14). Those estimates reflect the 

following provisions of the legislation: 

• PPACA and the Reconciliation Act expand eligibility for Medicaid to nearly all 

legal residents of the country with income below 138 percent of the federal poverty 

level. 

• The legislation provides that the federal government pay a substantially higher 

share of Medicaid costs for newly eligible enrollees than it will pay for previously 

eligible enrollees. The matching rates for newly eligible enrollees will be 100 percent from 2014 through 2016 and will then decline to 95 percent in 2017, 94 percent in 2018, 93 percent in 2019, and 90 percent thereafter. 2

} 

• The legislation requires nearly all individuals to have health insurance coverage, 

and if they do not comply, it generally imposes penalties. 24 CBO and JCT expect 

that the mandate and its associated penalties will increase Medicaid enrollmenr 

among both those who will become newly eligible for the program under the 

legislation and those who were eligible before the legislation. 

• PPACA and the Reconciliation Act establish maintenance-of-effort requirements 

for states as a condition of receiving federal Medicaid funding. Those requirements 

prohibit states from establishing, for certain periods of time, eligibility standards, 

methodologies, or procedures that are more restrictive than those in effect when 

the legislation was passed. Specifically, states are required to maintain such effort 

for adults though 2013 and for children through 2019. CBO expects that, after 

2013, nearly all states will eliminate Medicaid coverage for adults with income 

above 138 percent of poverty. Similarly, CBO expects that, after 2019, about half 

of the states will cease participating in CHII~ while the remaining states will reduce 

eligibility levels for CHIP. Adults and children no longer eligible for Medicaid and 

CHIP will become eligible for subsidies in the insurance exchanges to the extent 

that they meet other applicable eligibility requirements. 

• The legislation establishes streamlined eligibility determinations for Medicaid and 

subsidies through the insurance exchanges. Under that policy, people who apply 

for coverage through a health insurance exchange but are found to be eligible for 

Medicaid are to be enrolled in that program. Similarly, people who apply for Medicaid bur whose income would qualifY them for subsidies through the exchanges 

are to be enrolled for those subsidies. 

23. The average federal share for currenr enrollees is about 57 percent. Starting in 2014, the average 

federal share, taking into account the rate for people newly eligible under PPACA"s provisions, will 

range between 60 percent and 62 percent, depending on the year. 

24. The penalties apply to all people with income above the threshold at which filing a federal tax 

rerum is required, which, depending on the filing status of the household, is about 80 percent to 

90 percent of rhe federal poverty level. 

23 
37 


71722.025

Relative to the situation under prior law, the coverage provisions of PPACA and the 

Reconciliation Act are estimated to increase state governments' outlays for Medicaid 

by about $60 billion over the 2012-2021 period. That estimate reflects the flexibility 

states have to defray some of the additional costs associated with that legislation by 

making programmatic changes to Medicaid and CHIP. The costs accruing to the 

states from the legislation are greatest in the later years of the I O-year projection 

period because the federal share of Medicaid costs for newly eligible enrollees will 

decline from 100 percent between 2014 and 2016 to 90 percent after 2019. 

By comparison, last March CBO estimated that the coverage provisions of PPACA 

and the Reconciliation Act would increase state spending for Medicaid by $20 billion 

over the 2010-2019 period. The difference between those two estimates mostly 

reflects the different time periods they cover. 

In addition to the coverage provisions discussed here, other provisions ofPPACA and 

the Reconciliation Act will also affect states' costs for Medicaid. The legislation 

reduced federal allotments for hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of lowincome individuals, altered Medicaid prescription drug policies, changed communitybased long-term care benefits, and made other changes that might affect states' Medicaid spending as well. CBO has not estimated the effects of those provisions on states' 

outlays for Medicaid. 

Additional Effects on Spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and 

Other Programs 

Many of the provisions ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act apart from those related 

to insurance coverage will affect spending under Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. That legislation made numerous changes ro payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term 

care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports 

(CLASS) provisions, and made other changes to federal health programs. 

In February 2011, CBO and JCT estimated that repealing the provisions ofPPACA 

and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act that were not related to 

insurance coverage would produce a net increase in direct spending of $732 billion 

over the 2012-2021 period. Reversing the sign of that estimate provides an approximation of the impact of enacting those provisions over that period. Therefore, CBO 

and J CT effectively estimated in February that enacting the provisions of PPACA and 

the Reconciliation Act unrelated to insurance coverage will produce a net decrease in 

direct spending of $732 billion over the 2012-2021 period. 

A few provisions of the legislation account for most of those projected savings: 

changes to Medicare's payment rates in the fee-for-service sector and to Medicare 

Advantage plans; reductions in Medicaid and Medicare payments to "disproportionate share hospitals" (hospitals that treat a disproportionate number oflow-income 

people); and establishment of a long-term care insurance program (the CLASS Act). 

24 
38 


71722.026

The estimated savings also reflect numerous other provisions of the legislation rhat 

CBO estimates will have more modest budgetary effects within the 10-year projection 

period. Some of rhose provisions, however, could have significant effects on the healrh 

care delivery system and on Medicare spending in the long run. Finally, the net savings of $732 billion includes the additional spending generated by other provisions of 

the legislation, such as an expansion of Part D benefirs and rhe appropriation of funds 

for a number of new or expanded activities. 

Changes to Payment Rates in Medicare 

In February 2011, CBO estimated that the permanent reductions in rhe annual 

updates ro Medicare's payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector 

(other than physicians' services) and the new mechanism for setting payment rates in 

the Medicare Advantage program will reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion during 

the 2012-2021 period. That figure excludes interactioIlS between rhose provisions 

and others-namely, the effects of the changes in the fee-for-service portion of Medicare on payments to Medicare Advantage plans and the effects of changes in both the 

fee-for-service portion of the program and in the Medicare Advantage program on 

collectioIlS of premiums for Part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance). 

The estimated savings ftom those changes in payment rates are quite close to the savings that CBO estimated originally, for the overlapping period of2012 through 2019. 

For rhat period, the estimated gross savings for the fee-for-service updares and the 

Medicare Advantage provisions-taking into account interactioIlS between spending 

in the fee-for-service sector and payments to Medicare Advantage plans bur not rhe 

effecrs on collections of Part B premiums-was $399 billion in rhe original estimate 

in March 2010 and $400 billion on rhe basis ofCBO's updated estimate in February 

2011. 

By CBO's estimares, enrollment in the Medicare Advantage program in 2017 and 

later years will be about 60 percent of rhe enrollment that would have occurred in the 

absence ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act. 

Disproportionate Share Hospitals 

Both Medicare and Medicaid provide additional payments to hospirals that serve a 

disproportionate number oflow-income patients. PPACA and the Reconciliation Act 

modified the formulas used to calculate such payments under Medicare and the starespecific allotments that determine such payments under Medicaid. On the basis of 

CBO's February 2011 estimate, last year's legislation is projected to reduce direct 

spending for Medicare's and Medicaid's payments to disproportionate share hospitals 

by $57 billion over the 2012-2021 period. 

The CLASS Act 

CBO's February 2011 analysis indicates that implementation of the long-term care 

insurance program established by the CLASS Act will reduce federal deficits by 

$86 billion over the 2012-2021 period. Under those provisions, active workers will 

25 
39 


71722.027

be able to purchase long-term care insurance, usually through their employer. Premiums will be set to cover the full cost of the program as measured on an actuarial basis. 

CBO projects that the program's cash flows excluding interest earned on income from 

premiums will show net receipts for a number of years, followed by net outlays in sub· 

sequent decades. In particular, the program will payout far less in benefits than it will 

receive in premiums over the 2012-2021 period. In CBO's March 2011 baseline, the 

estimated 10-year reduction in federal deficits owing to the Class Act is reduced to 

$83 billion. 

Other Provisions with Significant Programmatic or Budgetary Effects 

The provisions described above account for about $650 billion of the $732 billion in 

net savings over the 2012-2021 period stemming from the provisions of PPACA and 

the Reconciliation Act unrelated to insurance coverage. Numerous other provisions 

and interactions among provisions account for the remaining $82 billion in net savings. Many of those provisions will reduce spending, whereas others will increase it. 

The provisions that will reduce spending make a variety of changes to prior law, 

including establishing a mechanism to reduce the growth rate of Medicare spending if 

projected growth exceeds a given target, initiating a number of programs intended to 

modifY the health care delivery system, and adjusting payments for prescription drugs 

in Medicaid. Most of the provisions that will increase spending establish new benefits 

or expand existing ones in Medicare and Medicaid; increase payment rates for some 

providers; or provide funding for grant, research, and other programs. 

PPACA created the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which has the 

obligation to reduce Medicare spending relative to what would otherwise occur if the 

rate of growth in spending per beneficiary is projected to exceed a target rate that is 

based on inflation (for 2015 through 2019) or growth in the economy (for 2020 and 

subsequent years). In its February 2011 estimate, CBO concluded that the rate of 

increase in spending would probably exceed the target rate in some years, and that the 

IPAB, therefore, would have to intervene to reduce the growth of Medicare spending. 

CBO estimated that those actions would result in $14 billion in savings over the 

2012-2021 period. In CBO's March 2011 baseline, by contrast, the rate of growth in 

Medicare spending per beneficiary is projected to remain below the levels at which the 

IPAB will be required to intervene to reduce Medicare spending. As a result of that 

reduction in projected Medicare spending, CBO's March baseline does not include 

any savings from actions by the IPAB. 

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act include numerous provisions intended to identifY 

opportunities and create incentives for providers to make changes to the health care 

delivery system that will reduce costs and improve the quality of care. Those provisions involve a wide variety of approaches, some making relatively specific changes 

and others establishing a process to develop information that could guide decisions 

on future changes. The more specific provisions include establishing payment incentives to report measures of the quality of care, creating paymem incentives to lower 

costs and improve quality by establishing a shared-savings (or accountable care 

26 
40 


71722.028

organization) program, bundling payments for different aspects of care for a single 

medical event or condition, and imposing payment penalties for readmissions or medical conditions acquired in the process of receiving health care. By contrast, provisions 

rhat seek to develop information that could inform future decisions about the delivery 

of health care include activities designed to improve how the quality of health care is 

measured, the expansion of research on outcomes of medical care, and the development of a mechanism to test innovations and to implement those that reduce costs 

and improve quality. In CBO's estimation, many of those initiatives will reduce 

spending to some extent-generally either by changing providers' behavior directly or 

by identif)'ing interventions that will result in changes in providers' behavior. 

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act will reduce Medicaid spending for prescription 

drugs, compared with the level under prior law, as a result of provisions that increase 

rebates paid by manufacrurers of prescription drugs and make other changes to drug 

reimbursement policy. 

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act will also increase spending, relative to the level 

under prior law, for several programs. In Medicare, the legislation will increase spending for the Part D drug benefit by gradually reducing the coverage gap (sometimes 

known as the doughnut hole) for people whose spending exceeds the initial coverage 

level. In Medicaid, spending for benefits will increase as a result of provisions that created new options for states to provide community-based long-term care services and 

temporarily raised payments for certain primary care providers. In addition, the legislation provided mandatory funding for a number of grant, research, and other programs, including funding for a Prevention and Public Health Fund and grants for 

programs providing home visits for mothers and young children. 

Impact on the Federal Budget Beyond the First Decade 

CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the la-year projection period. 

Over a longer time span, a wide range of changes could occur-in people's health, in 

the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical 

care-that are very difficult to predict but that could have a significant effect on federal health care spending, both under current law and under the law before the passage ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act. Nonetheless, certain Congressional rules 

require some information about the budgetary impact oflegislation in subsequent 

decades, and many Members have requested analyses of the long-term budgetary 

impact of proposed broad changes in the health care and health insurance systems. 

Estimates of Long-Term Budgetary Effects 

CBO andJCT assessed the budgetary effects ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act in 

the decade following the la-year projection period by grouping the elements of that 

legislation into broad categories and assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact 

of each of those broad categories would increase over time. On the basis of its February 2011 analysis, CBO projected that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act would 

27 
41 


71722.029

reduce federal budget deficits during the 2022-2031 period by an amount that is in a 

broad range around one-half percent of GDp, assuming that all provisions of the legislation were fully implemented. The imprecision of that estimate reflects the greater 

degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO's year-by-year dollar estimates for the regular 10-year projection period. That estimate has not been updated 

since the February analysis. 

CBO has not extrapolated those estimates farther into the future. Federal spending 

and revenues under the legislation depend crucially on the evolution of the health care 

and health insurance systems-systems that were already undergoing rapid change 

before the passage ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act and that the legislation 

would alter in myriad ways. Moreover, the legislation has significant conflicting implications for deficits: On the one hand, it will substantially expand eligibility for Medicaid and provide subsidies through insurance exchanges; on the other hand, the legislation will raise additional revenues and significantly decrease Medicare outlays, largely 

by reducing payment rates for many types of health care providers relative to the rates 

that would have been paid under prior law but also by making other specific changes 

in the program and establishing a mechanism designed to control the growth of the 

program's costs. As a result of those conflicting forces, fairly small errors in projecting 

the effects of some provisions that will increase or decrease deficits could produce 

notable errors in projecting the net impact of the legislation. 

Consequently, CBO does not believe that it has a sufficient analytic basis for evaluating the effects of the legislation on the growth rate of spending over the very long run. 

However, in view of the projected budgetary effects between 2022 and 2031, CBO 

anticipates that in subsequent decades PPACA and the Reconciliation Act will probably continue to decrease budget deficits relative to those that would have occurred 

under prior law. 

Key Considerations in Evaluating Long-Tenn Budgetary Effects 

The calculations oflonger-term effects are based on the assumption that the provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act will remain unchanged throughout the 

next two decades. However, those laws put into effect a number of policies that may 

be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. 

Specifically, last year's legislation restrains the rate of increase in payment rates for 

many providers of Medicare services to less than the expected rate of increase in the 

cost of the providers' inputs, in expectation of ongoing productivity improvements in 

the delivery of health care. If providers do not improve their productivity sufficiently 

rapidly to offset the red uctions in payment rates, those rates will fall over time relative 

ro the cost of providing services. By holding the rate of increase in payment rates 

below what would have prevailed under prior law, PPACA will generate savings that 

are projected to increase considerably during the next 10 years and in the decade 

beyond that. However, it is unclear the extent to which providers will achieve greater 

efficiencies in the delivery of health care and the extent to which cost pressures will 

28 
42 


71722.030

instead reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care (relative to the situation 

under prior law) outcomes that might increase pressute on the Congress to increase 

payments to providers. It is also unclear whether and how the Congress would 

respond to such pressure if it arose and what effects the response would have on total 

federal health care spending, revenues, and deficits. 

Last year's legislation will restrain the increases in Medicare payment rates for many 

providers other than physicians. At the same time, the so-called sustainable growth 

rate mechanism-which has been in effect since 1997-is projected to cause Medicare's payment rates for physicians' services to be reduced sharply during the next few 

years. That mechanism has frequently been modified (either through legislation or 

administrative action) to avoid an abrupt and large reduction in those payment rates 

that might have reduced Medicare beneficiaries' access to physicians' services. 

On the basis of the cuts in payment rates under PPACA and the Reconciliation Act, 

along with the effects of the sustainable growth rate mechanism, CBO projects that 

Medicare spending per beneficiary (adjusted for inflation) will increase at an average 

annual rate ofless than 2 percent during the next two decades-compared with the 

rate of roughly 4 percent that has occurred over the past two decades (a figure that 

excludes the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). 

Another provision that may be difficult to sustain will slow the growth of federal subsidies for health insurance purchased through the insurance exchanges. For enrollees 

who receive subsidies, the amounr they will have to pay depends primarily on a formula that determines what share of their income they have to contribute to enroll in a 

relatively low cost plan (with the subsidy covering the difference between that contribution and the total premiums for that plan). Initially, the percentages of income that 

enrollees must pay are indexed so that the subsidies will cover roughly the same share 

of the total premiums over time. After 2018, however, an additional indexing factor 

will probably apply; if so, the shares of income that enrollees have to pay will increase 

more rapidly, and the shares of the premiums that the subsidies cover will decline. 25 

Whether a widening gap between subsidies and premiums will increase pressure on 

the Congress to adjust the subsidy schedule and how the Congress might respond are 

uncertain. 

If those provisions and others will subsequently be modified or implemented incompletely without offsetting changes in federal policies, then the effects that PPACA and 

the Reconciliation Act have on federal spending, revenues, and deficits could be quite 

different from the ones that CBO estimated. However, CBO does not forecast future 

changes in law or assume such changes in its estimates of the budgetary effects of 

legislation. 

25. Beginning in 2019, enrollees will pay a higher percentage of income ro enroll in a given plan if the 

total cost of exchange subsidies in the prior year exceeded 0.504 percent of CDP. Although it is 

uncertain when that threshold will be reached, CBO projects that it will become increasingly likely 

to be reached over rime because rhe exchange subsidies are projected to grow faster rhan CDP. 

29 
43 


71722.031

Other Effects of the Legislation 

CBO has also analyzed the legislation's impact on the "federal budgetary commitment 

to health care," a term that CBO uses to describe the sum of net federal outlays for 

health ptograms and tax preferences for health care; on health insurance premiums; 

and on labor markets. 26 

Effect on the Federal Budgetary Conunitment to Health Care 

In its February 2011 estimate for repealing PPACA and the Reconciliation Act, CBO 

in effect ptojected that the legislation would increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care by $464 billion over the 2012-2021 period.27 That increase is 

driven primarily by the federal cost of expanding insurance coverage, which will be 

partly offset by other factors such as the decrease in other federal health care spending 

(primarily for Medicare) and the imposition of the excise tax on insurance policies 

with relatively high premiums. 

However, CBO estimated that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act would decrease the 

federal budgetary commitment to health care in the decade following the lO-year projection period. The estimated effect in later years differs from the effect in the first 

decade because the effects of those provisions that will tend to reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care (such as the reduction in Medicare spending and 

the imposition of the high-premium excise tax) were estimated to grow faster than the 

effects of provisions that will tend to increase it (primarily the coverage expansions). 

As with the longer-term estimate of overall budgetary effects, that projection incorporated an assumption that the ptovisions of the legislation will be fully implemented. 

Effect on Health Insurance Premiums 

Members have also requested information about the effects of the legislation on health 

insurance premiums. On November 30,2009, CBO released an analysis, prepared 

with JCT, of the impact ofPPACA as it was originally proposed on average premiums 

for health insurance in different markets. 28 Although CBO andJCT have not updated 

the estimates provided in that letter, the estimated effects ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act as enacted would probably be quite similar. 

In particular, premiums for health insurance in the individual market will be somewhat higher on average under PPACA and the Reconciliation Act than under prior 

law, mostly because the average insurance policy in that market will cover a larger 

26. For additional discussion of the term federal budgetary commitment to health care, see Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable Max Saums regarding different measures for analyzing 

proposals to reform health care (October 30, 2009). 

27. In Marcb 2010, CBO estimated that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act would increase the federal 

budgetary commitment to health care by $390 billion over the 2010-2019 period. 

28. See Congressional Budget omcc, letter to the Honorable Evan Bayh providing an analysis 

of health insurance premiums under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

(November 30, 2009). 

30 
44 


71722.032

share of enrollees' costs for health care and provide a slightly wider range of benefits. 

The effects of those differences will be offset in part by other factors that will tend to 

reduce premiums in the individual market; for example, insurers will incur lower 

administrative costs per policy, and enrollees will tend to be healthier (because the 

subsidies provided through the exchanges and the individual mandate to obtain insur 

ance are expected to result in an influx of enrollees with below-average spending for 

health care). Although premiums in the individual market are expected to be higher 

on average under PPACA and the Reconciliation Act than under prior law, many peo 

pIe will end up paying less for health insurance because the majority of enrollees purchasing coverage in that market will receive subsidies via the exchanges. 

Premiums for employment-based coverage obtained through large employers will be 

slightly lower on average under PPACA and the Reconciliation Act than under prior 

law, reflecting the net impact of many relatively small changes. Average premiums for 

employment-based coverage obtained through small employers may be slightly higher 

or slightly lower (reflecting uncertainty about the impact of the legislation on premiums in that market). 

Effect on Labor Markets 

The legislation will affect some individuals' decisions about whether and how much 

to work and employers' decisions abour hiring workers.29 According to CBO's August 

2010 analysis, the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount oflabor used in the 

economy by a small amount-roughly half a percent-primarily by reducing the 

amoun t of labor that workers choose to supply.30 That net effect reflects changes in 

incentives in the labor market that operate in both directions: Some provisions of the 

legislarion will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, 

and other provisions will encourage them to work more. Moreover, many people will 

be unaffected by those provisions and will face the same incenrives regarding work as 

they otherwise would have. 

Since the legislation will affect individuals' decisions on both whether to participate in 

rhe workforce and the number of hours rhey work, its effect on household employment is difficult to predict. According ro CBO's projections, if the legislation only 

affects the number of individuals who participate in the workforce (and not the average number of hours worked per employed person), it will reduce employment in 

2021 by about 800,000 relative to what would otherwise have occurred; however, 

because the legislation will probably affect the average number of hours worked as 

well, the effect on employment will be somewhat different. 

29. For a general discussion about the potential dTects ofhealrh care legislation on labor markets, see 

Congressional Budget Office, Ejfiyts arCh,lIIges to the HeaLth lnsurana Sl'Jtem 011 Labor /v[arketJ, 

Issue Brief Guly 13, 2009). 

30. See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and }-'conomic Outlook: An {Jpdatc (August 2010). 

31 
45 


71722.033

The net reduction in the supply of labor is largely attributable to the substantial 

expansion of Medicaid and the provision of subsidies that will reduce the cost of 

insurance obtained through the insurance exchanges. Those changes in law will effectively increase individuals' financial resources, which will encourage some people to 

work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market. In addition, the phaseout of 

the subsidies as income rises will effectively increase marginal tax rates, which will also 

discourage work. But because most workers who are offered insurance through their 

job will be ineligible for the subsidies and because most people will have income that 

is too high to be eligible for Medicaid, those effects on financial resources and marginal tax rates will apply to only a small segment of the population. 

Other provisions in the legislation are also likely to diminish people's incentives to 

work. Changes to the insurance market, including provisions that prohibit insurers 

from denying coverage to people because of preexisting conditions and that restrict 

how much premiums can vary with an individual's age or health status will increase 

the appeal that health insurance plans offered outside the workplace have for older 

workers. As a result, some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would. 

In contrast, another feature of the Medicaid expansion removes an existing disincentive to work for many low-income individuals. People currently become ineligible for 

Medicaid if their income rises above a certain level; for working parents, the median 

income threshold for eligibility among states was 64 percent of the federal poverty 

level in 2009. The health care legislation will allow parents to work and still qualify 

for Medicaid until their income exceeds 138 percent of the poverty level. Moreover, 

parents whose income exceeds the new threshold may be able to work and receive the 

subsidies for insurance purchased through the exchanges. 3

! 

Employers' decisions to hire workers will also be affected in some cases by the health 

care legislation. Employers with 50 or more employees will be required to pay a penalty if they do not offer insurance or if the insurance they offer does not meet certain 

criteria and at least one of their workers receives a subsidy from an exchange. Those 

penalties, whose amounts are based on the number of full-rime workers in the firm, 

will, over time, generally be passed on to workers through reductions in wages or 

other forms of compensation. However, firms generally can not reduce workers' wages 

below the minimum wage, which will probably cause some employers to respond by 

hiring fewer low-wage workers. Alternatively, because firms are penalized only if their 

full-time employees receive subsidies from exchanges, some firms may instead hire 

more part-time or seasonal employees. 

31. The wider availability of subsidies could also affect the employment decisions of people with disabilities. Disabled people whose income is below 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be 

able ro receive subsidized health care without leaving the work force and enrolling in such programs 

as Disability Insurance (01) or Supplemental Securiry Income (55!). As a result, some disabled 

workers who would otherwise be our of the work force might stay employed or seek employment; 

however, orher disabled workers mighr leave rhe work force earlier rhan they orherwise would 

because, unlike Dr, neirher Medicaid nor subsidies offered rhrough the exchanges will require people to wait before they can receive benefits. 

32 
46 


71722.034

More generally, the health care legislation may shape the labor market or the operations of other segments of the economy in ways that are difficult to anticipate or 

quantifY. For example, the legislation could influence labor markets indirectly by 

making it easier for some employees to obtain health insurance outside the workplace 

and thereby enabling workers to take jobs that better match their skills. Some firms, 

however, might invest less in their workers-by reducing training, for example-if the 

probability of retaining those workers declines. To the extent that changes in the 

health insurance system lead to better health among workers, the nation's economic 

productivity could be enhanced. It is not clear, however, whether such changes would 

have a substantial impact on overall economic productivity or ourput. Moreover, 

many of the effects of the legislation may not be felt for several years because it will 

take time for workers and employers ro recognize and ro adapt ro the new incentives. 

33 
47 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes Mr. 

Foster for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD FOSTER 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. Chairman Pitts, Representative Pallone, 

other distinguished subcommittee members, thank you for inviting 

me here today to testify about the financial impacts of the Affordable Care Act. 

The Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provides actuarial, economic, and other technical 

support and information to policymakers both in the Administration and in Congress. We do so on an independent, objective and 

nonpartisan basis, and we have performed this role throughout the 

last 45 years since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid. 

I am accompanied today by two folks, John Shatto, who is a fellow of the Society of Actuaries, and he is the director of our Medicare and Medicaid Cost Estimates Group sitting right behind me, 

and by Laming Kai, who is a Ph.D. in economics and is one of our 

senior economists. Both are members our health reform modeling 

team. 

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to appear with Doug 

Elmendorf. Now, I know you probably saw the press reports of a 

cage match or a possible fight between us or various humorous 

things like that but I am afraid the reality is far less dramatic. 

Doug and I and our staffs, we are all public servants and our goal 

is just to try to do the best job we can to provide valuable technical 

information for you all. That is all we are trying to do. I am not 

running for president. I suspect you are not either. And if nominated, I know what would happen with either one of us. 

Now, Doug has already talked about the overall impacts on expenditures and revenues under the Affordable Care Act so I won’t 

go over that same material. I will mention that we have estimated 

the impact of the Affordable Care Act on total national health expenditures from all sources, not just federal expenditures, not just 

for Medicaid or Medicare but everything, and that increase, Chairman Pitts, you quoted earlier. We estimated a net increase overall 

of about $311 billion through fiscal year 2019. There are substantial increases, of course, associated with the coverage expansions in 

the legislation through Medicaid and the exchange private health 

insurance but there are partially offsetting reductions in national 

health spending, principally because of the lower Medicare expenditures. And there would also be lower out-of-pocket costs for individuals because so many more of them would have health insurance coverage and for other reasons. 

I want to say just a couple words about concerns that I have had 

and have expressed with one important aspect of the Affordable 

Care Act, and that has to do with the annual payment updates 

under Medicare for most categories of providers. Specifically, these 

annual payment updates are based on the increase in a market 

basket of prices that providers have to pay to pay for wages or rent 

or energy costs or supplies, you name it. It is based on that increase in prices, input prices, minus the overall economywide increase in productivity, which is about 1.1 percent per year. Now, 

this adjustment, which is permanent, this will happen forever until 

48 

you all decide maybe it should be changed, but this adjustment will 

be a strong incentive for providers to economize, to get rid of any 

inefficiency, waste, et cetera, be as efficient as possible, but I believe it is doubtful that many health providers can improve their 

own productivity enough to match the level of economy-wide productivity. Now, if they can’t, then the consequences are that Medicare provider payment rates for most providers would grow about 

1.1 percent per year less than their input prices or their input 

costs, and unless they can improve their productivity to match, 

eventually they would become unable or unwilling to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries. Now, long before that would happen, 

I think Congress would step in and change the basis to prevent 

such access or quality problems, but if that happens, that means 

the Medicare savings we have estimated would be lower. Actual 

Medicare costs would be higher than any of our estimates. 

Let me finish by saying that I pledge the Office of the Actuary’s 

continuing assistance to you all and your colleagues and to the Administration as you work to continue to determine optimal solutions to the high cost of health care in the United States. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foster follows:] 

49 


71722.035

The Estimated Effect of the Affordahle Care Act on Medicare and Medicaid Outlays 

and Total National Health Care Expenditures 

Testimony before the 

House Energy and Commerce Committee, 

Subcommittee on Health 

March 30,2011 

by 

Richard S. Foster, F.S.A. 

Chief Actuary 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

Chairman Pitts, Representative Pallone, distinguished Subcommittee members, thank you for 

inviting me to testify today about the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 

as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 20 I 0, on the Medicare and 

Medicaid programs and on total health expenditures in the U.S. 

I would like to bcgin by saying a little about the role of the Office of the Actuary at the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We have the responsibility to provide actuarial, economic, 

and other technical assistance to policy makers in the Administration and Congress on an 

independent, objective, and nonpartisan basis. Our highest priority is to help ensure that policy 

makers have the most reliable technical information possible as they work to sustain and improve 

Medicare and Medicaid. The Office of the Actuary has performed this role on behalf of 

Congress and the Administration since the enactment of these programs over 45 years ago. We 

have also provided actuarial estimates for various past national health reform initiatives, 

including the proposed Health Security Act in 1993-1994 and the Affordable Care Act as it was 

developed and enacted in 2009-2010. 

I am appearing before your Committee today in my role as an independent technical advisor to 

Congress. My statements, estimates, and other information provided in this testimony are my 

own and do not represent an official position of the Department of Health & Human Services or 

the Administration. Unless noted otherwise, the estimates used in this testimony are drawn from 

my memorandum of April 22,2010, "Estimated Financial Effects of the 'Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act,' as Amended." This memorandum and the other documents to which I 

refer are availahle on the CMS website at httr:!!www.Cll1s.gov!ActuariaIStudics·. We have since 

updated many of these estimates for use in the President's 2012 Budget and in a forthcoming 

article on national health expenditure projections. Although some of the updates are significant, 

they do not substantially change the overall outlook for the financial effects of the Affordable 

Care Aet as described in this testimony. 

Affordable Care Act 

The March 20 I 0 health care reform legislation, generally known as the Affordable Care Act, 

affects nearly every aspect of health care in the U.S. Among its many provisions expected to 

have a significant financial effect, the Act: 
50 


71722.036

Mandates coverage for health insurance in 2014 and later. 

Establishes Health Insurance Exchanges. 

Provides Federal subsidies for Exchange insurance premiums and cost-sharing requirements. 

Provides temporary tax credits for small businesses that offer health coverage. 

Imposes penalties on some individuals who forgo coverage. 

Imposes penalties on large employers that do not offer health insurance to workers. 

Expands Medicaid eligibility and makes other changes to Medicaid and the Children's Health 

Insurance Program (CHIP). 

Increases income threshold from less than 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) 

to 138 percent. 

Extends coverage to those without specific non-income qualifying factors (e.g., disability). 

Increases Medicaid prescription drug rebates. 

Reduces Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) expenditures. 

Introduces Medicaid "Community First Choice Option" and other changes to encourage 

home and community-based services. 

Raises Federal matching rates for States with existing childless-adult coverage expansions. 

Temporarily increases Medicaid payments to primary care physicians. 

Extends CHIP funding for 2014 and 2015. 

Implements numerous Medicare changes. 

Permanently reduces Medicare payment updates for most categories of providers by the 

increase in economy-wide multi factor productivity (approximately 1.1 percent per year). 

Reduces Medicare Advantage payment benchmarks and permanently extends the authority 

to adjust for coding intensity. 

Reduccs Medicare DSH payments and refines imaging payments. 

Creates an Indepcndent Payment Advisory Board together with Medicare expenditure 

growth rate targets. 

Increases the HI payroll tax rate by 0.9 percentage point for individuals with earnings 

above $200,000 and families above $250,000 and raises Part D premiums for single 

enrollees with incomes above $85,000 or couples above $170,000. 

Phases out the Part D coverage gap ("donut hole"). 

Initiates numerous quality- and coverage-related Medicare provisions, including reporting 

of physician quality measures, reducing payments in cases involving hospital-acquired 

infections, reducing readmissions, and implementing evidence-based coverage of 

preventive services. 

Creates a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation in CMS for testing alternative 

models of health care delivery systems, payment methods, etc. and establishes a Medicare 

Shared Savings Program for accountable care organizations (ACOs). 

2-
51 


71722.037

Implements ccrtain immediate insurancc reforms. 

Minimum coverage requirements. 

Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan for those uninsured for at least 6 months. 

Fedcral reinsurance for employer-sponsored early retiree plans. 

Expansion of dependent coverage to age 26. 

Creates Federal Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) long-term 

carc insurance program. 

Supports comparative effectiveness research. 

Adds new taxes and fees. 

Excise tax on high-cost employer hcalth plans. 

Taxes or fees on insurance plans, prescription drug manufacturers, device makcrs. 

Additional 0.9-perccnt HI payroll tax on high earners. 

Additional 3.8-percent tax on high investment returns and other non-earnings income. 

As described in morc detail in my April 22, 2010 memorandum, the Affordable Care Act is 

estimated to reduce the number of uninsured persons in the U.S. by 34 million in 2019. 

Approximately 18 million would gain Medicaid coverage as a result of the expansion of 

eligibility criteria. (In addition, roughly 2 million people with employer-sponsored health 

insurance would enroll in Medicaid for supplemental coverage.) Anothcr 16 million uninsured 

persons would rcceive individual insurance coverage through the newly creatcd Exchanges, with 

the majority of thcse qualifying for Federal premium and cost-sharing subsidies. Finally, we 

estimate that the number of individuals with employer-sponsored health insurancc would 

decrease slightly overall, reflecting both gains and losses in such coverage under the Affordable 

Care Act. 

Estimated impact of Affordable Care Act on Federal expenditures 

The table shown on the following page presents the estimated financial cffects of selected 

provisions in the Affordable Care Act on the Federal Budget in fiscal years 2010-2019. For 

convenience of presentation, the provisions of the legislatIon are grouped into six major 

categories: 

(i) Coverage provisions, which inelude the mandated coverage for health insurancc, the 

expansion of Medicaid eligibility, and the additional funding for CHIP; 

(ii) Medicarc provisions; 

(iii) Medicaid and CHIP provisions other than the coverage expansion and CHIP funding; 

(iv) Provisions aimed in part at changing the trend in health spending growth; 

(v) The CLASS program; and 

(vi) Immediate health insurance reforms. 
52 


71722.038

The estimated costs and savings shown in the table are based on the effective dates specified in 

the law as enacted. We assume that employers and individuals would take roughly 3 to 5 years 

to fully adapt to the new insurance coverage options and that the enrollment of additional 

individuals under the Medicaid coverage expansion would be completed by the third year of 

implementation. Because of these transition effects and the fact that most of the coverage 

provisions would be in effect for only 6 of the 10 years of the budget period, the cost estimates 

shown in this memorandum do not represent a full 10-year cost for the new legislation. 

Estimated Federal costs or savings under selected provisions of the Affordable Care Act 

[Costs (+) or savings H in billions] 

Fiscal Year Total, 

ProviSions 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2010-19 

Total' $9.2 -$0.7 -$12.6 -$22.3 $16.8 $57.9 $63.1 $542 $47.2 $38.5 $251.3 

Coverage! 3.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 82.9 119.2 138.2 146.6 157.6 165.8 828.2 

Medicare 1.2 -4.7 -14.9 -26.3 -68.8 -60.3 '75.2 -92.1 -108.2 -125.7 -575.1 

Medicaid/CHIP -0.9 -'0.9 0.8 4.5 8.6 5.1 4.6 3.4 1.3 1.7 28.3 

Cost trendt -0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.4 --0.6 -0.9 -2.3 

CLASS program -2.8 -4.5 -5.6 -5.9 -6.0 -4.3 -3.4 -2.8 -2.4 -37.8 

Il11n~ediate retonns 5.6 3.2 1.2 10.0 

'" Excludes Title IX revenue provisions except for sections 9008 and 90 I S, certain provisions with limited impacts, and Federal 

administrative costs. 

t Includes expansion of Medicaid eligibility and additional funding for CHIP ($410.3 billion total in 2010-2019), plus Federal 

premium, cost-sharing, and small business subsidies ($537.9 billion total), less individual and employer penalties for 

nonparticipation ($119.9 billion total). Updated estimates for the President's 2012 Budget show a similar total cost for these 

coverage provisions through fiscal year 2019 but with a significantly higher cost for the Medicaid expansion and a 

correspondingly lower net cost ror the Exchange-related subsidies. See discussion of Medicaid estimates below for additional 

infonnation. 

t Includes estimated non-Medicare Federal savings from provisions for comparative effectiveness research, prevention and 

wc!!ness, fraud and abuse, and administrative simplification, Excludes impacts of other provisions that would affect cost 

growth rates, such as the productivity adjustments to Medicare payment rates (which are reflected in the Medicare line) and the 

section 9001 excise tax on high~cost employer plans. 

As indicated, the provisions in support of expanding health insurance coverage (including the 

Medicaid eligibility changes and extended CHIP funding) are estimated to cost $828 billion 

through fiscal year 2019, net of penalty receipts from nonparticipating individuals and 

employers. The Medicare, other Medicaid and CHIP, growth-trend, CLASS, and immediate 

reform provisions are estimated to result in net savings of about $577 billion, leaving a net 

overall cost for this period of $251 billion before consideration of additional Federal 

administrative expenses and the increase in Federal revenues that would result from the excise 

tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health insurance coverage and certain other revenue 

provisions. (The new Supplementary Medical Insurance revenues from fees on brand-name 

prescription drugs under section 9008 of the Affordable Care Act, and the higher Hospital 

Insurance payroll tax income under section 9015, are included in the estimated Medicare savings 

shown here.) The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have 

-·4 
53 


71722.039

estimated that the total net amount of Medicare savings and additional tax and other revenues 

would somewhat more than offset the cost of the national coverage provisions, resulting in an 

overall reduction in the Federal deficit through 2019. 

Estimated impact of Affordable Care Act on Medicare expenditures and revenues 

Net Medicare savings are estimated to total $575 billion for fiscal years 2010-2019. Substantial 

savings are attributable to provisions that would, among other changes, reduce Part A and Part B 

payment levels and reduce future "market basket" payment updates by the increase in economywide multi factor productivity ($233 billion); eliminate the 2014 spending authorization for the 

Medicare Improvement Fund ($27 billion); reduce DSH payments ($50 hillion); reduce 

Medicare Advantage payment benchmarks and permanently extend the authority to adjust for 

coding intensity ($145 billion); freeze the income thresholds for the Part B income-related 

premium for 9 years ($8 billion); implement an Independent Payment Advisory Board together 

with strict Medicare expenditure growth rate targets ($24 billion); and increase the HI payroll tax 

rate by 0.9 percentage point for individuals with earnings above $200,000 and families above 

$250,000 ($63 billion). Other provisions would generate relatively smaller amounts of savings, 

through such means as reporting physician quality measures, reducing payments in cases 

involving hospital-acquired infections, reducing readmissions, refining imaging payments, 

increasing Part D premiums for higher-income beneficiaries, and implementing evidence-based 

coverage of preventive services. 

These savings are slightly offset by the estimated costs of closing the Part 0 coverage gap 

($12 billion); reducing the growth in the Part D out-ot~poeket cost threshold ($1 billion); 

extending a number of special payment provisions scheduled to expire, such as the postponement 

of therapy caps ($5 billion); and improving preventive health services and access to primary care 

($6 billion). 

As noted below, the Affordable Care Act authorizes a substantial program of rcseareh, 

development, and testing for innovative new health delivery systems and payment methods. 

This program has significant potential for improvements in the quality and cost efficiency of 

health care, but its effects on Medicare expenditures cannot be assessed until specific plans have 

been developed and tested. 

The following chart shows actual past Medicare expcnditures as a percentage of gross domestic 

product (GDP), together with estimated future amounts for 2010-2019 under the Affordable Care 

Act and under the prior law. Of the estimated net total Medicare savings of $575 billion over 

this period, $486 billion is attributable to a net reduction in Medicare expenditures (with the 

balance due to increased revenues from taxes and fees). The chart illustrates the expenditure 

impact only. 

By 2019, the net reduction in Medicare expenditures is estimated to be 0.5 percent of GDP, 

which represents an I I -percent decrease from the level projected prior to the Affordable Care 

Act. This percentage reduction would grow larger over time as a result of the compounding 

effect of the slower annual updates in Medicare payment rates for most categories of health care 

providers. 
54 


71722.040

6% 

5% 

Medicare expenditures before and after the Affordable Care Act 

(as a percentage ofGDP) 

Actual Short-range 

estimates 

Old law 

ACA 

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Calendar year 

B'ased on the estimated savings for Part A of Medicare, and using the 20 I 0 Trustees Report as a 

baseline, the assets of the Hospital Insurance trust fund would be exhausted in 2029 compared to 

2017 under the prior law-an extension of 12 years, The combination of lowcr Part A costs and 

higher tax revenues results in a lower Federal deficit based on budget accounting rules, 

However, trust fund accounting considers the same lower expenditures and additional revenues 

as extending the exhaustion date of the HI trust fund. In practice, the improved HI financing 

cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage 

expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective 

accounting conventions. Conversely, expcnditure reductions under Part B translate directly to 

lower financing requirements from general revenues and beneficiary premiums, since financing 

is re-established annually to match program costs. Thus, in the case of Part B, the savings under 

the Affordable Care Act are not needed to help pay for future benefit costs, and the full reduction 

in Federal general revenues attributable to such savings can be used to offset other Federal costs, 

such as those arising under the health reform coverage expansions. (Part D expenditures will 

increase under the Affordable Care Act, requiring additional Federal general revenue financing.) 

More detailed infonnation on the financial status of the Medicare trust funds is available in the 

20 I 0 Medicare Trustees Report; an updated assessment will be shown in thc forthcoming 20 II 

report. 

It is important to note that the estimated savings for one category of Medicare provisions may be 

unrealistic. The Affordable Care Act requires permanent annual productivity adjustments to 

-6 
55 


71722.041

price updates for most providers (such as hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health 

agencies), using a IO-year moving average of economy-wide private, non-farm productivity 

gains. While such payment update reductions will create a strong incentive for providers to 

maximize efficiency, it is doubtful that many will be able to improve their own productivity to 

the degree achieved by the economy at large. J 

The following chart illustrates the very large differential that would accumulate over long 

periods between the prices that health care providers have to pay to obtain the inputs they need to 

provide health care services and the corresponding Medicare payment rates. In practice, 

providers have few alternatives to paying market-based increases in wages and fringe-benefit 

costs for their employees. Similarly, price increases for office space, energy, utilities, and 

medical equipment and supplies are generally outside of providers' control. 

14 

12 

:: 

<:> 

N 10 .S 

q 

6 

4 

2 

Cumulative increase in provider input price vs. Medicare payment rate 

(for providers subject to productivity adjustments under current law) 

Under prior law, Part A and most Part B payment rates 

were updated by growth in provider input prices (e.g., 

wages, rent, energy, supplies). 

Under the ACA, Medicare payment rates will grow about 

1.1 % per year more slowly than provider input prices. 

Unless providers can improve their efficiency to match 

adjustment, there will be a growing gap between provider 

costs and Medicare payments per service. 

---

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 

Calendar year 

Provider 

input 

prices 

Medicare 

payment 

rate 

Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are 

difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than, and in a way 

t The provision of most health services tends to be very labor-intensive. Economy-wide productivity gains reflect 

relatively modest improvements in the service sector together with much larger improvements in manufacturing. 

Except in the case of physician services, T am not aware of any empirical evidence demonstrating the medical 

community's ability to achicve productivity improvements equal to those of the overall economy. The Office of the 

Actuary's most recent analysis of hospital productivity highlights the difficulties in measurement but suggests that 

such productivity has been small or negligible during 1981 to 2005. (See l]1!p:U\D"v.Clm.hhs.g()~ 

.t t~illlh!'~~n: l.:ln'lD';.iJ.u~g . ..;.xj~_~l""~tQ\yDJi~n~~J)7 -mi\:Yinkill~~J?jJI.) 

-- 7 
56 


71722.042

that was unrelated to, the providers' costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers 

for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to 

remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the 

program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). Simulations by the Office of 

the Actuary suggest that roughly 15 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable 

within the lO-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments? Although this 

policy could be monitored over time to avoid such an outcome, changes would likely result in 

smaller actual savings than described here for these provisions. 

In their 2010 report to Congress on the financial status of the program, the Medicare Board of 

Trustees cautioned: 

The Affordable Care Act improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially. However, the effects of 

some of the new law's provisions on Medicare are not known at this time, with the result that the 

projections are much more uncertain than normal, especially in the longer-range future. For example, the 

ACA initiative for aggressive research and development has the potential to reduce Medicare costs in the 

future~ however, as specific reforms have not yet been designed, tested, or evaluated, their ability to reduce 

costs carulot be estimated at this time, and thus no specific savings have been retlected in this report for the 

initiative. 

Another important example involves lower payment rate updates to most categories of Medicare providers 

in 2011 and later. These updates will be adjusted downward by the increase in productivity experienced in 

the economy overall. Since the provision of health services tends to be labor-intensive and is often 

customized to match individuals' specific needs, most categories of health providers have not been able to 

improve their productivity to the same extent as the economy at large. Over time, the productivity 

adjustments mean tbat the prices paid for health services by Medicare will grow about 1.1 percent per year 

more slowly than the increase in prices that providers must pay to purchase the goods and services they use 

to provide health care services. Unless providers could reduce their cost per service correspondingly~ 

through productivity improvements or other steps, they would eventually become unwilling or unable to 

treat Medicare beneficiaries. 

It is possible that providers can improve their productivity, reduce wasteful expenditures, and take other 

steps to keep their cost growth within the bounds imposed by the Medicare price limitations. Similarly, the 

implementation of payment and delivery system reforms, faeilitated by the ACA research and development 

program, could help constrain cost growth to a level consistent witb the lower Medicare payments. These 

outeomes are far from certain, however. Many experts doubt the fea"ibility of such sustained improvements 

and anticipate that over time the Medicare price constraints would become unworkable and that Congress 

would likely override them, much as they have done to prevent the reductions in physician payment rates 

otherwise required by the sustainable growth rate fonnula in current law. 

The annual report to Congress on the financial status of Medicare must be based on current law. In this 

report, the productivity adjustments are assumed to occur in all future years, as required by the Affordable 

Care Act. In addition, reductions in Medicare payment rates for physician services, totaling 30 percent over 

the next 3 years, are assumed to be implemented as required under current law, despite the virtual certainty 

that Congress will continue to override these latter reductions. 

In view of the factors described above, it is important to note that the actual future costs for Medicare are 

likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report. We recommend that the 

The simulations were based on actual fiscal year 2007 Medicare and total facility margin distributions for 

hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies. Provider revenues and expenditures were projected 

using representative growth rates and the Office of the Actuary's best estimates of achievable productivity gains for 

each provider type, and holding all other factors constant. 

-8-
57 


71722.043

projections be intcrpreted as an illustration of the very favorable financial outcomes that would be 

experienced if the prodnctivity adjustments can be sustained in the long range~-and we caution readers to 

recognize the great uncertainty associated with achieving this outcome. Where possible, we illustrate the 

potential understatement of Medicare costs and projection results by reference to an alternative projection 

that assumes-for purposes of illustration only-that the physician fee reductions are overridden and that 

the productivity adjustments are gradually phased out over the 15 years starting in 2020, 

The following chart shows long-range projections of total Medicare expenditures, as a percentage of GOP, under three scenarios, The substantial impact of the Affordable Care Act on 

expenditures is apparent by comparing the current-law projections from the 2010 Trustees 

Report (which includes the effect of all ACA provisions) to the corresponding projections from 

the 2009 Trustees Report (pre-ACA), Medicare expenditures in 2030 are currently projected to 

be about 20 percent lower than shown in the 2009 report, primarily as a result of the Affordable 

Care Act provisions, By 2050 and 2080, the projected difference increases to 32 and 43 percent, 

respectively, 

12% 

10% 

8% 

6% 

4% 

2% 

0% 

2000 

Long-range projections of Medicare expenditures under current law, 

prior law, and an illustrative alternative to current law 

2010 2020 

(as a percentage ofGDP) 

2030 

2010 TR, current law 

Illustrative alternative to current law assumes: 

Physician payment updates based on Medicare 

Economic Index 

Productivity adjustments to other provider 

updates are phased out over 2020-2034 

Note: This is an illustration, not a recommendation 

2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 

Calendar year 

The growing difference between the current-law and prior-law projections in the long range is 

primarily attributable to the compounding effect of the slower Medicare price updates, To help 

assess the potential understatement of Medicare costs under current law, the Board of Trustees 

asked the Office of the Actuary to make projections under an illustrative alternative to current 

-9 
58 


71722.044

law. The alternative assumes that (i) Medicare payment updates for physicians would be based 

on the Medicare Economic Index, rather than the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, and 

(ii) the productivity adjustments to most other categories of providers would be gradually phased 

out after 2019. As indicated in the chart above, Medicare costs under thc illustrative alternativc 

to current law would be substantially greatcr than the current-law projections. It is important to 

note that the illustration represents only a means by which to consider thc potential 

understatement of costs under current law. No endorsement of thc illustrative payment changes 

by the Trustees, CMS, or the Office of the Actuary should be inferred. 

Estimated impact of Affordable Care Act on Medicaid and CHIP 

Based on our April 22, 2010 memorandum, the Affordable Care Act was estimated to add a total 

of $455 billion to aggregate Medicaid expenditures during fiscal years 2010-2019, an increase of 

about 8 percent.] Federal expenditures represent the great majority ($434 billion) of this 

projected cost, equivalent to a 13-percent increase compared to prior law. State expenditures 

were projected to expand only $21 billion (or about 1 percent). The Federal government's share 

of the cost increase is relatively larger than for current Medicaid expenditures because the 

Affordable Care Act spccifies a much higher Federal matching rate for newly eligible 

beneficiaries, ranging from 100 percent in fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016 to 90 percent by 

2020 and beyond. 

The most signi ficant provision, measured by its impact on expenditures and enrollment, is the 

expansion of Medicaid eligibility to all persons under age 65 living in families with incomes 

below 138 percent of FPL beginning in 2014. This expansion was projected to add morc than 

20 million Medicaid enrollees by 2019, an increase of about one-third compared to the prior law 

(including an estimated 2 million individuals with employer-sponsored health insurance who 

would enroll for supplementary coverage through Medicaid). About three-quarters of the 

additional enrollees are expected to be adults and the remaining one-quarter to be children4 The 

percentage increase in Medicaid expenditures will be considerably lower than the increase in 

enrollment, since adults and children have much lower average health care costs than aged and 

disabled enrollees. 

The Affordable Care Act also provides for additional fimding for the CHIP program, for 2014 

and 2015, which would increase such cxpenditures by an estimated $29 billion. 

The total net Federal cost of the other Medicaid and CHIP provisions is estimated to be 

$28 billion in fiscal years 2010-2019 and reflects numerous cost increases and decreases under 

3 Our original estimate for the increase in Medicaid outlays was based on an assumption that Social Security benefits 

would continue to be included in the definition of income for detennining Medicaid eligibility, If a strict application 

of the modified adjusted gross income definition is instead applied, as is now expected, then an additional 5 million 

or more Social Security early retirees would be potentially eligible for Medicaid coverage, This change, together 

with later infonnation on the planned implementation of other provisions, results in a significantly higher projected 

cost for the Medicaid expansion (and a correspondingly lower cost estimate for the Exchange subsidies). 

4 In addition to the higher level of allowable income, the Affordable Care Act expands eligibility to people under 

age 65 who have no ather qualifying factors that would have made them eligible for Medicaid under prior law, such 

as being under age 18, disabled, pregnant, or parents of eligible children. 

-10 
59 


71722.045

the individual provisions. Those with significant Federal savings include various provisions 

increasing thc level of Medicaid prescription drug rebates ($24 billion) and reductions in 

Medicaid OSH expenditures ($14 billion). Interactions between the different sections of the 

Affordable Care Act, such as the lower Medicare Part B premiums, contribute an additional 

$9 billion in rcduccd Medicaid outlays. 

The key provisions that would increase Federal Medicaid and CHIP costs are the Medicaid 

"Community First Choice Option" and other changes to encourage homc and community-based 

services ($29 billion), higher Federal matching rates for States with existing childless-adult 

coverage expansions ($24 billion), a temporary increase in payments to primary care physicians 

($11 billion), and increased payments to the Territories ($7 billion). The net impact of the 

Medicaid and CHIP provisions on State Medicaid costs is a reduction totaling $33 billion through 

fiscal year 2019. These savings result in part because certain of the provisions reallocate costs 

from States to the Federal government. 

The following chart shows past Medicaid and CHIP expenditures (Federal plus State) as a 

percentage of GOP, together with 10-year projections under the Affordable Care Act and prior 

law. 

6% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

1% 

0% 

Medicaid/CHIP expenditures before and after the Affordable Care Act 

(as a percentage of GOP) 

Actual Short-range 

estimates 

ACA 

1965 1970 1975 Ino 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

Calendar year 
60 


71722.046

Esrimaled impaci ojAffi!rda/Jlc Care Act on fI)(al national health expenditures 

The estimated effects oflhc Aft()rdable Care Act on overall national health expenditures (NHE) 

are shown by the "net total" curve in the following chart In aggregate, we estimate that for 

calendar years 2010 through 2019, NHE would increase by $311 billion, or 0.9 percent, 

compared to prior law. Y car by year, the relative increases are largest in 2016, when the 

coverage expansions would be fully phased in (2.0 percent), and gradually decline thereafter to 

1.0 percent in 2019. 

5250 

S2()0 

51S0 

S100 

SS() 

so 

-$SO 

-$100 

-$ ISO 

-S200 

Estimated effect ofthe Affordable Care Act on total national health spending 

[Estimated increase (I) or decrease \,-) in annual spending. in billions)] 

2010 201 I }Oll 201.1 2014 20lS 2016 20P 20lX 2019 

Private health 

Insurance 

Medicaid & C!lIP 

Net total 

\1cdicarc 

Out-or·pocket 

The net total increase in NHE reflects several large . and largely oflSctting···cffeets on 

expenditures by private health im;urance, Medicare, Medicaid, and individuals' own out-oj~pockct 

costs, as shown by the columns in the chart above. Health expenditures arc expected [0 increase 

by about $200 billion annually due to the substantial expansions under the Affordable 

Care Act. Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals and families with health 

insurance usc more health services than otherwise-similar persons without insurance. Under the 

health reform legislation, by 2019 an estimated 34 miHillll currently uninsured people would gain 

comprehensive coverage through the health insurance Exchanges, their employers, or Medicaid. 

12 
61 


71722.047

The availability of coverage would typically result in a fairly substantial increase in the utilization 

of health care services, with a concsponding impact on total health expenditures. These higher 

costs would be partially offset by the sizable discounts imposed on providers by State Medicaid 

payment rules and by the significant discounts negotiated by private health insurance plans. We 

estimate that the net effect of the utilization increases and price reductions arising from the 

coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act would increase NHE in 2019 by about 

3.4 percent. 

The Affordable Care Act will also affect aggregate NHE through the Medicare savings 

provisions. We estimate that these impacts would reduce NHE by roughly 2.4 percent in 2019, 

assuming that the productivity adjustments to Medicare payment updates can be sustained 

through this period. The legislation would have only a slight impact on the utilization of health 

care services by Medicare beneficiaries (subject to the caveat mentioned previously regarding 

possible access issues if Medicare payment rates become inadequate). As shown in the chart, the 

Medicare savings accumulate rapidly, principally due to the compounding effect of the slower 

payment updates for most categories of providers. 

As indicated in the chart, out-of-pocket spending would be reduced significantly by the 

Affordable Care Act (an estimated net total decline of$237 billion in calendar years 2010-2019). 

This reduction reflects the net impact of (i) the substantial coverage expansions through 

Medicaid and the health insurance Exchanges, (ii) the significant cost-sharing subsidies for lowto-middle-income persons with Exchange coverage, (iii) the maximum out-oj~pockct limitations 

associated with the qualified health benefit, (iv) lower cost-sharing payments by beneficiaries in 

fee-for-servicc Medicare, (v) higher cost-sharing payments by Medicare Advantage enrollees, 

and (vi) the increases in workers' cost-sharing obligations in plans affected by the excise tax on 

high-cost employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. 

A number of the other provisions in the Affordable Care Act would also affect national health 

expenditures during 2010-2019, although the magnitude of these effects would be much smaller 

than the financial effects of the coverage expansions and Medicare savings provisions. These 

other provisions include the immediate insurance reforms in Title I; comparative effectiveness 

research; the excise tax on high-cost employer health plans; fees on health insurance plans and 

on manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs; and an excise tax on nonpersonal-use retail sales by manufacturers and importers of medical devices. The effects of these 

provisions are included in the respective categories of national health expenditures shown in 

preceding chart. 

Compared to prior law, the level of total national health expenditures is estimated to be higher 

through 2019 under the Affordable Care Act, but two particular provisions of the legislation 

would help reduce NHE growth rates after 2016. Specifically, the productivity adjustments to 

most Medicare payment updates would reduce NHE growth by about 0.10 to 0.15 percent per 

year. In addition, the excise tax on high-cost employer health plans would exert a fUlther 

decrease in NHE growth rates of an estimated 0.05 percent in 2019 and slightly more than that 

for some years thereafter. Although these growth rate differentials arc not large, over time they 

would have a noticeable downward effect on the level of national health expenditures. Such an 

outcome, however, would depend critically on the sustainability of both provisions. As 

--13~ 
62 


71722.048

discussed previously, the Medicare productivity adjustments could become unsustainable even 

within the next 10 years, and over time the reductions in the scope of employer-sponsored health 

insurance could also become an issue. For these reasons, the estimated reductions in NilE 

growth rates after 2016 may not be fully achievable. 

Conclusions 

The Affordable Care Act makes far-reaching changes to most aspects of health care in the U.S., 

including mandated coverage for most people, required payments by large employers not 

offering insurance, expanded eligibility for Medicaid, Federal premium and cost-sharing 

subsidies for many individuals and familics, a new system of health benefits Exchanges for 

facilitating coverage, and a new Federal insurance program in support of long-term care. 

Additional provisions will reduce Medicare outlays, make other Medicaid modifications, provide 

more funding for the CHIP program, add certain benefit enhancements for these programs, and 

combat fraud and abuse. Federal revenues will be increased through an excise tax on high-cost 

insurance plans; fees or excise taxes on drugs, devices, and health plans; higher Hospital 

Insurance payroll taxes for high-income taxpayers; higher Medicare Part 0 prcmiums for highincome enrollees; a new tax on investment revenues and other uncarned income; and other 

provisions. 

In our independent capacity as technical advisors to the Administration and Congress, the Office 

of the Actuary at CMS has estimated the cffects of the non-tax provisions of the Affordable Care 

Act on Federal outlays, overall national health expenditures, and health insurance covcrage in the 

U.S. Our estimates are based on available data sources and what we believe are reasonable 

assumptions regarding individual, employer, and health plan responses to the legislation, 

together with analyses of the likely changes in the cost and use of health care services. In view 

of the complexity and scope of these changes, estimates of their financial and other effects arc 

necessarily very uncertain. As the Affordable Care Act provisions are finalized through 

regulations, and as providers, employers, and individuals respond to the requirements and 

opportunities in the legislation, we will continue to monitor developments and to update our 

estimates for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and total national health expenditures as necessary. 

I hope that the information presented here is of value to policy makers, and I pledge the Office of 

the Actuary's continuing assistance to the joint effort by the Administration and Congress to 

determine optimal solutions to the financial challenges associated with health care in the U.S. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

--14-
63 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. I thank the panel for 

their opening statements and I will now begin the questioning and 

recognize myself for 5 minutes for that purpose. 

Mr. Elmendorf, your testimony states that the health care law 

will reduce employment by roughly 800,000 by 2012 because 

PPACA encourages some people to work fewer hours or withdraw 

from the labor market altogether. You also attribute some of the 

job reduction to higher marginal tax rates included in PPACA. I 

would like to explore what other factors were included and excluded when you calculated this number. Does this 800,000 job reduction figure account for employers who will reduce employment 

in order to avoid the 50-employee threshold that triggers PPACA’s 

employer mandate? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Mr. Chairman, we did not explicitly model that 

provision. There are a number of factors that we did incorporate in 

reaching this estimate. We didn’t try to quantify every single aspect of the law. We tried to quantify the ones that we thought were 

most significant. 

Mr. PITTS. Does the 800,000 figure account for employers that 

choose to avoid creating jobs in order to avoid the 50-employee 

threshold that triggers PPACA’s employer mandate? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Again, Mr. Chairman, we did not explicitly the 

model the effects of the 50-employee threshold. We focused on 

maybe 10 other aspects of the legislation that we thought would 

have more significant effects on employment. 

Mr. PITTS. OK. Does the 800,000 figure account for the new employer paperwork requirements in PPACA such as the 1099 filing 

provision and the variety of reporting requirements to Department 

of Labor and Treasury and HHS included in PPACA that will shift 

employer resources away from investment towards regulatory compliance? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Mr. Chairman, it is not obvious to me why the 

1099 forms would have a significant effect on employment, and no, 

we did not incorporate any such effect in this estimate. 

Mr. PITTS. How about, does the 800,000 figure account for the 

employer resources that will have to shift toward providing more 

expensive health coverage as a result of the new mandates and the 

essential benefits package included in PPACA? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Mr. Chairman, in our analysis of the effects of 

changes in health insurance payments by employers, we recognize 

that both logic and evidence suggest that changes in particular aspects of compensation to employees tend to be offset by changes in 

other aspects of their compensation, so one can see in the aggregate data for the United States a rise in health spending by employers over the past several decades but also a slower rise in cash 

compensation, and economists think those factors are related. So 

we think that changes in to the extent that employers pay more 

for health care and some would pay more under this legislation, 

some would pay less under this legislation, we have not tried to 

tote this up. In any case, we think there would be offsetting 

changes in the cash compensation that employers would provide. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Foster, proponents of PPACA argue that U.S. 

health spending of 16 percent of GDP is unsustainable and claim 

64 

that PPACA bends the cost curve. Does PPACA change this dynamic for the better or the worse? 

Mr. FOSTER. We have estimated this question for the first 10 

years. As I mentioned briefly, we estimate that the legislation increases the overall amount of total health spending in the United 

States by roughly one percentage point. In terms of the growth 

rates and what happens in the future, initially the growth rates 

are higher because we are spending more but there are certain factors that would tend to reduce the growth rates in the longer term. 

A good example is the productivity adjustments for Medicare payment updates. The real question is, how long can that work? They 

will help slow Medicare spending growth but they may not be viable indefinitely. 

Mr. PITTS. Can you explain how a strict application of modified 

gross adjustment could greatly expand Medicaid eligibility under 

PPACA and increase the cost to both Federal Government and 

States? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. In the legislation, to achieve consistency between the definition of eligibility for Medicaid and the definition of 

eligibility for exchange subsidies, Congress decided to use modified 

adjusted gross income as the basis for determining income. Now, 

prior to this point for Medicaid, almost all States or perhaps all 

have included Social Security benefits in their definition of income 

for purposes of determining eligibility. With modified adjusted 

gross income, in contrast, for most people, only a small portion, if 

any, of their Social Security benefits would be included in that definition of income. So if you consider Social Security early retirees, 

under 65, who are potentially eligible for the Medicaid expansion 

and you then don’t count $10,000 or $20,000 a year of Social Security benefits in their income, many of them can potentially qualify 

for Medicaid if you use that strict definition of modified adjusted 

gross income. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes 

the ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to address my 

questions to Mr. Elmendorf. 

Mr. Chairman, I am sure you could tell from my opening statement that I am very frustrated because I feel that you came here 

and you did the best and we were using your numbers because we 

are supposed to in deciding the cost of the legislation, and of 

course, if we didn’t go by CBO or if CBO said that things cost too 

much, then they would criticize us, and then we finally came up 

with a bill that actually resulted in some significant deficit savings 

and they said well, those numbers aren’t actually good, so the 

whole purpose of this hearing is essentially to challenge you and 

say essentially that we don’t agree with what you are doing. But 

of course, if we hadn’t followed it, then we would be criticized because we didn’t follow you. 

So I just wanted to go through some of the things, because tomorrow I understand we are going to have a markup on some bills 

that we had a hearing on just before the break, and Representative 

Bachmann and members of this committee are claiming that there 

is about $105 billion in hidden spending that was snuck into the 

bill without you or the American people knowing about it, and the 

65 

hearing was, of course, on this hidden mandatory spending and 

that is what the markup will be about tomorrow. 

So let me just go through and find out whether any of this really 

was hidden from you. First of all, we considered a bill that would 

repeal funding for section 1311, the health insurance exchange 

planning and establishment grants. Did you know about that funding stream? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. So it wasn’t hidden. What about section 4002, 

the prevention and public health fund? Did you know about that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. PALLONE. So that wasn’t hidden either. And about what 

funding for school-based health centers? Did you know about that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. PALLONE. So it seems that we couldn’t slip much past you, 

try as the Republicans think we might. It is also true that, I guess 

it was Congressman Jerry Lewis, Appropriations Committee, he 

said that there is about $100 billion in new discretionary funding 

in the bill that, of course, was hidden, that we were trying to hide. 

But I see you mention in your testimony that $85 billion of that 

is what actually—well, actually it was just reauthorization of preexisting programs like the Indian Health Service or the Community Health Centers. I was the sponsor of the Indian Health Care 

Improvement Act that was included in the bill. So $85 billion of 

this $100 billion in discretionary was actually just reauthorization 

of preexisting programs like the Indian Health Service. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, that is right, Congressman. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. I mean, reauthorization of existing programs is of course a standard practice in this committee, both 

under the Democrats and the Republicans. 

Now, I want to go back over your deficit numbers. CBO and JCT 

analyzed all of the revenue and spending changes in the health reform law and estimated that it would reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years and by about half of 1 percent of GDP or $1.2 

trillion in the following decade. Recently in your routine updating 

of your baseline projections, you made some changes to your projections of spending in Medicare, Medicaid and health insurance exchanges. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. PALLONE. Did you update your cost estimate for the Affordable Care Act? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. No, we did not do a comprehensive re-estimate 

of the effects of the act. 

Mr. PALLONE. Did you increase your cost estimate for the Affordable Care Act by $500 billion, which I think was suggested in a 

press release by Chairman Upton? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So again, Congressman, the last comprehensive 

estimate we have done for the act was part of our February estimate of the effects of repealing the act as encompassed in H.R. 2. 

Mr. PALLONE. So you didn’t increase your cost estimate by $500 

billion? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Again, at least in February, we have made no 

new estimates of the comprehensive effects of the legislation. 

66 

Mr. PALLONE. Do you have any expectation that a new cost estimate would continue to show that the Affordable Care Act reduces 

the deficit? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So I can’t say anything too firmly, having not 

done the estimate, but I will say that I think given the magnitude 

of the deficit reduction that we projected based on our February estimate of the effects of repeal, I would be surprised if a new estimate that we did today showed a different sign of the effect on the 

deficit, although of course the precise number would be somewhat 

differently presumably. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. I mean, I am not trying to be too critical of 

Chairman Upton, I like him, but he put out this press release last 

week. He said with that $500 billion, and I think it is somewhat 

misleading and I guess the Washington Post said it was widely inflated and earned a three Pinocchios rating from the Washington 

Post fact checker column. Whatever. My only point is that nothing 

has really changed here, and I think that the effort on the part of 

the Republicans to basically discredit you is baseless. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. 

Burgess, for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for the recognition. 

Mr. Elmendorf, of course you did appear before this committee 

in the run-up to the passage of H.R. 3200 but you might not recognize it because when you were in that day, the television cameras 

weren’t on, the lights were off, no recorder was at the end of the 

table, no one was in the audience section. It was obviously an unofficial briefing that you had with at the time what was I recall described as a back-of-the-envelope calculation. We never had a formal hearing on the Congressional Budget Office’s opinion on the 

passage of H.R. 3200 and we certainly, certainly never had any sort 

of hearing on the budgetary effects of H.R. 3590 because at the 

time you were here testifying before us, H.R. 3590 was a bill that 

had been passed by the House of Representatives that dealt with 

housing issues and not with health care issues. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. I have testified to this committee but it 

was early in 2009 before the legislative action that you are describing, Congressman. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, were you called in for a briefing, as I recall, 

and again, there was no recorder, no testimony was taken down. 

The lights were off, the cameras were off. It was kind of a closeddoor cloak-and-dagger type of hearing or briefing as I recall. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am confident I did not come to a cloak-anddagger affair, Congressman. I don’t remember the precise circumstances but I think—— 

Mr. BURGESS. I recall them vividly. That is why I am reminding 

you of them. Well, let me just ask you a question about the funding 

that is in the bill, and this is just for me. You are required to interpret the cost of things under existing law, so under existing law in 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act subtitle B, patientcentered outcomes research, establishing comparative effective clinical effectiveness research, in the section under funding of comparative effective clinical effectiveness research for fiscal year 2010 

67 

and each subsequent fiscal year, amounts in the patient-centered 

outcomes research trust fund shall be available without further appropriation to the institute to carry out this section. How do you 

quantify that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry. I wasn’t sure myself, Congressman. 

I am told there were specified amounts available—— 

Mr. BURGESS. That is the problem. We aren’t, either. But go 

ahead. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am told in the legislation there are specified 

amounts made available to he Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, for fiscal year 2010 and each subsequent fiscal year, and there is no limit put on that so I have got to assume 

that is until the second coming, amounts in the patient-centered 

outcomes research trust fund under section 9511 of the Internal 

Revenue Code shall be available without further appropriations to 

the institute to carry out this section, without further appropriation. Now, Chairman Pallone or Ranking Member Pallone talks 

about how we reauthorized several provisions of existing law in the 

Affordable Care Act. Fair enough. But this wasn’t an existing provision. This did not go through authorization through this committee. It is never going to be reauthorized by this committee. No 

oversight of this funding is going to occur by this committee, and 

these funds, we don’t even know the top dollar figure, are appropriated it looks to me like in perpetuity. Is that a fair reading of 

this statute? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So I think it is important for me to distinguish 

between mandatory funding and authorization for future discretionary appropriations. The—— 

Mr. BURGESS. And in fact, I don’t know that I have time to get 

into that. 

Mr. ELMENDORF [continuing]. Our estimate including whatever—— 

Mr. BURGESS. These provisions should be authorized. We are an 

authorizing committee. Ranking Member Pallone pointed that out. 

That is what we do. We authorize these programs. We subsequently in future years reauthorize them to ensure that they are 

working properly, at least if we are performing up to standards the 

American people should be holding us to, but in this instance, we 

don’t get a chance. So the anxiety that a lot of people have is there 

is funding like this strewn throughout the language of 3590 and it 

is going to be very, very difficult for future Members of Congress 

to get a hold of these funding streams and understand are they 

performing as they are supposed to. The language makes it difficult, makes it difficult for you to tell us really how much money 

we have obligated the taxpayer to spend on this. Whether it is 

mandatory or discretionary, they don’t care. Honestly, they don’t 

care. They want to know how many dollars they are spending and 

whether those dollars are being invested wisely, if they are getting 

an appropriate return on investment. How do we advise them? 

How do you advise them? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. All I can say, Congressman, is that the mandatory funding is included in this page after page of our cost estimate 

row by row, and if there are specific questions about individual 

68 

rows, then I hope that you and your colleagues will come and ask 

us. 

Mr. BURGESS. I have a specific question about a specific section 

of the law that was signed into law a year and a week ago, and 

I would appreciate it if you—I see my time is up, but if you could 

get back to us that estimate. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. We will do that, Congressman. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minute 

for questions. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, last week, I mentioned in my opening, Eric Cantor, the Majority Leader, gave a speech at the Hoover 

Institute where he talked about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and he said, ‘‘We are going to have to come to grips with the 

fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be 

what we want America to be.’’ Well, I can’t come to grips with that 

statement because it would be a back to the future, to a time when 

seniors and people with disabilities lived in poverty without financial and health security. 

Mr. Elmendorf, what was the approximate cost of extending the 

Bush tax cuts in the legislation that was passed last December? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I believe the legislation passed last December 

had—I am not sure I know the answer to that question. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The tax cut bill. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry. I mean—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I understand. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I don’t know it offhand. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I understand it is around $700 billion. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That sounds in the right ballpark to me, Congressman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And now focusing just on the upper income tax 

cuts and the estate tax, I would like you, if you don’t have it off 

the top of your head, to give us an estimate of what it cost just to 

extend those for another 10 years. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I can provide that to you later, Congressman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I believe that the OMB budget lists the cost of extending those tax cuts along with the interest costs as almost a 

trillion dollars, but I would like to submit it for the record. That 

is a huge number and that is just from the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans alone. So you take a trillion dollars, and then we 

look at the Affordable Care Act. It has the opposite effect of actually reducing the deficit. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Congressman. By our estimates, it does. 

Mr. WAXMAN. They say that to govern is to choose, and we know 

what Republicans choose. They choose to cut Medicare, Medicaid 

and health insurance for middle-income American families to pay 

for tax cuts for the rich. 

Mr. Elmendorf, your re-estimate of the President’s budget 

projects some relatively modest changes in projected spending for 

Medicare and Medicaid and health insurance exchange tax credits. 

According to your letter to Senator Inouye, in table 6 mandatory 

outlays on tax credits are projected to be about $54 billion higher 

over the next 10 years while spending on Medicare and Medicaid 

is projected to be about $339 billion lower for a reduction in direct 

69 

spending of $277 billion from these health programs. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. It sounds right to me, Congressman. I don’t 

have the letter in front of me. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So projections for spending on health programs are 

down relative to your prior baseline. You also note in your testimony that spending growth in Medicare is projected to be very low 

on a per capita basis over the budget window. Is that correct? What 

is your estimated growth rate? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. We did reduce slightly the growth rate of 

spending by the Federal Government for Medicare and for Medicaid over the 10-year budget window. I don’t have the actual 

growth rates at hand. They are still of course substantial growth 

rates. 

Mr. WAXMAN. As I understand it, 2 percent per capita compared 

to 4 percent historically, but we would like to get you to submit 

that for the record. 

Mr. Foster, do you agree that cost growth in Medicare is very restrained in the next 10 years or so? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir, I do. As I have cautioned, it is not clear 

that all of the provisions will be viable indefinitely. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So we all agree that Medicare cost growth has 

been brought to be a very low level, so low that in CBO’s baseline 

the triggers for the Independent Payment Advisory Board are not 

tripped anymore. Isn’t that correct, Dr. Elmendorf? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That is right, Congressman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Foster, considering these low growth rates in 

per capita spending, would you characterize the growing costs of 

Medicare over the next 10 years as primarily driven by increasing 

population or by increasing spending per person? 

Mr. FOSTER. There are still factors of each. I would consider 

them comparable order of magnitude. We have the baby boom generation moving into Medicare these days, of course, with the people 

turning 65, so the enrollment is growing about 3 percent per year, 

and the cost per person for Medicare is also growing in the rough 

vicinity of 3 percent per year, which is much lower than average 

or normal because of the Affordable Care Act provisions. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And the Medicare spending growth that we have 

seen recently has been primarily driven by increased enrollment 

due to the recession. Is that an accurate statement? 

Mr. FOSTER. In recent years, that is basically correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. So in effect, Medicaid is fulfilling its essential safety-net function. Once the economy recovers, Medicaid costs will go 

down again because fewer people will need the help. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. FOSTER. We would expect that, yes, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is curious that the 

extension of the Bush tax cuts occurred under a Democrat-controlled House, a Democrat-controlled Senate, and signed by a DemVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
70 

ocrat President. That is just for the record. The extension of the 

Bush tax cuts was passed by a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate and signed by a Democrat President. I don’t know how many 

years you guys you want to run against George Bush but it obviously gets a little old. You guys might find new targets. 

It is good to see you all here. I became ranking member of the 

Health Subcommittee after the passage of the law and I think we 

asked numerous times for you all to come in opening hearing to 

discuss the budgetary aspects, to be denied every time, and I would 

agree with my colleague, Mr. Burgess, that Mr. Elmendorf, you 

came but you didn’t come with the press available, with people in 

the galleries with the TV cameras on, without any open, transparent system for us to talk to the American public about the cost 

of this bill. So we are glad to see you, and I know being bean 

counters, that puts you crossways with both sides as we try to 

drive our issue. 

But 2 or 3 weeks ago we had Secretary Sebelius here, and she 

admitted on tape in the transcript that the law really double 

counts Medicare savings. She admitted that, in fact, her final word 

was both the Medicare savings that is attributed to extending the 

solvency of the Medicare trust fund is also the same dollars that 

is used to pay for the health care law, which I would agree with 

her, and that has been part of the actuary think. We understand 

you have to score what we give you, obviously 6 years of benefits, 

10 years of taxes. You know, we know that you have to score what 

is given. But in some of the testimony, especially on—and this is 

directed to Mr. Foster. If you back out the Medicare cuts in the bill, 

what would be the total increase in national health expenditures? 

Mr. FOSTER. I am sorry. If you—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. If you back out the Medicare cuts. I don’t know if 

we have ever cut Medicare in the history of this government. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. If you left out or don’t consider for the moment 

the Medicare savings provisions, then the expansion of coverage for 

Medicaid—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, you say Medicare savings, we say Medicare 

cuts. Same terminology, right? 

Mr. FOSTER. It is a reduction in expenditures. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. 

Mr. FOSTER. Call them whatever you like. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. I will call them cuts, you can call them savings, but there are cuts to what we are all paying for Medicare 

right now. 

Mr. FOSTER. Anyway, back to your original question, the expansions of coverage through Medicaid and the federal subsidies for 

the exchange coverage would increase total national health expenditures by something in the range of 31⁄2 percent and then the savings that you get, or the cuts, if you prefer, from the Medicare provisions reduces—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. My issue is, we are triple counting. I mean, 2 

weeks ago we got the Secretary to say we double counted. My issue 

now is that we are really triple counting because we are assuming 

we are going to cut $500 billion from Medicare that we are not 

going to do. So if we are not going to do that, we attribute that savings to extending the solvency of the Medicare trust fund, which 

71 

we are not going to do, and we are not going to have the $500 billion to pay for the expansion of the health care law. So the Secretary was right when she said she double counted that but if we 

don’t do the Medicare cuts, we are triple counting the same $500 

billion. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Congressman, to be clear, when we give you a 

cost estimate, it counts each and every provision of the law once 

and only once. It is certainly the case that if those Medicare cuts 

or savings do not ultimately come to pass, then the deficit reduction effect of PPACA plus whatever future legislation took back 

those cuts, that combination of law would not have the same effect 

in reducing budget deficits that we estimate PPACA to have by 

itself. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is our concern. We appreciate you being 

here, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Mr. Chairman. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. 

Mr. PITTS. Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I realize it is my turn but I actually have a better answer to Congressman Burgess’s question and I see that he 

is still here. 

Mr. PITTS. Go ahead. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Congressman, section 6301 of PPACA specifies 

amounts to be transferred to the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute trust fund, some from a tax on health insurance 

premiums and the amount that we estimate for that was estimated 

by our colleagues and staff on the Joint Committee on Taxation 

based on the specified tax rate in the law. It also specifies transfers 

from Medicare in amounts that I am told are specified in dollar 

terms, and then further amounts from the general fund that are 

specified. 

Mr. BURGESS. And the total dollar figure then is? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. And the total dollar figure, I don’t have that offhand but it is in our table and we can provide that to you. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. The chair thanks the gentleman and now 

recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5 minutes 

for questions. 

Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to the 

witnesses, thank you for your service and thank you for joining us 

here today. 

Mr. Elmendorf, you are the Director of the Congressional Budget 

Office, correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. So that means you work for Congress, you work 

for all of us, whether there is an R or a D following our names. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I am sure during this debate you had meetings with Members of Congress that requested to meet with you 

and you responded to questions posed both by Democrats and Republicans? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, we did. 

72 

Mr. GONZALEZ. You have an open-door policy, you are accessible, 

so it doesn’t require a hearing with the lights on and the cameras 

and the reporter in order for a Member to become acquainted with 

specific budgetary facts that you may provide them as a result of 

any proposal. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Congressman, we are certainly available to explain our estimates and the logic that lies behind them to you or 

any of your colleagues at any time, but of course, I am not going 

to get in the middle of a question about when this committee or 

others should be holding hearings. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And I agree, but I venture to guess, we probably 

get more information from your office outside of the hearing process. That is the point I was trying to make. 

Now, I know my colleagues have indicated that we rushed to 

judgment, why did we do what we did, but nearly 2 years ago, 

Steve Pearlstein writing in the Washington Post in the middle of 

this said, ‘‘Among the range of options for health care reform, there 

is one that is sure to raise your taxes, increase your out-of-pocket 

medical expenses, leave more Americans without insurance and 

guarantee that wages will remain stagnant. That is the option of 

doing nothing.’’ We didn’t think that was an option. We were in the 

majority. We made it a priority. And there was plenty of debate, 

plenty of information out there, and I know what the present Majority is attempting to do after the fact. 

Now, they also knew that if they just simply said repeal that the 

American people wanted a little more than that. So they said oK, 

repeal and replace. They haven’t gotten to the replace part yet but 

I don’t want to be unfair because I think there is a proposal out 

there and that is by Congressman Paul Ryan, my colleague, chairman of the House Budget Committee, and he has a thing called the 

roadmap. Now, I am not sure if the Republican leadership or the 

conference has adopted the roadmap. It may still be in the Republicans’ glove box, I believe. They haven’t pulled it out and actually 

started to follow it. But one of the proposals was to basically transform Medicare into a voucher program. My understanding that it 

is by its very design, and I believe, Mr. Elmendorf, you have some 

knowledge of Mr. Ryan’s roadmap and his plans for Medicare. My 

question to you is, would the roadmap and turning Medicare into 

a voucher program place the burden on the individual and by its 

very design not keep up with the cost of what an insurance product 

would be made available to that recipient or beneficiary? Do you 

have an opinion on that roadmap and basically its consequences? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Congressman, as you know, we prepared an extensive analysis of the specifications in the roadmap proposal a little over a year ago. It is the case, and we said this again last fall 

in analyzing a related proposal that Chairman Ryan put to the fiscal commission which involved providing vouchers to participants 

in Medicare, and we noted that voucher recipients would probably 

have to purchase less extensive coverage or pay higher premiums 

than they would under current law for two reasons. First, because 

the savings to Medicare come from increasing the amount of those 

vouchers at a slower pace than we estimate Medicare spending 

would grow by under current law, and secondly, because future 

beneficiaries would have to go into the private market to buy insurVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
73 

ance and they are likely to pay more in the private market for the 

same package of benefits than it costs to provide that through 

Medicare today. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Foster, are you familiar with the subject matter that I just 

posed the question to Mr. Elmendorf and do you have an opinion 

as to what would be the consequences of such a transformation, 

major transformation in changing of Medicare into a voucher program? 

Mr. FOSTER. The basic idea behind the voucher program includes 

all that you have said, and there is the hope that by allocating less 

money over time for Medicare and Medicaid that this would have 

an impact on the development of research for new medical technology. A lot of the technology we get is very expensive, as you 

know. Some of it has wonderful effects, very dramatic, useful, and 

some of it is not so useful. If there was a way to turn the research 

and development community focus into developing cost saving technology rather than cost increasing, that could help slow the cost 

growth and then the voucher payment increases might be enough. 

Now, there is an ‘‘if’’ in there and it is a big ‘‘if.’’ It does pose risks 

of the type that you mentioned, that the voucher payments could 

become inadequate. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do find it interesting 

that my colleagues are seeking to talk about everything other than 

the bill that has been passed into law, and I find it interesting 

today for the first time we have had an opportunity to talk about 

some of the flaws, especially in their claim that this is a budget reducer when they have used a 10-year window, 6 years of services, 

10 years of taxes, disingenuous at best to the American people but 

we have established today that in fact cuts half a trillion dollars 

from Medicare. Oops, they didn’t want to tell you about that, did 

they? And what is the impact today to the real person out there 

who is trying to keep their job or find a job is that health care premiums have gone up and people are losing their coverage today because of this bill. I wouldn’t want to talk about this bill either if 

I were you. As a matter of fact, the Administration now has had 

to give—they haven’t updated it. It is 1,040 waivers that impacts 

about 3 million Americans and said you don’t have to follow the 

law because it will either, A, increase your premiums, or B, you 

will lose the health care that you want to keep. So they had to say, 

guess what, you 3 million Americans, the rest of America, you are 

stuck with this thing, you 3 million Americans, don’t worry about 

it, don’t follow the law. You are right. I wouldn’t want to talk about 

what this bill is doing to real working Americans today either. 

Pretty frustrating. I hope we will get more changes to talk about 

the details of this bill. I do have a couple of quick questions, if I 

can. 

Mr. Foster, when you did the calculation, you calculated that 20 

percent of small business employers would no longer offer health 

insurance, so by the way, that is one out of five small businesses 

74 

will no longer offer health insurance to their employees, something 

else I wouldn’t want to talk about. But I am curious about how you 

got there. The average cost in a State like Michigan, about $15,000 

per employee, and the penalty for not offering insurance under 

Obamacare is $2,000 per employee, and I don’t know you have been 

around many small businesses outside of the Beltway here but they 

are absolutely under assault from cost increases, fuel cost increases, mandates that are increasing the cost of their products. 

Pretty difficulty decisions have to be made, which is one of the reasons a place like my State is still suffering one of the highest unemployment percentages in the country. So if you are a small business owner and you are facing $15,000 per employee to try to do 

the right thing or $2,000 that you just send off to the Federal Government, get to throw them off your plan, you have got to help me 

understand how you get to only 20 percent of small employers are 

going to throw their folks off their health insurance that they enjoy 

today. Can you help me understand that? 

Mr. FOSTER. Sure. I will give it a try. As part of this, you have 

to estimate the behavioral response of providers, individuals, businesses, any number of groups, and employers are one of the most 

important groups. Now, for some employers, of course, if you are 

a small enough business, then you are not affected and you get 

some subsidies to help out, but for businesses that tend to have relatively low-income workers, it can turn out to be sort of a win-win 

for them to drop their formal health insurance coverage and assist 

their employees in getting coverage through the exchange. 

Mr. ROGERS. So I understand it, you think it is beneficial for 

them to drop their coverage and send people to the federal exchange. Did I understand that correctly? 

Mr. FOSTER. For certain categories, primarily businesses with 

relatively low-income workers. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is interesting. I am going to add that to my 

list today, that the bill encourages small businesses to drop their 

coverage and send people on the federal exchange. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. 

Here is the other problem with your 20 percent. Maybe you can 

help me out. And there is going to be a great second panel here. 

One of the restaurant owners did the calculation. He only has 33 

full-time employees and roughly 26 full-time equivalents working 

part-time hours totaling 59 full-time employees, and then he has 

seasonal and full-time employees for certain parts of the year and 

not parts of the year. The restaurant business is a pretty tough 

business, as you know. Margins are very small. Sometimes the 

business is up, sometimes it is down. In a State like Michigan, it 

tends to be more seasonal, given the tourist season. If he follows 

the law as it is, right, and under your equation he would be one 

of those that would want to do that, but it is a 282 percent cost 

increase and it is done because of the way you calculate part-time 

employees as a full-time employee. So he is one of those folks who 

is going to get caught right in the middle of this thing that should 

be getting the subsidies but because the way you calculate or the 

law calculates, I don’t know if you have made that calculation in 

that 20 percent number. Did you? 

75 

Mr. FOSTER. The 20 percent is an assumption. We won’t know 

until down the road when we see what happens. 

Mr. ROGERS. And it is an assumption, as you said today, Mr. 

Chairman, based on behavior, and if you have been in a small business with these kind of cost increases, you are going to throw people off your insurance. That is why we all ought to be angry about 

what this bill is doing to the working men and women of the 

United States. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair now recognizes the ranking chairman emeritus, the member from Michigan, 

Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. 

Mr. Foster, these questions will be yes or no. Medicare growth 

per beneficiary is projected to be extremely low over the next 10 

to 20 years. CBO’s baseline has an average per capita growth of 2 

percent over the next two decades compared with a historical 

growth of about 4 percent. Is that correct? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Foster, in fact, the growth is so low that it 

doesn’t even surpass projected GDP growth per capita over the 

next 10 years, which is projected to be 3.7 percent in CBO’s baseline. That is 2 percent versus 3.7 percent. Is that a fact? 

Mr. FOSTER. In some years, not all years, yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. The IPAB target, I would remind everybody, calls for Medicare spending target of GDP plus one starting after 2019 and an even higher target for 2015 to 2019 period. 

The Affordable Care Act seems to have brought projected Medicare 

spending down. Is that correct? Yes or no. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, it seems that Medicare spending is projected 

to grow so slowly over the next 10 years it would be difficult to reduce that spending without cutting benefits or kicking people out 

of the program. Is that true? 

Mr. FOSTER. I would have to think about that one, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, do you believe that it would be possible to 

pay for the entire cost of fixing SGR, which would be about $300 

million out of savings in Medicare? Yes or no. 

Mr. FOSTER. That would be tough. I would have to call that one 

more like a no. 

Mr. DINGELL. All right. But we could make some progress in that 

direction, could we not? 

Mr. FOSTER. The Affordable Care Act has some pretty steep savings provisions in it. It cuts a lot of money out of the program. Does 

it cut all of it? Is there something left? Of course. But you couldn’t 

lower the payment rates much more than they are already lowered. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, what about proposals that would reduce 

Medicare spending even further like the Ryan-Ribble proposal to 

voucherize Medicare. CBO says that the proposal would reduce 

Medicare and Medicaid spending by 20 percent relative to the postAffordable Care Act baseline. Would you have concerns about the 

magnitude of that cut? Yes or no. 

Mr. FOSTER. I don’t have a good answer for you, sir. I could study 

it for you, but we have not looked at it recently. 

76 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, there was a statement that was made publicly which went like this: we are concerned by recent press reports 

that HHS may have had prior access to information that Mr. Foster used in his April report prior to Congressional consideration but 

did not share the information with the public or the Congress. Mr. 

Burgess filed a Resolution of Inquiry demanding documentation of 

the communications between the Secretary’s office and the Actuary’s office in pursuit of these claims. At that time the committee 

did not approve Mr. Burgess’s resolution because we observed that 

there was no fire to all this smoke. Mr. Foster, you yourself disavowed these claims in a letter to Mr. Burgess. Is that true? 

Mr. FOSTER. I disavowed them. I don’t remember that the letter 

was addressed exactly to you. I think it was addressed to the Administrator. 

Mr. DINGELL. So—— 

Mr. FOSTER. But there is no truth to that. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, this question then. Did Secretary Sebelius or 

any Executive Branch official attempt to interfere with your work 

on the Affordable Care Act or to ask you to delay or change the 

release of your estimates? Yes or no. 

Mr. FOSTER. No, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, I would note that a little more recently during the debate over the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement 

and Modernization Act of 2003, MMA, Bush Administration officials repeatedly stressed that the legislation would cost $400 billion. However, the Administration had in its possession estimates 

from you, Mr. Foster, suggesting the cost would be in total somewhere between $500 and $600 billion. Is that correct? 

Mr. FOSTER. That is correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Mr. Foster, you testified before the Ways and 

Means Committee that you were instructed by the Bush Administration to withhold information from the public. Is that true? 

Mr. FOSTER. I was ordered to give the information to the Administrator of the agency and he would then pass it on as he saw fit 

to the requester. 

Mr. DINGELL. So you were not to convey to the public then the 

information, you were to have it carefully filtered through the Administrator. Is that right? 

Mr. FOSTER. Information requested by Congress, certain information. That is correct. 

Mr. DINGELL. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your courtesy. 

Mr. BURGESS [presiding]. The chair recognizes the gentlelady 

from North Carolina, the vice chair of the full committee, Ms. 

Myrick. 

Mrs. MYRICK. Thank you, and thank you all for being here. It is 

interesting, as has been commented on before, that we really aren’t 

talking about the bill today and the specifics of the bill. 

But I wanted to ask Mr. Foster, can you explain how the Medicare payment policies featured in PPACA put providers out of business? We have talked about that many times but nothing has been 

discussed here today about providers and Medicare payments. 

Mr. FOSTER. The concern that I and others have is, imagine a 

provider whether it is a hospital or a home health agency or a lab 

77 

or whatever, and in order to provide the services, they have to pay 

for certain inputs. They have to pay salaries for their staffs and 

themselves. They have to pay for energy costs and for rent or whatever arrangement they have, mortgages for their property. They 

have to buy supplies. So they have these input costs. 

Mrs. MYRICK. Right. 

Mr. FOSTER. Now, these input costs go up over time by wages or 

by general prices, and in the past Medicare payment updates for 

these providers have been based on the average price increase in 

this market basket of inputs. Under the Affordable Care Act, this 

update will be reduced by about 1.1 percent per year. Now, if you 

have to pay your own staff some amount and you pay them 1 percent per year less than what somebody else is paying everybody 

year to year, then your staff is going to become somebody else’s 

staff. 

Mrs. MYRICK. Right. 

Mr. FOSTER. Now, a provider perhaps can become more efficient 

but if they can’t become efficient enough, then our reimbursement 

increases will not keep pace with their growth and cost, and then 

they have a choice. If it gets to the point they just can’t afford to 

do this, they will have to stop. They might keep trying with lower 

quality, which is not good. They might keep trying and go out of 

business. More likely, you all would have to step in and say we are 

having problems with beneficiaries finding access to services, and 

you would have to ease those adjustments. 

Mrs. MYRICK. It is already happening in our area because there 

is a large number of doctors and a growing number of doctors who 

right now today are refusing to take Medicare patients, and they 

just won’t do it because they say they are in the hole. They start 

out in the hole and it is getting worse. And so, I mean, that is 

something that for the future is very frightening from the standpoint of who is going to provide the care. 

Mr. FOSTER. We have seen with physicians and Medicaid that 

there are some difficulties with Medicaid enrollees having access to 

physicians, especially specialists, and under current law, we expect 

that Medicare prices for physicians because of the sustainable 

growth rate formula would very quickly become less than Medicaid 

prices where there is already an access problem. 

Mrs. MYRICK. I have another question. The health reform law 

imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on categories of medical devices 

including devices like pacemakers, which are very common. Do you 

anticipate that these fees and the excise tax would generally be 

passed through to health consumers in the form of higher prices 

and higher insurance premiums? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, higher prices in the form of for the devices or 

the insurance plans. We think they would be passed through, yes. 

Mrs. MYRICK. Which again is not going to help the consumer. I 

mean, this bill is supposed to help the consumer and then we end 

up doing things within the bill that are going to make it more difficult for the consumer, cost them more money in the long run, and 

I think that is one of the things all of us share is the actual cost 

of what this is going to be in the future, which we really don’t 

know. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

78 

Mr. BURGESS. Will the gentlelady yield to me for a further question on physician reimbursement? 

Mrs. MYRICK. Yes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Elmendorf, if I could just stay on the subject 

of physician reimbursement, in the Medicaid arena, states are 

under some budget shortfall constraints. One of the low-pressure 

circuits where this gets pushed out is physician reimbursement, 

one of the only areas that that they can control. Now, the Supreme 

Court recently agreed to hear arguments in the Independent Living 

Center of Southern California versus Maxwell Jolly. If the Court 

rules against the states and says the states arbitrarily set reimbursement rates too low so that people didn’t have access to a provider, the states and the Federal Government could be on the book 

for those increases in provider rates. Have you looked at the budgetary impact of a Court decision if the Court rules against the 

States? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. No, Congressman, we have not studied that, to 

my knowledge. 

Mr. BURGESS. But it has been a topic of concern amongst providers for years, and to our knowledge, I mean, you just have to 

wonder, was this considered during the health care debates as they 

happened? Did the Congressional Budget Office ever estimate the 

potential budgetary impacts of allowing the Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services to set provider rates, and if so, what was the 

budgetary impact of such a standard? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So Congressman, I think the only piece of the 

legislation that directly affects provider rates in Medicaid was an 

increase in payments to certain sorts of primary care physicians. 

Mr. BURGESS. But did you ever consider—— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Those costs are included in our estimate of the 

costs of the legislation. 

Mr. BURGESS. Did you ever consider the cost of allowing CMS to 

set those rates? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. In Medicaid, no, Congressman, I don’t think 

that we did. 

Mr. BURGESS. I will yield back myself. I yield to Ms. Capps for 

5 minutes, recognized for questions. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both for 

testifying today. 

All the talk of repeal, defund, dismantle, it is easy enough to do 

here in a hearing room hundreds of miles from home, but this past 

week I heard again from constituent after constituent who has 

gained new protections, new peace of mind, new hope from the Affordable Care Act, and they don’t want their benefits taken away. 

They don’t want to wait again while their kids are sick and uninsured or while they need to choose between paying for their medicine or their electric bill. But it isn’t all about the benefits to families and small businesses. It is also about taking steps to address 

the overall cost of health care in this country. 

Mr. Elmendorf, you stated in your testimony that CBO’s most recent comprehensive estimate of the repeal of the Affordable Care 

Act would increase the deficit by $210 billion over the 2012–2021 

period. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Congresswoman. 

79 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. And Mr. Elmendorf, your written testimony also states that the Affordable Care Act will cover 32 million 

of the uninsured by 2016. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Congresswoman. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Despite claims to the contrary, it is not 

tricky math. If we make smart investments, we can cover more 

people while reducing the deficit overall. But all of this goes away 

with repeal. And what is the replacement bill Republican leadership supports? Mr. Chairman, I would point my colleagues to an 

article published this week by the Bloomberg Business Week and 

it is entitled ‘‘The Republican Response to Obamacare.’’ This article 

is clear—despite the claims I hear from detractors of the law, according to a new Bloomberg analysis, GOP alternatives would save 

less than $5 billion a year, perhaps six-tenths of a percent of what 

health care costs in 2009, and this is compared to the $210 billion 

saved by the ACA over the next decade. Furthermore, the Republican alternative to the health reform bill would actually increase 

the number of uninsured people from 50 million in 2010 to 52 million in 2019, according to CBO’s estimation. And when looking at 

any of the represented Republican alternatives, not a single person 

would have guaranteed access to health coverage at an affordable 

price. So when we talk about saving money, let us be clear: the Affordable Care Act is the largest deficit-reducing bill enacted by 

Congress in the last decade and there have been no alternatives 

from the Republican leadership to even come close to helping so 

many while saving so much. 

Another area, and this is for you, Mr. Foster. Another area 

where I think we should set the record straight is on how the Affordable Care Act strengthens the health care workforce and creates jobs. Critics have said that there will be a shortage of medical 

professionals, particularly primary care doctors and providers in 

rural parts of the country, and they use this claim to advocate repeal, trying to pit those who already have insurance against those 

who will gain it through the law. But they ignore the fact that the 

Affordable Care Act has taken numerous steps to address these 

shortages. For example, it strengthens and expands the National 

Health Service Corps and community health centers providing primary care to communities most in need across our Nation. It creates a new program to train primary care physicians in the community called the teaching health centers, which will provide new 

doctors and give them the expertise they need to work in a community setting and give communities access to needed care. Americans 

will have better access to preventive and primary care. In short, we 

are training more providers, paying them more and providing more 

access points for primary care. Now, the Administration estimates 

that these policies will combine to create 16,000 new providers in 

the workforce over the next 5 years, and proposals in the President’s 2012 budget will add yet another 4,000 providers to that 

number. 

Mr. Foster, I want to ask you, I have about a minute left, do you 

agree that funding for the policies I mentioned from the Affordable 

Care Act could help expand the number of providers in the primary 

care field? 

Mr. FOSTER. Oh, I think it will. 

80 

Mrs. CAPPS. I think that is very critical to understand. I wanted 

to have this on the record. I am concerned that some of the assumptions in your estimates are based on what you call a relatively 

fixed workforce supply, but the Affordable Care Act and other provisions are trying to change that. I also think it is worth pointing 

out that tomorrow we will mark up a bill to eliminate one of these 

workforce programs. Yes, actually, cutting workforce and jobs programs in the economy. So at a very time when it is being demonstrated that we can actually create more jobs and actually save 

more money, we are doing the reverse. We are trying to eliminate 

programs that will work to this effect. 

And with that being said, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentlelady’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, for 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to finally 

have a chance to talk to both of you now that the bill is passed and 

it is the law. 

A few questions here. How much money did this bill borrow from 

Social Security? 

Mr. FOSTER. None that I can think of. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am not sure what you mean by borrow from 

Social Security. 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, some of the money I understand came from 

Social Security for this bill. Is that true? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, the bill does have some effects on the flow 

of money into the Social Security trust fund. 

Mr. MURPHY. How much is that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I believe there is a net increase in the flow of 

money to the Social Security trust fund. 

Mr. MURPHY. More goes into Social Security with this bill or—— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. It goes into Social Security by our estimate because there is a shift in the distribution of compensation from nontaxable—— 

Mr. MURPHY. How much? 

Mr. ELMENDORF [continuing]. Health insurance—— 

Mr. MURPHY. How much? How much? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think it is perhaps around $10 billion over 10 

years. 

Mr. MURPHY. But more goes into Social Security or more comes 

out of Social Security? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So more money goes into the Social Security 

trust fund. There may be ways in which somewhat more—— 

Mr. MURPHY. OK. I need to move on. And how much money is 

coming out of Medicare to go into helping to pay for the health care 

bill? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am not sure what you mean by coming out of 

Medicare. There are savings because of the cutbacks in payments 

to Medicare providers and because of the extra tax revenue going 

into the Hospital Insurance trust fund, the HI trust fund that deals 

with Part A of Medicare ends up with stronger cash flow over this 

next period than it would otherwise. 

Mr. MURPHY. The cuts to what? 

81 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Cuts to payments to Medicare providers and 

other changes in the Medicare program. 

Mr. MURPHY. Wait, wait. So by paying less to providers, meaning 

hospitals and doctors, we already have a long-term of doctors who 

are not accepting Medicare and Medicaid, and unfortunately, the 

only solution here that Congress sees is well, let us just pay them 

less, instead of reform, let us pay them less. And yet, Mr. Foster, 

you said a couple minutes ago that you thought this would bring 

more providers but we are going to pay them less. This doesn’t 

make sense to me. How are you going to pay people less that they 

don’t even want to cover it now and we are going to somehow entice them into doing this? If I gave you a 25 percent cut in your 

salary, will you say hey, sign me up? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. To be clear, Congressman, the cuts in payments 

to physicians in Medicare under the sustainable growth rate mechanism of prior law—— 

Mr. MURPHY. All right. Let me move on. We did have, however, 

Secretary Sebelius here in front of this committee saying it was 

double accounting to have money come from Medicare and also saying it was going into paying for this health care bill. Was she lying 

to us? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Congressman, I am not aware of exactly what 

the Secretary—— 

Mr. MURPHY. All right. Also, we had another secretary talk about 

the CLASS Act, and she said to me that it did appear from the estimates from CBO that because the money was accounted for to provide this long-term insurance fund but also it was said if we didn’t 

do this there would be a $86 billion loss to the health care fund, 

that that was double booking instead. Was she not telling us the 

truth? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I don’t know what the Secretary said to you. I 

can talk about our analysis of the CLASS. 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Foster, are you aware of that? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I think I would bet you a Coke that she did 

not say there is double counting. I would be happy to explain. 

Mr. MURPHY. That would be great. Could you get back to me on 

that because I would like that. 

Mr. FOSTER. Sure. 

Mr. MURPHY. Now, there is also increased tax on medical devices, and you said this would be passed on to consumers. Do we 

know how much this is going to cost families and how much it is 

going to increase insurance costs? Do you have a number on that? 

Mr. FOSTER. No, I don’t. 

Mr. MURPHY. Could you get back to us with that? 

Mr. FOSTER. Sure. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So Congressman, I can say in our analysis of 

premiums—— 

Mr. MURPHY. I just need a number. And do we have a number? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I don’t have a number for that piece offhand. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. School-based health centers, what is 

that going to cost? Does someone know? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry. 

Mr. MURPHY. Would you be willing to get us that information? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, of course, Congressman. 

82 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, it is all public. I just—— 

Mr. MURPHY. The number of people who will lose their private 

insurance, I think originally the bill thought 9 million. We are seeing some estimates of some accounting firms saying that number 

may be 50 or 60 or 80 million. Do we have a readjusted number 

of how many you think will lose their private plan, given that 1,000 

people have also asked for waivers? Do we have another update on 

how many people will lose their private plan? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So Congressman, as part of our March baseline 

projections and what it is included in my written testimony, we 

have slightly different estimates on the effects on private insurance 

coverage. We do not expect anything like the sort of dropping of 

employer-sponsored insurance that you—— 

Mr. MURPHY. But 1,000 have asked for waivers. If you could provide us some economic analysis of what that also means for us too, 

also what it would mean, if you could provide us information on the 

number of people who may lose their jobs, because we are hearing 

from small employers saying I am not going to hire more, I am 

going to try and keep it under 50. Do we have an analysis of that 

number of jobs and the loss of federal revenue from that? Does anybody have that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Again, Congressman, in reports we issued before and in my written testimony for today, we talk about the effects we think will take place in the labor market. 

Mr. MURPHY. Similarly, in terms of the pharmaceutical issues 

too, and all these issues that we are looking at here, it is a matter 

of having updates on all these, but what we are all hearing from 

employers is the loss of jobs, increased costs of private health insurance, costs of medical devices, increased costs of prescription 

drugs, and I know we are talking on some levels of what this 

means for federal revenue. I am not sure we are doing analysis of 

what this means for the average family in America and the average 

employer, so I hope we can have that information too, and if you 

would be willing to provide that for us, I would be grateful. 

With that, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I had intended to make 

a unanimous consent request to insert an article from the 

Bloomberg Business Week entitled ‘‘The Republican Response to 

Obamacare’’ at the end of my 5 minutes, and I neglected to do so. 

May I do so now, please? 

Mr. PITTS. Can we see the article? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Of course. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wisconsin, 

Ms. Baldwin, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I agree with my colleagues that we must reduce the deficit and 

work towards a balanced federal budget. However, we have to be 

smart about the priorities and the choices that we make and we 

need to be smart if we are going to cut spending without compromising job creation and our economic recovery and frankly our future. The Republican spending bill, H.R. 1, clearly illustrates the 

new Majority’s choices and priorities. This measure threatens jobs 

83 

and our fragile economic recovery and slashes vital services to the 

American people. Republicans have prioritized cutting health care 

services to our most vulnerable populations without considering the 

consequences of such actions, and once again Republicans have targeted critical safety-net programs like Medicaid and Medicare. 

Meanwhile, the measure, H.R. 1, does little to rein in excess military spending like weapons system that the Pentagon doesn’t even 

want or eliminate government handouts to Big Oil or even eliminate tax breaks for multimillionaires. Today we spend millions of 

dollars each day in Afghanistan and Iraq, spending that is certainly protected in H.R. 1. And tangentially, I just read yesterday 

that the Pentagon reported that war funding in Libya has already 

surpassed the half-billion-dollar mark, $550 million specifically was 

reported yesterday. 

Today we are here at this hearing to discuss the costs of the 

health care reform law passed a year ago, a law that my colleagues 

on the other side of the aisle seek to repeal, repeal it outright. Let 

me remind my colleagues that repealing the health care reform law 

would add $210 billion to our federal deficit over the next 10-year 

time horizon. That number comes from the Congressional Budget 

Office. 

Mr. Elmendorf, I am really perplexed at how Republicans can 

claim that a bill your agency scored as reducing the deficit is actually contributing somehow to our alleged spending problems, and 

I would like us to reflect upon and consider what really contributes 

to our Nation’s deficit. How much, Dr. Elmendorf, does the CBO 

anticipate will be spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over 

the next 10 years according to your January baseline? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So I don’t remember the number, Congresswoman. As you understand, our baseline for discretionary spending 

takes the current levels of spending and simply extrapolates those 

out. 

Ms. BALDWIN. There are a lot of assumptions that are in there. 

Does $1.7 trillion sound familiar to you? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry, Congresswoman. I really don’t know 

the answer to that. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Well, how about the Bush tax cuts and the extension of the Bush tax cuts, tax cuts that provide income and estate 

tax cuts to the very wealthy? How much does the January CBO 

baseline indicate that that will cost to extend over the next 10 

years? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So we reported in January that extending the 

income tax and estate and gift tax provisions now scheduled to expire at the end of next year would cost about $2.5 trillion over the 

coming decade and then would also result in about a half a trillion 

dollars of additional interest payments. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Because we are borrowing the money for these tax 

cuts. OK. So I know you don’t have the figure at your fingertips 

on the wars and that includes some estimates, but from my reading 

of the CBO January baseline, between the wars and the tax cuts, 

we are looking at nearly $5 trillion, all of it borrowed money, all 

of it completely unpaid for, and yet the Republican solution to the 

deficit is to repeal a law adding an additional $210 billion to the 

84 

deficit and leaving vulnerable Americans without access to health 

care. 

Mr. Chairman, again, this is about making smart choices, and I 

am disappointed with the choices that the Majority is making right 

now. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, could I ask if—— 

Ms. BALDWIN. I would yield to the gentleman my remaining time. 

Mr. PALLONE. No, I just wanted to ask about a unanimous consent request. Ms. Capps had made a unanimous consent request, 

which I think that Dr. Burgess has seen now, so I just wanted to 

see if that—— 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, it will be entered into the record. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from New Jersey for 5 minutes, Mr. Lance. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning 

to you both. 

Mr. Elmendorf, it is my understanding that under PPACA there 

is an inconsistent rule regarding part-time employees. As I understand it, on one hand it does not require a group health plan to 

provide employees who work fewer than 30 hours per week, the 

minimum essential coverage under the pay-to-play rules that take 

effect in 2014. However, any group health plan that does cover 

part-time employees must comply with the act’s coverage mandates 

that go into effect in 2011. From my perspective, I think that this 

might have the net effect to incentivize those businesses to drop all 

health care coverage for part-time employees, and with the Statebased exchanges not coming into effect until 2014, wouldn’t this be 

adding to the current pool of uninsured? Dr. Elmendorf, did CBO 

examine that situation, sir? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So Congressman, your description of the law 

sounds right to my expert team behind me. What we have written 

before and in the testimony today is that actually there are some 

reasons that firms might end up hiring more part-time and seasonal employees because of the way in which some of the penalties 

that face firms only if they have part-time employees who are seeking subsidies through the exchanges and not part-time employees. 

So there are some cross currents in the legislation. Of course, the 

effects of these provisions will only be in place a number of years 

from now, which even our forecast of a relatively slow economic recovery suggests that we will be moving our way back toward more 

traditional levels of unemployment in this country, so I am not diminishing the concern about effects on employment but I think one 

of the starting points should not be today’s unemployment rate but 

that which would be in place in the future. 

Mr. LANCE. Well, I agree with that. I have had constituents in 

my office who are greatly concerned about this, constituents who 

do cover their part-time employees, and this concerned supermarkets in the area and they do what I think is the right thing 

in covering their part-time employees, or they certainly are looking 

85 

to do that but they believe that there might be a disincentive. 

Thank you for that. 

Mr. Foster, and I think Dr. Murphy referenced this as well, the 

2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices, do you anticipate that 

these fees and excise taxes would generally be passed through to 

health consumers in the form of higher prices and higher insurance 

premiums? And as I understand it, they would be placed on devises 

like pacemakers. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir, we think that would be the typical reaction 

would be to raise the prices of the products to cover the higher 

costs associated with the fees or the taxes. 

Mr. LANCE. And from my perspective as a matter of public policy, 

I do not think that that is a good idea because I think that these 

devices are expensive enough already. 

Mr. Elmendorf, I believe the CBO estimates between that between 6 and 7 million Americans who would have to have offered 

employee-based coverage before the health care law was passed 

would not be offered coverage under current law. Is it true that 

Americans would likely be employees of small businesses or lowwage employees? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, that is right, Congressman, and that flow, 

that reduction in employment in some places is part of the overall 

story that we modeled. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to give my remaining time to 

whoever would like it, Dr. Burgess or Dr. Cassidy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Foster, just to follow up a question that was 

asked of Dr. Elmendorf, and I am not sure, this is not 

confrontative, just to explore, the effect of excluding the Social Security from the Medicaid income eligibility criteria, I think someone said could increase the number of enrollees by some significant 

number, maybe 5 million, and Mr. Foster, I am not clear, when you 

all say 17 to 20 million people will be enrolled in Medicaid, does 

that take into account the fact that the effective income threshold 

will now be 138 percent for those Social Security recipients? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, in our original estimates for the Medicaid expansion, we estimated 20 million people would become newly covered. That took into account the 138 percent because of the income 

disregard but at that time we assumed that the policy would continue, that Social Security benefits would continue to count as 

earnings in meeting this test. With the strict definition of modified 

adjusted gross income then for most such people Social Security 

benefits would not count or not very much of them would count. 

That would potentially increase the number of Medicaid-eligible 

people under the expansion by 5 million or more. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So we are really talking 25 million will now be on 

Medicaid if we have income disregard for Social Security benefits? 

Mr. FOSTER. Not every one of them would end up there. They 

would be eligible but many would have already have employer retiree coverage. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So ballpark figure, though, just so we can know, 

how many will be on Medicaid if you have income disregard for Social Security? 

Mr. FOSTER. So 24.7 million. 

86 

Mr. PITTS. Dr. Elmendorf, did you want to respond? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That factor was taken into account in our estimate, Congressman. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And so your final number is what? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So we expect that the increase in Medicaid and 

CHIP enrollment under the legislation will be 17 million by 2021. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So there is a discrepancy there. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

first say, you know, here we go again, just one week after the oneyear anniversary of this Affordable Care Act the subcommittee is 

holding yet another hearing attempting to undermine it and what 

the true costs that we should be talking today are what would have 

happened if we had not taken action. The Affordable Care Act 

makes health care affordable for the middle class and has halted 

a steady rise in health costs that led us to much of our budgetary 

woes over the years. For all the talk of the sky falling, my Majority 

colleagues have repeatedly failed to provide any alternative ideas 

that would come remotely close to accomplishing what the Affordable Care Act does. They had 6 years of control of the House, Senate and White House and provided no leadership on this issue. All 

we have are alarmist sound bites and false platitudes and even 

more frightening are the true costs that will come if the new Majority places spending caps or block grants Medicaid, as they propose to do. These actions will not save money, it will simply abdicate responsibility and shift costs to State providers and beneficiaries. 

Now, let me say that Secretary Sebelius and Assistant Secretary 

Greenlee disagree with some of my Republican colleagues who have 

been saying that there is double counting in letters they have sent 

to Ranking Members Waxman and Pallone. This is Secretary 

Sebelius and Assistant Secretary Greenlee have sent letters to Mr. 

Waxman and Mr. Pallone saying that there is not double counting, 

and the Secretary gives this example, and I quote from her: ‘‘In the 

same way when a baseball player hits a homer, it both adds one 

run to this team’s score and also improves his batting average. Neither situation involves double counting.’’ So I would like to submit 

these letters for the record. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, it is interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle talk about how much the Affordable Care Act is going to cost. 

I would like to remind them that when Republicans passed the 

Medicare Modernization Act in 2003, they did not offset its costs. 

CBO estimated the bill would add $394 billion to the deficit over 

10 years, and CBO is our official scorekeeper. 

So let me ask Mr. Elmendorf, how much will the prescription 

drug benefit draw from general revenues over 75 years, which is 

the traditional long-term horizon used for actuarial projections in 

the Medicare trustee’s report? 

87 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry, Congressman. I don’t have the answer to that question offhand. Maybe Rick does, based on their own 

estimates of the Office of the Actuary. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Foster? 

Mr. FOSTER. The present value of the general revenues for Part D over that 75-year period are estimated to be about $7.2 trillion. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. Seven point two trillion dollars. Based, 

as you said, on the most recent trustee’s report, the unfunded obligation is $7.2 trillion. Did the Medicare Modernization Act include 

other provisions increasing revenues or cutting spending that 

might come close to generating the resources to meet the $7.2 trillion obligation from general revenues? 

Mr. FOSTER. No, it was clearly a new expenditure for a new program. 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, so the answer is no. I agree with that. CBO’s 

net score for the Medicare Modernization Act was $394 billion, 

which included nearly $410 billion in new spending for the prescription drug benefit and only about $16 billion in offsetting savings over 10 years. This means the vast majority of the prescription 

drug benefit costs, $394 billion over the first 10 years, was added 

to the deficit. So my Republican friends seem to be saying do as 

I say, not as I do, and I think one of my colleagues before had mentioned how the tax breaks for the rich and the estate tax breaks 

and everything else just keeps adding trillions and trillions and 

trillions of dollars to the deficit, and when my friends on the other 

side of the aisle were in control for 6 years passing Medicare Part 

D, they didn’t seem to care about the deficit then but I guess, you 

know, whenever you have the newfound religion, it is great, but I 

think we also need to be consistent. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I think I will use 

a little baseball analogy. Like my friend from New York, I think 

he said that in this double-counting issue when a player hits a 

home run, it is one run and he also adds to his batting average. 

I would like to say that also when Casey strikes out, he loses and 

the team loses and there is no joy in Mudville, and I would say in 

this particular case of the Obamacare bill, Obama being Casey and 

the team being the American people, Casey struck a big out and 

the American people are suffering as a result. 

Mr. Foster, in the opening page of your testimony, you state that 

it is the role of the CMS Actuary, your role, to provide economic 

actuarial and other technical assistance to policymakers and the 

Administration and Congress on an independent, objective and 

nonpartisan basis. Is that correct? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GINGREY. Two weeks ago, Assistant Secretary Greenlee was 

here stating before this committee and the department that she 

said the Department of Aging, which she chairs, promised to work 

with you before moving forward on implementing the CLASS program. Secretary Sebelius in her own words gave her pledge to work 

with this committee to ensure that the CLASS program is truly 

sustainable before the Administration proceeds with program operVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
88 

ations. Mr. Foster, will you make a similar commitment to me 

today that you will work with this committee to conduct in our role 

as Chief Actuarial a full and objective assessment of the Administration’s plan for CLASS to ensure the program is truly sustainable 

including weighing the impact that any proposed premium increases will have on consumer participation in this program? Will 

you make that pledge to me? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. Let me add to that just briefly. The responsibility for administering the CLASS program is in Ms. Greenlee’s 

part of the agency. They have hired a Chief Actuary to help determine the CLASS premiums, help do the actuarial aspects, a fellow 

named Robert Yee, who is very good. He has contacted me to want 

to run by us some of their thoughts, some of their efforts to make 

this workable. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, let me quickly ask you, I need to move on 

to another question, is it truly necessary to have another actuary 

doing that work for the CLASS program? Can you not in your capacity as Chief Actuary for CMS continue to do that same kind of 

work for the CLASS Act? Could you not? 

Mr. FOSTER. We could. 

Mr. GINGREY. Absolutely. Well, look, let me first of all commend 

you in regard to your analysis of the Medicare cuts, which are critical elements of Obamacare. As you know, these cuts were doubly 

counted, and Secretary Sebelius said as much. They pay for the 

major part of the entitlement expansion as well as so-called extending the life of Part A trust fund. 

Now, look, let me walk you through a couple of charts because 

you talked about this earlier, and these are taken from simulations 

that your staff have performed and then maybe we can get you to 

comment on that. This first chart basically shows that because of 

Obamacare cuts, Medicare rates will be lower than Medicaid rates 

by 2019. That is right here as it drops below Medicare rates, and 

that by the 75-year period Medicare payments would only be onethird, only one-third of the relative current private pay rates and 

one-half of Medicaid by the 75-year mark. Now, we have another 

chart I want my colleagues to look at, and if you will pay attention 

to this one, the second one shows a comparison of relative rates for 

inpatient hospital services only, and the key point here is that both 

the Medicare and Medicaid rates collapse together because Medicaid under current law cannot pay more than Medicare upper 

limit requirements for hospital service. At the end of the scoring 

window, hospitals would be paid 37 percent of private pay rates for 

both Medicare and Medicaid. 

So let me make two quick statements. First, these Medicare cuts 

are the major pay for for this $2 trillion entitlement expansion 

which begins in 2014 and goes through the 10-year period of 2023. 

Second, there is no chance that these Medicare cuts will remain on 

the books in future years based on your analysis. Putting the two 

statements together means that in the next decade, Obamacare 

will add dramatically to the budget deficit because it will not be 

paid for. Mr. Foster, can you comment on that? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, if you leave out some of the adjectives, I would 

probably agree with most of what you just said. The concern is that 

these payment reductions or the slower growth in payment rates 

89 

won’t be sustainable in the long term, and if that happens, then 

the savings that are generated by those won’t occur because you all 

will have to override them to prevent problems with access. To the 

extent that those savings are used to help pay for the cost of the 

coverage expansions under the Affordable Care Act, then that ability to pay for—— 

Mr. GINGREY. And providers will have no choice but to shift that 

cost to the private market, thus raising the cost of private health 

insurance. 

Mr. FOSTER. That is one way they might react. It is not clear—— 

Mr. GINGREY. And I thank you for your testimony. Thank you for 

your patience, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t have the fancy charts my colleagues have but I just want 

to do the double counting thing. If you save money with a policy 

change in the bill by having good ideas in the bill, could you not 

only save money but extend Medicare from 2017 to 2029? Is that 

the effect of the bill? 

Mr. FOSTER. That was our estimate. 

Mr. WEINER. So in other words, you can save money and you extend the life expectancy as you see in my charts. Is that true? 

Mr. FOSTER. Both of these happen. 

Mr. WEINER. Yes, those things both happen. Now, does that 

mean that there is anything nefarious about them? Are we defying 

the laws of economic gravity? Are cats going to start sleeping with 

dogs? Or does this sometime happen in laws that you make 

changes that both save money and extend the life of a program 

that some of us support and some of us oppose? Is that true? 

Mr. FOSTER. The issue is that a given dollar of savings, your first 

chart with a dollar. 

Mr. WEINER. Right. This one here. Hold on. Let me get it for the 

viewers. 

Mr. FOSTER. I like that one best. Your first chart with a dollar, 

that dollar can be used to spend in real life to help pay for the coverage expansions or it can be used to help pay for Medicare. 

Mr. WEINER. Right. 

Mr. FOSTER. The same dollar can’t be used twice for each purpose. That takes $2. Now, because of the accounting mechanisms, 

both of them will happen, but if I may, let me explain why briefly. 

The savings for hospital insurance under the Affordable Care Act 

are quite large. The actual cash that we no longer have to spend 

because of lower expenditures—— 

Mr. WEINER. Adds to the—— 

Mr. FOSTER [continuing]. Taxes we get. That actual cash goes 

into the general fund that is used for whatever purpose—— 

Mr. WEINER. Right. 

Mr. FOSTER [continuing]. Treasury needs to use it for. 

Mr. WEINER. I appreciate that. I just wanted to make it clear 

that this is another one of these non-issues, and it is fascinating, 

I should say, that the same people that are objecting to all of these 

things are people who frankly apparently want there to be deeper 

90 

cuts in Medicare, or they are actually schizophrenic on Medicare. 

Some of them deride single-payer health care plans but seem to 

love this one. Suddenly they are the defenders of Medicare, and 

they were the ones that apparently opposed single-payer health 

care plans, which is what Medicare is. 

Let me just ask you this question. I heard some of Mr. Rogers’ 

questions and I just want to make sure we understand it. This bill 

has a 35 percent tax credit for small businesses that offer health 

insurance for their workers. Is that true? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WEINER. Before this bill was passed, did small businesses get 

a 35 percent tax credit for offering health insurance to their workers, before it was passed? I will help you with this one. The answer 

is one. It goes to 50 percent after the exchanges are set up. Small 

businesses under this law get a 50 percent tax credit for offering 

health insurance to their workers. Democrats support a tax credit 

for people offering health insurance and the Republicans are 

against it because if you repeal this bill, it would disappear. So let 

me say that again. Democrats who supported this bill now can 

proudly say small businesses get a 35 percent tax credit for every 

single dollar they spend for health care and in 2017 it goes up to 

a full 50 percent. Republicans want to eliminate that small business tax credit. That is the bottom line here. We have a bill that 

takes the idea of using tax reductions for small businesses and 

helps them provide insurance for more workers. 

Can I ask you gentlemen this question? We have heard what the 

Republicans are against as far as health care is concerned. We 

know in this country that before health reform was passed, real incomes in this country were flat despite the fact that corporate profits, we went through a pretty boom period in this country. Is it not 

the case that one of the reasons that that happened, that businesses were doing pretty well, the market was doing pretty well, 

there was a lot of cash in the system before we had the big Bush 

collapse, but is it not true that one of the reasons that income 

stayed flat is because employers because of the explosion in costs 

for health care had to put every spare dollar they had into health 

insurance rather than giving wages? Doesn’t it—maybe Mr. Elmendorf is the best person to answer this. Doesn’t the explosion of 

health care costs put downward pressure on other elements of employment costs like wages? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, it does, Congressman. 

Mr. WEINER. So if you reduce the amount of health care costs or 

move that burden to a program that provides competition like an 

exchange, that lower burden on health care costs will mean that 

at least in theory employers will have the ability now to take some 

of that money into wages? Is that not true, Mr. Elmendorf? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. If you reduce private health spending. 

Mr. FOSTER. Right. Which of course is the goal that we all have, 

and Mr. Elmendorf, I don’t know if you have this at your fingertips. 

Do you happen to know whether the health care offered by Medicare is more efficient, meaning having less overhead and profits, 

than private insurance? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Medicare has lower administrative costs than 

certainly the small group and non-group markets. 

91 

Mr. WEINER. And no profits obviously. They take no money for 

profits? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That is right. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Just a quick comment. Medicare also has potentially 10 to 20 percent of its receipts going out in fraud, so maybe 

there is something to be said for overhead. 

Mr. Foster, you mentioned how there may be different ways, oK, 

so Dr. Gingrey showed how if we hit this cliff, Medicare and Medicaid payments to physicians and hospitals will decrease dramatically relative to private insurance, and you mentioned that there 

are different ways that they can compensate for that. Now, I have 

an article here from Milliman from 2008 which speaks about the 

hydraulic effect and how in the Milliman article, this is 2008, they 

estimate that significant discounts in Medicaid cause a hydraulic 

effect, driving up the cost of private insurance, and that it is possible that there would be 15 percent lower health insurance cost 

were it not for Medicaid paying below the providers’ actual cost of 

doing business. Now, it seems as if, knowing that there is a lot of 

things possible, but it seems most likely that this hydraulic effect 

will be exacerbated by this kind of cliff that we see with Medicaid 

and Medicare. Will you accept that? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, that is one reaction we would probably anticipate. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So it is a probable. It is not just kind of maybe out 

there but it a probable. I think history would say that is true. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Congressman, can I just add, there are some 

conflicting forces, though, in this law, so there are reductions in 

Medicare payment rates. There are also some people who today 

otherwise would the law would be uninsured would then be having 

health insurance—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. I will say that, reclaiming my time, Dr. Elmendorf, 

only because I have limited time, I think the experience in Massachusetts says that broadening access does not control cost. I think 

that argument has been effectively diminished. But if I can go back 

to Mr. Foster, not to be rude, but I just have limited time. 

Mr. Foster, the next thing to say is, we know that in times past, 

and you may have even written this to the effect, that when there 

is a cliff in SGR, Congress will almost always, in fact, has always 

increased that back up. Now, I guess my question for you is, I 

think you do behavioral modifications. You look at a piece of legislation and you can see wow, sure, this is the parameters given to 

us but the contortions given to us do not reflect reality. There 

should be a codicil, if you will. There should be some addendum 

that says, you know, using behavioral health, we would discount 

the effective savings. It seems like you should have used that same 

methodology as regards this cliff that is going to affect Medicare 

and the resulting hydraulic effect upon private insurance rates 

driving them up 15, maybe 25 percent. Any comments upon that? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, it is actually an excellent point in terms of anticipating what kinds of reactions might happen. We do this where 

we have a good basis for it and where it affects, for example, the 

92 

financial status of Medicare or estimating Medicare or Medicaid 

costs. We don’t do it in every case. For example, if there is cost 

shifting by hospitals or other providers because the Medicare or 

Medicaid payments are inadequate, they cost shift to private insurance. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Driving up the cost for the privately insured. What 

we are really saying is cost shifting is driving up the cost. This bill 

through its cost-shifting mechanism drives up the cost for the privately insured. OK. Continue. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, and there is some disagreement about to what 

extent that happens. It is hard to measure. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But going back to my point, wouldn’t it have been 

wise for you to discount the savings given that the behavioral aspect of Congress is to hold providers harmless for the SGR, as one 

example? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, it depends on what you are measuring, sir. If 

you are measuring federal expenditures and Medicare saves money 

but private health insurance gets more expensive, that may not affect federal expenditures. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Then that is a good point, because really, you are 

only looking at federal spending. In a sense, by law you are required not to consider the fact that we are driving up costs for privately insured. 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, we also look at total national health expenditures. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I saw that, and that rises. So even though the federal supposedly saves, the fact that there is national health expenditures that rise means that somebody is eating it, and it is 

probably the States and the privately insured. 

I think I am getting from you that you could have done behavioral intervention but for whatever reason, your methodology, you 

chose not to do so. 

Mr. FOSTER. Not in this particular instance. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Let me go to the next point. Everybody is talking 

about—clearly, press reports say that the reason that this was 

offloaded upon the states is that it saved the Federal Government 

money but clearly it is going to cost the States a heck of a lot of 

money, and so I have here a Lewin report, the impact of expenditures. Mr. Waxman, whom I have great respect for, spoke about an 

adult conversation. According to this Lewin report, under this 

Obamacare bill, his State is going to have increased Medicaid expenditures of $4.8 billion over a 5-year period. Louisiana is going 

to be $1.5 billion. Texas is over $4 billion as well. So is it well to 

concede that although federal expenditures are going down, in the 

case of California it will be $4.8 billion higher, Texas $4 billion, 

Louisiana $1.5 billion higher? We just cost shifted from the feds to 

the States? 

Mr. FOSTER. Most of what is in the bill goes the other way 

around. There are many provisions that reduce the States’ share of 

cost and increase the federal share. Overall, the State cost is not 

great. I have specific estimates that we can provide for the record. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So you would dispute the Lewin report? 

Mr. FOSTER. If I understood what they were saying correctly. I 

would want to look at it carefully. 

93 

Mr. CASSIDY. I will submit that to the record once I get ahold of 

it. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, 

thanks very much for your indulgence this morning. I really appreciate you being here. And Mr. Elmendorf, it is good to see you 

again from my time on the Budget Committee. As always, I am 

glad to see you come before the committee and hear your input. 

I think everybody has been talking to Mr. Foster so maybe I can 

talk to you for a couple of minutes here. You know, even when I 

was on the Budget Committee, I always enjoyed reading your statements when you came before the committee, and also, you know, 

one of the things that we have been talking about this morning 

about physician services, etc., talking on page 9 under the heading 

‘‘uncertainty surrounding the estimates,’’ and again, from my days 

on the Budget Committee, I understand that you are given a snapshot. We are looking at a snapshot at that time of the information 

that you are given to make an estimate on. But I find it interesting 

in your statement just a few things if you could comment on. 

In the one paragraph, you say, ‘‘In fact, CBO’s cost estimate for 

the legislation noted it will put into effect a number of policies that 

might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time,’’ and then 

you go on to state that, ‘‘It is unclear whether such a reduction can 

be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health 

care or will instead reduce access to care or the quality of care relative to the situation under prior law.’’ And we heard Mr. Foster 

talking a little bit earlier in regards to the economizing the efficiencies that have to be done. It is kind of interesting because you 

are both kind of going the same way. First, under what we call the 

doc fix, how much was the doc fix before the law went into effect? 

Do you remember what that number was for the 10-year period? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. How much would it cost over the 10-year period? 

Mr. LATTA. Right. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think the estimate was about $250 billion as 

of a year or so ago. I am not exactly sure. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And did the health care law look at the doc fix 

at all? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. The health care law did not adjust payments to 

physicians in Medicare. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. And my next question is, because also following up, we have some doctors that are on the committee, but 

when we are talking about, what worries me is when we are talking about achieve through greater efficiencies or, and I would like 

to ask this, reduce access to care or the quality of care. Could you 

define those two, reducing the access to care or the quality of care 

that you would be looking at when you made that statement? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So access to care, the first issue we discussed 

here about in Medicare, which pays significantly less to physicians 

than Medicare does today and it varies across States but on average, it is harder for Medicaid patients to find physicians who will 

treat them than it is for patients in Medicare or patients with private insurance, and so one of the measures of access is whether 

94 

people can find doctors to treat them. Quality is a harder thing to 

measure in medical care, and part of the legislation that we are 

discussing in fact is an effort to increase the dissemination of quality measures and to develop new quality measures. That is a harder thing to look up. I think those are the sorts of concerns that we 

have spoken about and the Office of the Actuary has spoken about 

as well. 

Mr. LATTA. And again, going back, again, knowing, understanding that you are looking at a snapshot of what is being given 

you, the information that is given to you at that very moment in 

time to make your analysis on, was anything ever talked about 

during that time about reducing that care or that quality of care 

and what that would do the system at that time or to the people 

that would have to try to get the care? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So a sentence much like this one has appeared 

in a succession of our cost estimates beginning at the point where 

this feature was a prominent part of the legislation that we were 

providing analysis of. I don’t know what consideration these issues 

were given. I want to just emphasize one point, Congressman. You 

said several times we were given certain things. I want to be clear, 

what we were given is a piece of legislation. What we bring to that 

is our experience and evidence that analysts have developed. 

Mr. LATTA. Right, and that is what I mean. We are looking at 

a snapshot of what is given to you, that you are not going out and 

getting that information, that you are told what you are supposed 

to look at. 

Let me ask this real quick because time is running out here. In 

the second to the last sentence it says, ‘‘So that the shares of income that enrollees have to pay will increase more rapidly at this 

point.’’ How much is that increase, do you think? Any idea on that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. It depends on how the economy unfolds. The 

word in the sentence of likely that exchange subsidies will grow 

more slowly is because we don’t know what the economic outcome 

will be, but I can’t quantify the exact change offhand in our baseline estimates, but we can look those up for you, Congressman. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to comment on the small business tax credits. My understanding, they are 

only for 2 years and it is only for employees of 25 or less, so if you 

are a small business with 25 or less, you can be subsidized with 

a tax credit for 2 years and that tax credit goes away. Therefore, 

you are going to choose either to continue expensive health insurance, which is going to driven higher by this bill, or drop it. Second 

of all, if you are a small business, which I consider a small business with 51 employees, I have a lot of them in my district, you 

have no tax credit and mandated to provide health insurance or 

you choose to put people into the exchange and make that other 

part, and I don’t know if you all look at that type of behavior when 

you do that, but I want to go with a question. 

Mr. Elmendorf, you sent Mr. Lewis, our former ranking member, 

a letter saying about the appropriations process, the appropriations 

95 

part of it, saying that there was a list of new activities for which 

PPACA includes only a broad authorization for appropriations of 

such sums as necessary and for those activities the lack of guidance made it difficult for you to come up with a score or necessary 

amounts. You can bring that forward. 

The second point, though, is there was one that in section 

1311(a)(1) where the Secretary—and I will just read it—‘‘it is the 

amount necessary to enable the Secretary to make awards for 

State-based exchanges. These awards can be used to facilitate enrollment in the exchange,’’ and you estimate that at $2 billion. I 

believe that is the number. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. And then the Kaiser Health News reported that a 

member of the Administration, Donald Berwick, the Administrator 

of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was talking with 

the States talking about the pressure for Medicaid, and he said to 

them, it was reported in Kaiser Health News, he was sensitive to 

that situation but his solutions, however, were to point States to 

funding that he said is already available to them such as subsidies 

to establish insurance exchanges. And I would have to guess that 

if what the Administration think should happen to help States 

through the budget crises with Medicaid, that is going to be far 

more than $2 billion. So my question is, what assumptions did you 

make? And the Secretary said this in a meeting on March 3rd, I 

think it was, that she has complete—there are no limits on how 

much she can spend in this provision. There is no limit. She said 

that. And she has no need for additional Congress authority to 

spend it. Obviously a member of the Administration says you can 

spend it to help States plug their Medicaid budget hole. So what 

assumptions did you use to get the $2 billion? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So we estimate that outlays for grants under the section would be $2.1 billion over the 2011–2015 period, at 

which point the program ceases. Those estimates are based on the 

costs of implementing other programs in the government that we 

believe are similar in their structure, not in the precise substantive 

purpose, of course. And that is the way we do estimates in general 

of the cost of implementing various programs is to try to look for 

analogies and other things the government has been doing, and so 

far CMS has announced awards of $49 million for planning grants. 

We think that there will be, as I said, about $2 billion spent over 

the 5 years in total. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. But if the Administrator of Medicaid Services is 

correct and it is available, he said he points to solutions to point 

to States to funding that he said is already available to them such 

as subsidies to help establish health insurance exchanges so those 

subsidies are used in a way that helps the States. Because you 

could facilitate enrollment by granting more money for Medicaid to 

get more people enrolled in the health care exchange, because that 

would follow under the law. I know you can’t model that behavior. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So under this section, this I believe, limits 

grants to activities related to establishing insurance exchanges, 

and so I don’t think the changes in enrollment or activities related 

to establishing an exchange. It is certainly the case that this $2.1 

billion number might be too low. It might also be too high in our 

96 

judgment. We tried to put it in the middle of the distribution of 

possible outcomes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I understand what you had to do. You had to take 

a similar model. I understand your modeling requirements. But my 

point that I am making, the people in the Administration are taking a far broader term than that. I think facilitate enrollment in 

the exchanges is a broad term, and obviously people in the Administration seem to think that way. At least somebody that should require Senate confirmation made that comment. 

But I would like to yield the last 30 seconds to my friend from 

Louisiana. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Foster, I think that issue is, is that in the aggregate there is less spending in states but because New York is 

such a high-cost state, all the savings frankly come from New York 

and a few other states like that—Massachusetts—but if you take 

the people who are not eligible at less than 138 percent of federal 

poverty and you move them up, that is why California, which has 

a lot of poverty, even though it has a high main per capita income, 

it is going to be $4.8 billion from 2014 to 2019 in increased Medicaid expenditures. Again, does that seem reasonable to you that 

maybe New York is offsetting everybody else? 

Mr. FOSTER. I am sure there are significant state-by-state variations in the net impact. We have only estimated the overall national, not the individual States. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. 

Mr. PITTS. I thank the gentleman and recognize the vice chairman for one follow-up. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courtesy. 

Mr. Foster, in your prepared testimony you say you are here 

today in your role as an independent technical advisor to Congress. 

Perhaps offline you can expound for us what triggers that role as 

different from the Chief Actuary to the Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services. And the reason I feel this is important and the 

reason I asked for the Resolution of Inquiry last year is, what triggers that role. Now, we were in sort of a rush to pass a year ago 

the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and I cannot escape 

the feeling that we were asked to vote on that bill before we had 

all of the data. So really my question to you is very simple: do you 

feel we had the full picture March 23, 2010, or March 21, 2010, 

when this vote was called on the floor of the House in your role 

as an independent technical advisor to Congress, not as the Chief 

Actuary for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services? 

Mr. FOSTER. In either role I do the same thing, which is give you 

an honest answer to an honest question. What happened was, the 

legislation was complicated. It took our team working on this some 

period of time from the time we got the legislation until we could 

produce an estimate we were comfortable with. 

Mr. BURGESS. Were you able to convey to the Speaker of the 

House that information, that you did not have a figure that you 

were comfortable with prior to Congress taking a vote on something of this magnitude? 

Mr. FOSTER. The Speaker of the House did not ask us. Various 

members of the House and Senate did ask us from time to time 

97 

could we have something, could we have it prior to the vote that 

was scheduled. I think in all instances, we were not able to produce 

our estimates, to complete them before the vote actually occurred. 

Now, our goal was to do that but it was too hard within the time 

available. 

Mr. BURGESS. But it not like the train was going to run off the 

railroad bridge if the vote didn’t happen on March 21st. We could 

have voted on April 21st, could we have not, and had time for your 

independent technical advice? 

Mr. FOSTER. If the vote were delayed, clearly, yes—— 

Mr. BURGESS. In retrospect, do you think Congress would have 

benefited from having your opinion on the cost of this legislation? 

Mr. FOSTER. On a good day, I think our advice is useful. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. The ranking member has a follow-up question. Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Foster, no one delayed you from getting your 

estimate, you just weren’t able to get the estimate in the time you 

had hoped. Is that correct? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, that is correct. I mean, for CBO and Doug, you 

got the legislation early on because nobody wanted to finalize it 

without knowing the effects. We never got the legislation until it 

was announced publicly. We could only start at that point to do our 

work, so we were constantly behind you. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And did you ever give a final estimate of the actual 

bill that has passed the Congress? 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, sir, on April 22nd. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Were you prevented from giving the Congress all 

the information it should have had when the Medicare prescription 

drug bill was voted on in the House? 

Mr. FOSTER. There were two or three instances where we gave 

the information to the head of the agency, who did not pass it on. 

That was investigated by OIG and GAO. The legal opinions that 

came out of that indicated in my opinion that we in fact have the 

right to serve independently on your behalf, and ever since those 

legal opinions came out, we have delivered responses to your requests directly and—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. But at the time we were voting on the prescription 

drug bill, you didn’t have that opinion that would allow you to communicate with us directly and therefore you did not communicate 

with us directly in the Congress? 

Mr. FOSTER. Not in every case. We tried our best but it was a 

difficult circumstance. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, the distinction I would make for the benefit 

of my colleague is that in that instance, the Republican Administration stopped the information or tried to prevent the information 

from coming to Congress. No one in the Congress or the Administration tried to stop you from communicating your best judgments 

on the estimates for this health care bill. Is that a correct statement? 

Mr. FOSTER. That is correct. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. The chair thanks the gentleman and that 

concludes the round of questioning for the first panel. Members 

who have other questions will submit them in writing. We ask the 

98 

witnesses to respond promptly to those. The chair thanks the first 

panel and now—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before we go to the second panel, 

may I ask a parliamentary inquiry? 

Mr. PITTS. Yes. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I am not objecting to this witness testifying but we 

have Mr. Holtz-Eakin testifying. He is associated with American 

Action Forum. We don’t know where they get their funding. That 

is not disclosed. We don’t know if they get any government grants 

because their funding has not been disclosed. There is a rule that 

says we will have truth in testimony, and when a witness testifies 

they have to disclose some information about funding. Mr. HoltzEakin has maintained that he is testifying as an individual and not 

representing his group, so my inquiry to you is, what is the standard that we have? When can we have a witness come before us and 

be able to just say they are going to testify as an individual and 

not have to make the disclosure that they would otherwise be required to make? What standard should have to consider for the future? 

Mr. PITTS. If the gentleman will suspend? 

Mr. WAXMAN. If the chair would want to get further inquiry and 

put on the record, that would be helpful to us. I am not asking for 

an immediate answer, but it seems to me we need to have a standard that we all understand because some witnesses are required to 

give disclosures and evidently Mr. Holtz-Eakin is not required to 

give a disclosure because he is testifying as an individual. When 

do we let people testify as an individual and therefore not make 

disclosures and what circumstances do we require those disclosures? I just want us to know the policy. You don’t have to do it 

off the top of your head but I think we ought to make it clear. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair will be happy to respond after talking to 

counsel and make it a part of the record. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. I will ask the second 

panel to please take their seats and I will introduce them at this 

time. We will now hear from the second panel with their opening 

statements. We will hear first from Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Mr. 

Holtz-Eakin is an economist by training. He has studied the effects 

of numerous health care policy proposals in the past and is a 

former director of the Congressional Budget Office. Next we will 

hear from Mr. David Cutler, the Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied 

Economics at Harvard University. We will then hear from a trio of 

business owners and hear their thoughts on the impact of the new 

law. First will be Philip Kennedy, who is the President of Comanche Lumber Company, a small business located in Oklahoma. Next 

we will hear from Rick Poore, the President of Design Wear/ 

Velocitee, a tee shirt design company located in Nebraska. Finally, 

we will hear from Larry Schuler, the President of Schu’s Hospitality Group, which runs several restaurants in the State of Michigan. 

We will make your written testimony a part of the record and we 

ask that you please summarize your opening statements in 5 minVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
99 

utes, and I will now recognize Mr. Holtz-Eakin for 5 minutes for 

his opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ACTION FORUM; DAVID CUTLER, OTTO ECKSTEIN PROFESSOR OF APPLIED ECONOMICS, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; 

PHILIP K. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT, COMANCHE LUMBER COMPANY; RICK POORE, PRESIDENT, DESIGN WEAR/VELOCITEE; 

AND LARRY SCHULER, PRESIDENT, SCHU’S HOSPITALITY 

GROUP 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Pallone, Vice Chairman Burgess. In light of the gentleman’s comments prior to the panel, I do want to clarify first that I signed and 

submitted a truth in testimony form prior to testifying today and 

was executed truthfully, so I am not sure what that question was 

about, and that the American Action Forum itself is in compliance 

with all the best practice guidelines of the Independent Sectors 

Principles for Good Governance and Ethics, and certainly the legal 

requirements of the IRS as approved by this Congress. So I want 

to get that on the record. 

And lastly, when I say I testify and these views are my own, the 

forum has associate with it a vast number of experts with areas of 

expertise ranging from energy policy to education policy to any 

number of things, and I would not pretend to speak on their behalf 

and so these are my views as a researcher in both economic and 

health policy, and I want to emphasize that. 

I appreciate the chance to be here today. This is obviously a 

sweeping and important piece of legislation that arrives at a crucial 

moment in America’s history, and that moment is one in which the 

top threat to our Nation, both its economic prosperity and its national security, is the projected future deficits and rising debt that 

we see under any reasonable projection over the next 10 years. My 

reading of the evidence and what I lay out in my testimony is that 

if one wishes to produce simultaneously rapid economic growth, 

which I believe is an imperative, given the large number of Americans who are out of work and the resources we will need to meet 

all our private and public demands and bring the fiscal situation 

under control, one needs to follow the successes around the globe 

and those successes are characterized by keeping taxes low and 

cutting government spending, in particular government payrolls 

and transfer programs, the kinds of spending that need to be cut, 

and from that perspective the Affordable Care Act goes in exactly 

the wrong direction. It raises $700 billion in new taxes over the 

next 10 years and adds $1 trillion in new transfer spending and 

continued past that. 

And indeed, the more general point is that those deficits and 

debt represent a huge impediment to economic growth. They are a 

promise of higher future taxes or higher future interest rates or 

both or in worst-case scenarios a financial crisis reminiscent of 

2008, and I believe it is a mistake at this point in time to enact 

something like the Affordable Care Act, which in my view will 

make our fiscal situation worse, not better. It is past common sense 

100 

to believe that you can set up two new entitlement spending programs that grow at 8 percent a year as far as the eye can see. That 

is the CBO growth rates. Tax revenues won’t grow that fast. The 

economy won’t grow that fast. And increasing new entitlement 

spending as a result will make our budget problems worse, not better. We missed an opportunity to fix our real problems in Medicare 

and Medicaid, and that is a huge part of my reservation about this 

last. 

Past that, I will make a couple of points about the structure. As 

I laid out in some detail, the structure of the mandates, the employer mandate in particular, are an impediment to growth, particularly for small businesses where we see the mandate kick in at 

51 employees, and because of the nature of the phase-outs, if you 

hire a higher quality labor force, you get subject to greater costs. 

The insurance market reforms themselves covering more benefits 

will make premiums more expensive. The variety of insurer fees, 

taxes on medical devices and other things will raise premiums, not 

lower them. That will compete with other resources that could be 

used for hiring or increasing wages and will hurt labor market performance. And many of the new taxes, in particular the 3.8 percent 

surtax on net investment income, are of exactly the same character 

we have seen in recent debates over broader tax policy. They will 

affect small businesses, taxes passed through entities, through the 

individual income tax, and as a result something like a trillion dollars of business income which is reported on individual taxes will 

be subject to higher tax rates and hurt economic performance. 

And so as I tried to lay out fairly carefully in my written submission, the Affordable Care Act has costs that at this point in time 

I view as unwise for this country. It expands deficits. It imposes 

new impediments to firm-level growth and more broadly represents 

bad economic policy at a time when we need to put a premium on 

growing faster as a Nation. 

I thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtz-Eakin follows:] 

101 


71722.055

The True Cost of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Introduction 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President 

American Action Forum' 

March 30, 2011 

Chairman Pitts, Vice-Chairman Burgess, Ranking Member Waxman and members of 

the Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear today to discuss the 

costs ofthe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). In this testimony, I 

wish to make five major points: 

At a time when sound policy requires low taxes and reductions in present 

and future transfer spending, the ACA moves dramatically in the wrong 

direction; 

The mandates and tax provisions in the ACA will have detrimental impacts 

on employment growth, wages, and economic growth; 

The impact of ACA will be more expensive health insurance, putting 

employers in the position of either reduced wage rates, fewer employees, or 

dropping insurance coverage; 

The ACA has strong incentives to drop health insurance coverage, and to the 

extent that employers pursue these incentives, taxpayers face tremendous 

upside risk to the cost of the ACA; and 

Even without unexpectedly large numbers of employers dropping coverage, 

the ACA will exacerbate an already-dangerous fiscal outlook. 

Let me pursue each in additional detail. 

• The opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not represent the position of 

the American Action Forum. I am grateful to Ike Brannon, Cameron Smith, Michael 

Ramlet, and Matt Thoman for assistance. All errors are my own. 

1 
102 


71722.056

Policy Response to the Fiscal Threat 

The primary policy problem facing the United States is the projected continued 

explosion of federal debt. If left unchecked, the debt will corrosively erode the 

Nation's economic foundations, engender future financial crises, hamstring the 

ability of the United States to project is values around the globe, and diminish its 

ability to secure its citizens safety. 

The source ofthese threats is commitments to federal spending that rise above any 

reasonable metric of taxation for the indefinite future. Period. There is a miniindustry devoted to producing alternative numerical estimates ofthis mismatch, but 

the diagnosis of the basic problem is not complicated. The diagnosis leads as well to 

the prescription for action. The budget problem is primarily a spending problem 

and correcting it requires reductions in discretionary outlays and the growth of 

large mandatory spending programs. 

As an example, using the President's 2012 Budget, the CBO projects that over the 

next decade the economy will fully recover. Despite this, the deficit in 2021 will be 

$1.2 trillion and nearly 5 percent of Gross Domestic Product. The problem is not 

revenues, which are projected in 2021 to be 19.3 percent of GOP, well more than the 

historic norm of 18 percent. Instead, the deficit derives from spending. Federal 

outlays in 2021 are expected to be 24.2 percent of GOP, higher than the 20 percent 

that has been business as usual in the postwar era. 

The fiscal future outlined above represents a direct impediment to job creation and 

growth. The United States is courting downgrade as a sovereign borrower and a 

commensurate increase in borrowing costs. In a world characterized by financial 

market volatility stemming from Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and other locations this 

raises the possibility that the United States could find itself facing a financial crisis. 

Any sharp rise in interest rates would have dramatically negative economic impacts; 

even worse an actual liquidity panic would replicate (or worse) the experience of 

the fall of 2008. 

Alternatively, businesses, entrepreneurs and investors perceive the future deficits 

as an implicit promise of higher taxes, higher interest rates, or both. For any 

employer contemplating locating in the United States or expansion of existing 

facilities and payrolls, rudimentary business planning reveals this to be an 

extremely unpalatable environment. 

In short, cutting spending is a pro-growth policy move at this juncture. As 

summarized by a recent American Action Forum study, the research indicates that 

the best strategy to both grow and eliminate deficits is to keep taxes low and reduce 

public employee costs and transfer payments.! Unfortunately, the ACA moves in 

precisely the wrong direction. It contains trillions of dollars of new transfer 

2 
103 


71722.057

spending, combined with hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes. It is the 

wrong economic policy at a pivotal moment in U.S. economic history. 

Employer Mandate and Tax Impacts on Jobs and Growth 

The United States' economy has endured a severe recession and is currently 

growing slowly. The pace of expansion remains solid and unspectacular. In many 

ways this is not surprising. As documented in Rogoff and Reinhart (2009), 

economic expansions in the aftermath of severe financial crises tend to be more 

modest and drawn out than recovery from a conventional recession.2 Accordingly, 

it is imperative that policy be focused on generating the maximum possible pace of 

economic growth. More rapid growth is essential to the labor market futures of the 

millions of Americans without work. More rapid growth will be essential to 

minimizing the difficulty of slowing the explosion of federal debt to a sustainable 

pace. More rapid growth will generate the resources needed to meet our obligation 

to provide a standard ofliving to the next generation that exceeds the one this 

generation inherited. 

Unfortunately, key provisions of the ACA are inconsistent with strong, pro-growth 

policies. In what follows, I focus on three in particular: mandate costs, 

administrative burdens, and tax increases. 

Employer Mandate Costs 

Among the key aspects of the ACA is its mandate to cover employees with health 

insurance. Focusing first on those employers with more than 50 workers, beginning 

in 2014, those firms must pay a penalty if any of their full-time workers receive 

subsidies for coverage through the exchange. The penalty is equal to the lesser of 

$3,000 for each full-time worker receiving a premium credit, or $2,000 for each fulltime worker, excluding the first 30 full-time workers. The fees are paid monthly in 

the amount of 1/12th of the specified fee amounts. Firms with fewer than 50 

employees are exempt from the so-called employer "play or pay" penalties ifthey do 

not offer coverage and their workers receive a subsidy in the exchange. 

From the perspective of economic performance, the most important point is that the 

best possible impact is that the firm is already offering insurance, no individual ends 

up receiving subsidies and triggering penalties, and thus costs are unaffected. In 

every other instance, health insurance costs will compete with hiring and growth for 

the scarce resources of those firms. 

One might think that the same situation prevails for the smallest firms - those under 

50 employees - who are exempt from the coverage mandate. Unfortunately, for 

these firms, the greatest impact is the tremendous impediment to expansion. 

2 See This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly, by Carmen M. Reinhart 

and Kenneth Rogoff, 2009. 

3 
104 


71722.058

Suppose for example that a firm does not provide health benefits. Hiring one more 

worker to raise employment to 51 will trigger a penalty of $2,000 per worker 

multiplied by the entire workforce, after subtracting the first 30 workers. In this 

case the fine would be $42,000 (21 (51-30) workers times $2,000). How many 

firms will choose not to expand? 

Proponents of the ACA like to point toward the fact that small businesses will 

receive aid in the form of a small businesses tax credit, ostensibly offsetting the 

burdens outlined above. Unfortunately, the credit is available only for employers 

with fewer than 25 workers and those in which average wages are under $50,000. 

Thus, the cost and growth impacts for those with 26 to 50 employees remains 

unchanged. Moreover, the credit is not a permanent part of the small business 

landscape. An employer may receive the credit only until 2013 and then for two 

consecutive tax years thereafter. Thus, the credit is available for a maximum of six 

years. 

Turning to the credit itself, to be eligible the employer must pay at least 50 percent 

ofthe premium. The credit is equal to 35 percent of employer contributions for 

qualified coverage beginning in 2010, increasing to 50 percent of the premium in 

2014 and thereafter. The amount ofthe credit is phased-out for firms with average 

annual earnings per worker between $25,000 and $50,000. The amount ofthe 

credit is also phased-out for employers with between 10 and 25 employees. 

The combination of requirements for premium contributions, limitations on 

employees, limitations on earnings, and phase-outs has surprised the small business 

community. In particular, the reform's strict definition that a firm is only a small 

business if it has 25 or fewer employees proved convenient to the legislators who 

crafted the bill. This narrow definition has led to a number of studies that assert 

that more than 80 percent of small businesses will be eligible for the tax credit. 

Even those studies that recognize the limitation imposed by the 25-employee limit 

tend to overstate the likely penetration of the credit. For example, the Small 

Business Majority and Families USA recently estimated that 84 percent ofthe 

nation's 4.8 million businesses that employ 25 or fewer employees will be eligible 

for the tax credit.3 Unfortunately, the net impact of the credit in offsetting the cost 

burden of the ACA will depend not upon eligibility but rather on receipt of the tax 

credits. This distinction was noted early in the debate by the Congressional Budget 

Office. In November 2009 when the law was being considered before Congress, CBO 

found that, "A relatively small share (about 12 percent) of people with coverage in 

the small group market would benefit from that credit in 2016."4 

A more useful study focuses on the estimated number of small firms who would 

qualify for the small business health insurance tax credit. A recent analysis 

3 See, httn:!lwww,Smallbusincssmajority,org/ ndf/t.1.x crcdft/lk!lli11L<itfl;]!1 l1u8J:)t'sscs,nill 

4 Se e, htj~;lLt;J2\).gq)1 L(tp.(hc~I~ QZ'(..'!,f(J~'~J P?8JjJJ ~.~W·J?_rt!!1!!u.lJt.'i.pdr 

4 
105 


71722.059

conducted by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that 

the total number of firms that offer health insurance and pay more than half of their 

employees' premium costs, as mandated under ACA, is more likely 35 percent of all 

firms with less than 25 employees.s 

In the same way that the mandate provides an implicit tax on growth, the structure 

of the small business tax credit will raise the effective marginal tax rate on small 

business expansion. For this reason, the credit may discourage firms from hiring 

more workers or higher-paid workers. Consider two examples. 

In the first, employers will have an incentive to avoid increases in the average rate 

of pay in their firm. Suppose that the average wage in a small (3 worker) firm is 

$25,000 and the owner decides to add a more highly paid supervisor being paid 

$50,000. This will raise the average wages in the firm to $31,250 there by reducing 

the tax credit per worker from $2,100 to $1,596.6 In effect, the structure ofthe 

credit raises the effective cost of adding valuable supervisory capacity. 

In this example, total credits to the firm are essentially unchanged ($6,300 to 

$6,384) by raising the average wage. If the new supervisor were paid $75,000 

however, total credit payments would fall from $6,300 to $4,368. The lesson is clear 

in that the structure of the credit can impose large effective tax rates on raising the 

quality of the labor force for those receiving the small business credit. 

Similar incentives affect the decision to hire additional workers because the overall 

tax credit falls by 6.7 percent for each additional employee beyond 10 workers. This 

is a very strong disincentive to expanding the size of the firm. Using the example 

above, suppose that the firm has 10 employees and total credits received were 

$21,000. The firm's total subsidy will peak at $21,840 with the hiring ofthe 13th 

worker. Thus, a firm employing 13 workers would get a total tax credit of $21,840 

while a firm employing 24 workers would receive a total credit of only $3,360.7 

The upshot is that the small business tax credit is a mixed economic blessing. 

Relatively few firms will qualify for the credit and be able to offset the costs of 

health insurance. For those that do qualify, receipt of the credit imposes a new 

regime of hidden effective marginal tax increase on improvements in scale and 

quality. 

Tax Increases 

The Act raises more than $700 billion in tax revenue from an excise tax on highpremium plans; reinsurance and risk adjustment collections; penalty payments by 

employers and uninsured individuals; fees on medical device manufacturers, 

5 See, btJp.;j 1~\'I'.w.nnb~~omJnftQ-(}n~t~(>TJlpv.c/nnh-\)rl·l.h('~movf..;-itl'rn'?cmsid~ 5209~ 

6 This example assumes the employer contributes $6,000 toward insurance for each 

employer. 

7 See, h~Jp:Lbx"'~\V,"Cp.~"!rgLp¥slba7~Q,.pt!f 

5 
106 


71722.060

pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance providers; and other revenue 

provisions. There is no theory or empirical research on job creation that suggests 

that large tax increases will spur employment. Taken at face value, one should be 

skeptical that ACA will not harm the pace of overall economic recovery. 

There are two taxes of particular interest contained in ACA. Section 9015 increases 

the Medicare HI tax by 0.9 percentage points on wages in excess of $200,000 

($250,000 for couples filing jointly, $125,000 for married individuals filing 

separately), and also applies to self-employed earnings. 

Sec. 1402 of HCERA imposes a 3.8 percent Medicare contribution tax on individuals, 

estates, or trusts of the lesser of net investment income or the excess of modified 

adjusted gross income over the threshold amount. The threshold amount is 

$250,000 for joint returns, $125,000 for married filing separately, or $200,000 for 

any other case. Both taxes are effective for taxable years beginning after 2012. 

The first point to note is that these taxes have nothing to do with Medicare finance. 

While gross inflows may be credited to the HI trust fund, these dollars will finance 

the expansion ofthe new insurance subsidy entitlement program. 

The second point to note is that these taxes apply to the labor and investment 

earnings of pass-thru entities taxed through the individual income tax. Thus, they 

are targeted at precisely the same group of individuals most likely to be business 

owners or entrepreneurs. The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that $1 trillion 

in business income will be reported on individual income tax returns in 2011. 

Notably, ofthat $1 trillion, roughly one-half, $470 billion, will be reported on 

returns that are likely to be the new surtaxes.B 

This has the potential to impact employment. According to the Small Business 

Administration, there are almost 120 million private sector workers in the United 

States. Slightly more than halfthose workers, 60 million, work for small businesses. 

About two-thirds of the nation's small business workers are employed by small 

businesses with 20 to 500 employees. According to Gallup survey data conducted 

for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFlB), half ofthe small 

business owners in this group fall into the surtax brackets. This means there is a 

pool of more than 20 million workers in those firms directly targeted by the higher 

marginal tax rates. This is likely a conservative estimate as it ignores flow-through 

entities with one to 19 workers. 

A final tax impact of the ACA is that the impact of phase-outs of refundable credits 

may have even more perverse growth consequences. As noted in Brill and HoltzB The Joint Committee on Taxation analysis does not take into account the impact on 

small, non-publicly-traded "C" corporations. There are several million ofthese 

entities, which will likely be adversely affected by the marginal rate increases on 

ordinary and capital income. 

6 
107 


71722.061

Eakin (2010) the phase-outs in insurance subsidies contribute to high effective 

marginal tax rates.9 The effect is to raise to as high as 41 percent the effective 

marginal tax rate on some of the lower-income U.S. workers. This has implications 

for the ability of families to rise from the ranks of the poor, or to ascend toward the 

upper end of the middle class. This growth and mobility is the heart of the American 

dream and is the most pressing issue at this time. 

ACA and Health Insurance Premiums 

Health care reform was presumed to encompass both expansion of affordable 

insurance options and provision of quality medical care at lower costs. The reality 

ofthe ACA could not be more different. Objective analysts have uniformly 

concluded that the new law raises - not lowers - national health care spending. 10 

The rising bill for national health care spending will, in turn produce sustained 

upward pressures on health insurance premiums. 

In addition, the law's array of insurance market reforms will increase premiums. 

Barring limits on annual and lifetime out-of-pocket spending, coverage of preexisting conditions for children, and the ability for children to stay on parents' 

policies, are all initiatives that enhance benefits. These benefits must necessarily be 

covered by higher premiums. 

These features of the law are increasingly well understood, much to the dismay of 

insurance consumers. However, other aspects of the new law are less appreciated. 

In particular, the financing of the health care law will have significant implications 

for purchasers of insurance as well. 

As noted above, ACA raises more than $700 billion in tax revenue from an excise tax 

on high-premium plans; reinsurance and risk adjustment collections; penalty 

payments by employers and uninsured individuals; fees on medical device 

manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance providers; and 

other revenue provisions. 

The impact of these fees on medical device manufacturers, insurers, and 

pharmaceutical companies is important and not well understood. To understand 

better, consider the fee on health insurers. The fee amounts to a de facto "health 

insurance premium tax" that will raise the cost of health insurance for American 

families and small employers. Specifically, under the law, an annual fee applies to 

9 Brill, Alex and Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, "Another Obama Tax Hike." Wall Street 

Journal, February 4,2010. See also, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Cameron Smith, "Labor 

Markets and Health Care Reform, 201 O. bll~'I!Rmg!tc~n,actiol1fQrum.org!OlcsLLa9_YI~~~J,slt~KA!\ F,·,Z?: 

lO_O,pdf 

10 See http://www1.cms.govIActuarialStt!di('s/Do\...,n!o;~ds:/S PPACA 2010-01-08.pdf or 

h\l.J?:J !.\¥\y.w .. cpo.goy If.:u~dVt; . .'>!1 ~7.7-X/9(J<;.1J 795/o8-1g_-Upu~Jt~,pd(. 

7 
108 


71722.062

U.S. health insurance providers, with the intent of raising nearly $90 billion over the 

next 10 years. The aggregate annual fee for all U.S. health insurance providers 

begins at $8 billion in 2014 and then rises thereafter. (See Table 1.) 

Table 1 

Aggregate Insurance Fees 

Year Fee 

2014 $ 8 billion 

2015 $11.3 billion 

2016 $11.3 billion 

2017 $13.9 billion 

2018 & Beyond 11 $14.3 billion 

Total through 2020 $87.4 billion 

To see the implications for insurance costs, one must examine how it affects 

individual insurers. Each firm will be liable for a share of the aggregate fee, which is 

calculated in two steps. First, each company will compute the total premiums 

affected by the law using the formula outlined in Table 2. For example, an insurer 

with net premium revenues of $1 0 million is unaffected. In contrast, an insurer with 

net premiums of $100 million will have $62.5 million ($12.5 million from the 50 

percent component between $25 million and $50 million, and $50 million from the 

remainder). The aggregate fee is apportioned among the insurers based on their 

shares of the affected premiums. Importantly, the fees are not deductible for 

income tax purposes. 

Table 2 

Fraction of Premiums Counted 

Annual Net Premiums Fraction 

Less than $25 million 0 

$25 million to $50 million 50 percent 

$50 million or more 100percent 

So far, seemingly so good, for families and small employers, as insurers have to pay 

this new "health insurance premium tax." Unfortunately, this ignores the influence 

of market forces. For any company, as it sells more insurance policies it will incur a 

greater market share, and thus a greater share of the $87 billion. That is, with each 

policy sold, the firm's total tax liability rises; precisely the structure of an excise tax. 

Firms don't really pay taxes; they attempt to shift them to suppliers, workers, or 

customers. Thus, it is important to distinguish between the statutory incidence of 

11 The statute provides that after 2018 the insurance fee is equal to the amount of 

the fee in the preceding year increased by the rate of premium growth for the 

preceding calendar year. 

8 
109 


71722.063

the premium tax - the legal responsibility to remit the tax to the Treasury - and the 

economic incidence - the loss in real income as a result ofthe tax. 

Insurance companies will have to send the premium tax payments to the Treasury, 

so the statutory incidence is obvious. However, a basic lesson of tax policy is that 

people pay taxes; firms do not. Accordingly, the economic burden of the $87 billion 

in premium taxes must be borne by individuals. Which individuals will bear the 

economic cost? 

The imposition of the premium tax will upset the cost structure of insurance 

companies, raising costs per policy and reducing net income (or exacerbating 

losses). Some might argue that the firms will simply "eat the tax" - that is simply 

accept the reduction in net income. For a short time, this may well be the case. 

Unfortunately, to make no changes whatsoever will directly impact companies' 

abilities to make investments in health IT programs, wellness initiatives and disease 

management tools. Ultimately, this hurts individuals and small employers who 

won't have access to the types of tools and programs that can improve the quality of 

care and lower costs. Trying to retain the status quo also hurts the return on equity 

invested in the firm. Because insurance companies compete for investor dollars in 

competitive, global capital markets, they will be unable to both offer a permanently 

lower return and raise the equity capital necessary to service their policyholders. 

Importantly, these impacts will be felt equally by the not-for-profit insurers. Nonprofits have comparable resource needs for disease management, wellness efforts, 

or IT equipment. They also have equity capital demands, as they rely on retained 

earnings as reserves to augment their capital base. Bearing the burden ofthe tax 

means lower access to these reserves and diminished capital. harming their ability 

to continue serving policyholders effectively. 

In short, all insurers - for profit and non-profit alike - will seek to restructure in an 

attempt to restore profitability, with the main opportunity lying in the area of labor 

compensation costs. To the extent possible, firms will either reduce compensation 

growth, squeeze labor expansion plans (or even lay off workers), or both. However, 

there are sharp limits on the ability of companies to shift the effective burden of 

excise taxes onto either shareholders (capital) or employees (labor). Moreover, 

their ability to do so diminishes over time as capital and labor seek out better 

market opportunities. 

The only other place to shift the tax cost is onto customers - i.e., families and small 

businesses. This economic reality is reflected in the Congressional Budget Office 

and Joint Committee on Taxation revenue estimating procedures. Specifically, they 

apply a 25 percent "offset" to the estimated gross receipts of any excise tax. In 

terms ofthe premium tax, this convention has two important implications. First, if 

the aggregate fee were recognized as a premium excise tax that carried incentives to 

shift some ofthe burden via lower dividends, capital gains, and wages, then the 

aggregate fee will overstate the net budget receipts. To the extent this happens, 

9 
110 


71722.064

receipts of income-based taxes will fall; hence the need for an offset to the gross 

receipts ofthe excise tax. 

The second implication is that the remainder of the tax is passed on to consumers. 

That is, the offset is not 100 percent meaning that the non-partisan consensus-based 

revenue estimators have concluded that the vast majority of the burden of excise 

taxes will not be borne by shareholders or workers. 

Ifmarket conditions make it impossible for insurers to absorb the economic burden 

of the premium tax, they will have no choice but to build the new, higher costs into 

the pricing structure of policies. In this way, the economic burden ofthe tax is 

shifted to the purchasers of health insurance. In particular, the more competitive 

markets are for equity capital and hired labor, greater is the fraction ofthe burden 

that will be borne by consumers. 

The implications for purchasers of health insurance are obvious and unambiguously 

negative. In addition, as employers pay more for health insurance, they will have to 

shave back on cash wage increases, and thus taxable compensation. Thus the health 

insurance premium tax will have the perverse effect of lowering personal income 

and payroll taxes. 

To top things off, the new law has an especially unpleasant feature for those facing 

higher premiums: the fees are not tax-deductible, but higher premiums will be 

taxable. 

This non-standard tax treatment matters a lot. If an insurance company passes 

along $1 of premium taxes in higher premiums and cannot deduct the cost (fee), it 

will pay another $0.35 in taxes. Accordingly, the impact on the insurer is $0.65 in 

net revenue minus the $1 fee. Bottom line: a loss of $0.35. (The problem gets worse 

when you consider that the $1 of additional premium is also subject to other statelevel premium taxes and in some cases a state income tax.) 

To break even, each insurer will have to raise prices by $1/(1-0.35) or $1.54. (fit 

does this, the after-tax revenue is the full $1 needed to offset the fee. This has 

dramatic implications for the overall impact of the premium taxes. Instead of an 

upward pressure on premiums of $87.4 billiqn in fees over the next 10 years, the 

upward pressure will be $134.6 billion. 

This line of reasoning is sometimes met with skepticism, and countered with the 

notion that consumers will simply be unwilling to accept a higher price. Evidence 

suggests that this is not true, but suppose the counter-argument is taken at face 

value. To the extent that firms accept a lower rate of return, they will be less able to 

attract capital. Similarly, to the extent they reduce employment in response to the 

tax (or cut wages and lose skilled employees to better opportunities), they will again 

suffer in their ability to expand their scale of operations. In short, insurers that 

attempt to adjust entirely on the cost side will be unable to maintain their 

10 
111 


71722.065

operations at a competitive level, and will lose market share or even exit the 

industry entirely. For health insurance markets as a whole, this reduces 

competition. The bottom line for consumers is the same: higher prices. 

To gain a rough empirical feel of an average $87 billion health insurance premium 

tax, I employ publicly-available data on Yahoo! Finance.t 2 Those data indicate that 

the earnings for the industry called "Health Care Plans" were roughly $16 billion. 

The average annual aggregate fee of $8.7 billion is a substantial impact on the cost 

structure and profitability of the companies; roughly one-half ofthe net earnings. 

Could insurers absorb the fee and remain competitive in the market for equity 

capital? As a whole, the overall profit margin is shown as 4.2 percent. Assuming no 

change in behavior, a 50 percent decline on a sustained basis would make it 

impossible to obtain the financing needed to compete. Accordingly, it will be a 

matter of competitive reality for the insurers to pass the fee to consumers in the 

form of higher health insurance premiums. 

The health insurance fee will likely quickly and almost completely be incorporated, 

resulting in higher insurance premiums. The premium tax alone means that 

American families will pay as much as $135 billion more in insurance premiums 

over the next 10 years. Incorporating the impact of medical devices and 

pharmaceuticals raises the total impact. 

The final channel by which ACA affects insurance costs are through the mandates 

regarding insurance benefit designs. Mandating greater benefits will 

unambiguously raise the costs of insurance. However, one widely-touted promise of 

the ACA was that if you "like your health plan, you can keep it." 

In this regard, it is important to note that the interim final rules governing insurance 

copayments, deductibles, premium increases, and employer contributionsOare so 

strict that that even conservative estimates by the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) indicate a majority of Americans will be unable to keep their existing 

health care coverage by 2013.13 A more realistic estimate, accounting for the 

response from American businesses since the rules were released, places the likely 

percentage of plans without grandfathered status well above the HHS' high-end 

estimate of 69 percent of plans by 2013.14 Thus it appears that the interim final 

rules ensure that grandfathered status will be lost in the near-future and that a 

substantial majority of Americans will face higher costs. 

12 See h!J:n;lIhiz.yahoo.com/p[522qpmd.html. 

13 "Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Pertaining to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Federal Register. Volume 75. Page 34571 

14 "2010 UBA Health Plan Survey." United Befit Advisors. October 2010. 

11 
112 


71722.066

ACA and Employer-Sponsored Insurance 

Today about 163 million workers and their families receive health insurance 

coverage from their employers. Proponents of the ACA insisted that a key tenet of 

was to build on this system of employer-sponsored coverage. 

Roughly one-half of the $900 billion of spending in the ACA is devoted to subsidies 

for individuals who do not receive health insurance from their employers. These 

subsidies are remarkably generous, even for those with relatively high incomes. For 

example, a family earning about $59,000 a year in 2014 would receive a premium 

subsidy of about $7,200. A family making $71,000 would receive about $5,200; and 

even a family earning about $95,000 would receive a subsidy of almost $3,000. 

By 2018, subsidy amounts and the income levels to qualify for those subsidies 

would grow substantially: a family earning about $64,000 would receive a subsidy 

of over $10,000, a family earning $77,000 would receive a subsidy of $7,800 and 

families earning $102,000 would receive a subsidy of almost $5,000. 

An obvious question is how employers will react to the presence of an alternative, 

subsidized source of insurance for their workers, which can be accessed if they drop 

coverage for their employees. The simplest calculation focuses on the tradeoff 

between employer savings and the $2,000 penalty (per employee) imposed by the 

ACA on employers whose employees move to subsidized exchange coverage. 

Consider a $12,000 policy in 2014, of which the employer would bear roughly threequarters or $9,000. A simple comparison of $9,000 in savings versus a $2,000 

penalty would seemingly suggest large-scale incentives to drop insurance. 

Unfortunately, the economics ofthe compensation decision are a bit more subtle 

than this simple calculation. Health insurance is only one portion of the overall 

compensation package that employees receive as a result of competitive pressures. 

Evidence suggests that if one portion of that package is reduced or eliminated -

health insurance - and another aspect - wages - will ultimately be increased as a 

competitive necessity to retain and attract valuable labor. Thus, the key question is 

whether the employer can keep the employee "happy" - appropriately compensated 

and insured - and save money. 

As Table 3 outlines, the answer is frequently "yes" - thanks to the generosity of 

federal subsidies. To see the logic, consider the first row of the table, which shows 

the implications for a worker at 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) or 

$31,521 in 2014. We project that this worker will be in the 15 percent federal tax 

bracket, which means that $100 of wages (which yields $85) is needed to offset the 

loss of $85 dollars of employer-provided health insurance (which is untaxed). 

Consider now a health insurance policy worth $15,921, of which the employer picks 

up 75 percent of the cost. The employer's contribution to health insurance of 

$11,941 is the equivalent of a wage increase of $14,048 to the worker. 

12 
113 


71722.067

Do the economics of ACA ever suggest that employer's could drop? Yes. The 

employer would receive $14, 176 in subsidies - more than the value of the lost health 

insurance. On paper, they could take a pay cut and be better off. Clearly, the 

employer comes out way ahead - $11,941 less the penalty. Obviously, there is room 

for the employer to actually improve the worker's life by having a small pay raise 

and the same insurance and still save money. This is a powerful, mutual incentive to 

eliminated employer-sponsored insurance. 

The remaining rows of Table 3 repeat this calculation for workers at ascending 

levels of aft1uence. For example, at 200 percent of the FPL, the "surplus" between 

the pay raise required to hold a worker harmless ($4,936) and the firm's cash-now 

benefit from dropping coverage ($9,941) has narrowed, but the bottom line decision 

in the final column is the same. Indeed, the incentives are quite powerful up to 250 

percent of FPL, or $59,250. Only for higher-income workers do the advantages of 

untaxed health insurance make it infeasible to drop insurance and re-work the 

compensation package,15 

How big could this impact be? In round numbers, at present there are 123 million 

Americans under 250 percent of the FPL. Roughly 60 percent of Americans work 

and about 60 percent of those receive employer-sponsored insurance. This suggests 

that there are about 43 million workers for whom it makes sense to drop 

insurance.16 

CEO estimated that only 19 million residents would receive subsidies, at a cost of 

about $450 billion over the first 10 years. This analysis suggests that the number 

could easily be triple that (19 plus an additional, say, 38 million in 2014) - meaning 

the price tag would be $1.4 trillion. 

In contrast, the CEO predicted that only 3 million individuals who previously 

received coverage through their employers will get subsidized coverage through the 

new exchanges. One mechanism that would reduce employer drop is if high-wage 

workers continue to receive insurance and non-discrimination rules force 

employers to offer insurance to all workers - even those for whom it makes sense to 

drop coverage. For those firms dominated by lower-wage workers this is unlikely to 

succeed as it will be possible to use the accumulated savings to retain the few highwage workers. Or, there may be incentives for firms to "out-source" their low-wage 

workers to specialist firms (that do not offer coverage) and contract for their skills. 

In any event, the massive federal subsidies are money on the table inviting a vast 

reworking of compensation packages, insurance coverage, and labor market 

relations. 

15 Notice that what this really means is that an existing federal subsidy (via the tax 

code) trumps the new federal subsidy! 

16 This is likely an upper bound estimate as there is a positive correlation between 

wage levels and the probability of having insurance. 

13 
114 


71722.068

Table 3 

Health Care Reform and Employer-Sponsored Insurance in 2014 

(Employer Health Plan = $11,941) 

Percent Income' Tax Wage Federal Required Employer Employer 

of Bracket' Equivalent Subsidies' Pay Free Cash Drop 

Federal of Raises Flow· Decision7 

Poverty Employer 

Level Health 

133% $31,521 15% $14,048 $14,176 ($128) $9,941 Drop' 

150% $35,550 15% $14,048 $13,385 $663 $9,941 Drop 

200% $47,400 25% $15,921 $10,985 $4,936 $9,941 Drop 

250% $59,250 25% $15,921 $7,530 $8,391 $9,941 Drop 

300% $71,100 25% $15,921 $5,187 $10,734 $9,941 Keep 

400% $94,800 28% $16,585 $2,935 $13,650 $9,941 Keep 

1. Income calculated based on 2009 FPL for a family of four of$22,050 (HHS), indexed to CPI 

projections (CBO) 

2. Tax bracket calculated based on 2010 tax brackets, indexed to CPI projections (CBO) 

3. Computed as CBO estimate of Silver Plan in 2016, indexed to 2014 ($11,941), and divided by (1-

Tax Rate) 

4. Estimated federal insurance subsidy 

5. Wage equivalent minus subsidies 

6. Value of insurance plan minus $2,000 penalty 

7. Drop if required pay raise is greater than free cash flow 

ACA and the Budget Outlook17 

The United States faces a daunting budgetary outlook, with the Administration's 

budget displaying an unsustainable debt spiral emerging over the next decade, In 

this context, the fiscal consequences of the newly-enacted Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act are of extreme importance. 

The Context: An Approaching Fiscal Train Wreck 

The federal government's unsustainable long-run fiscal posture has been outlined in 

successive versions of the CBO's Long-Term Budget Outlook. In broad terms, over 

the next 30 years, the inexorable dynamiCS of current law will raise outlays, or 

committed federal expenditures, from about 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product 

(GOP) to anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of GDP.1S Any attempt to keep tax 

revenues at their post-war norm of 18 percent of GOP will generate an 

17 This sections draws heavily on Holtz-Eakin and Ramlet "Health Care Reform Is 

Likely To Widen Federal Budget Deficits, Not Reduce Them," Health Affairs, 2010. 

lBCongressional Budget Office. The Long-Term Budget Outlook. Washington (DC): 

Congress ofthe United States; June 2009. 

14 
115 


71722.069

unmanageable federal debt spiral. In contrast, a strategy of ratcheting up taxes to 

the 30 to 40 percent of GOP needed to match the federal spending appetite would 

likely be self-defeating as it would undercut badly-needed economic growth .• 

The policy problem is that spending rises above any reasonable level of taxation for 

the indefinite future. This diagnosis leads as well to the prescription for action. 

Over the long-term, the budget problem is primarily a spending problem and 

correcting it requires reductions in the growth oflarge mandatory spending 

programs and the appetite for federal outlays. 

This depiction ofthe federal budgetary future has been unchanged for a decade or 

more. However, the most recent Administration budget shows that in part due to 

the financial crisis, recession, and policy responses, the problem has become 

dramatically worse and will arrive more quickly than forecast. The federal 

government ran a fiscal 2010 deficit of $1.3 trillion. Going forward, there is no relief 

in sight. Over the next ten years, according to the CBO's preliminary analysis ofthe 

President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2012, the deficit will never fall 

below $748 billion dollars.19 In 2021, the deficit will be nearly 5 percent of GOP, or 

roughly $1.2 trillion, of which over $900 billion will be devoted to servicing debt on 

previous borrowing. 

As noted above, the budget outlook is not the result of a shortfall of revenues. The 

CBO projects that over the next decade the economy will fully recover and revenues 

in 2021 will be 19.3 percent of GOP - over the historic norm of 18 percent. Instead, 

the problem is spending. Federal outlays in 2021 are expected to be 24.2 percent of 

GOP - about $1.6 trillion higher than the 20 percent that has been business as usual 

in the postwar era. 

As a result of the spending binge, in 2021 public debt will have more than doubled 

from its 2008 level to 90 percent of GOP and will continue its upward trajectory. 

The Budgetary Impact o/the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

In light of the fiscal threat from growing spending, the budgetary impacts of the Act 

are central to any discussion of its merits. We begin by reviewing the CBO cost 

estimate that concludes the Act will serve to lower projected deficits over the next 

ten years and beyond. After our summary review, we proceed by analyzing the 

budgetary implications of altering certain assumptions. 

The final score of ACA with reconciliation amendments was released publicly on 

March 20, 2010.20 The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the Act 

would lead to a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over ten years with 

19 http://www.cbo.g()~ocs/121xx/doc121 Q3/2011-0:l-18-APH-PrcliminatyRenDI.L.D_ll[ 

20Congressional Budget Office. H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010. Washington 

(OC): Congress ofthe United States; 2010 March. 

15 
116 


71722.070

$124 billion in net reductions from health care reform and $19 billion derived from 

education provisions.21 

Total subsidies in the Act exceed $1 trillion dollars over ten years and include 

insurance exchange tax credits for individuals, small employers tax credits, the 

creation of reinsurance and high risk pools, as well as expansions to Medicaid and 

the Children's Health Insurance Program. To finance the subsidies and reduce the 

deficit, total cost savings are projected to be nearly $500 billion based on reductions 

in annual updates to Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, Medicare Advantage 

rates, and Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital CDSH) payments. 

In addition to the cost saving measures, the Act raises more than $700 billion in tax 

revenue from an excise tax on high-premium plans; reinsurance and risk adjustment 

collections; penalty payments by employers and uninsured individuals; fees on 

medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance 

providers; and other revenue provisions. 

To gain a rough feel of the longer-run impacts, consider extrapolating to the years 

2020 to 2029 using CBO's estimated compounded annual growth rates. Under this 

crude approach, the ACA is expected to yield an additional $681 billion in deficit 

reduction. 

The prospect of these savings is important given the daunting fiscal outlook. But 

they raise an important question: is it really likely that a large expansion of public 

spending will reduce the long-run deficit? The answer, unfortunately, hinges on 

provisions of the legislation that the budget office is required to take at face value 

and not second-guess. 

A more realistic assessment emerges if one strips out gimmicks and budgetary 

games and reworks the calculus. As shown in Table 4 a wholly different picture 

emerges: the ACA would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $554 billion in the first 

ten years and $1.4 trillion over the succeeding ten years. 

The list of budgetary features embedded in the CBO score begins with the fact that 

the Act front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is to say the taxes and 

fees it calls for began immediately in 2010, but its new subsides are largely deferred 

until 2014. This contributes to the illusion that the ACA reduces the deficit. Note 

that if revenues were delayed to start in 2014, the Act's 2010-2019 net deficit 

impact would be $66 billion lower. 

Additional budgetary provisions ofinterest fall into four scenarios: unachievable 

savings, un scored budget effects, uncollectible revenue, and already reserved 

21 To analyze the fiscal impact of health care reform, we have removed the education 

revenues from the government takeover of all federally financed student loans. 

16 
117 


71722.071

premiums. Table 4 summarizes the annual impact of each scenario and extrapolates 

the fiscal impact to 2029. 

The first adjustment, labeled "Unachievable Savings", removes spending cuts that 

the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will ultimately be unable to 

implement. These are composed of cost reductions through Medicare market 

basket updates, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, Medicare Advantage 

interactions, and the Part D premium subsidy for high-income beneficiaries. While 

the specifics of each differ, these provisions share two features. First, the ACA does 

not fundamentally reform Medicare in such a manner that will permit it to operate 

at lower budgetary cost. Accordingly, when the time comes to implement these 

savings (or those developed by the Independent Payment Advisory Board) CMS will 

be faced with the possibility of strongly limited benefits, the inability to serve 

beneficiaries, or both. As a result, the cuts will be politically infeasible, as Congress 

is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled reductions. A vivid example is 

the Medicare Physician Payment Updates. Each year since 2002 the "sustainable 

growth rate" formula in current law has imposed cuts in payments to physicians 

under Medicare. And each year Congress has overridden these same cuts. 

Table 4 

Adjustments 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

CSO Projected Subsidies 11 13 70 125 181 204 219 236 

CSO Projected Cost Savings ·2 ·11 ·18 ·43 ·51 ·59 ·75 ·91 ·109 

Unachievable Savings 0.1 1.4 4.9 10 20.1 25.7 32.3 41.7 52.1 64.8 

Unseared Budget Effect 14.7 16.5 18 18.3 20.4 23.4 26.2 29.3 34.7 

Subtotal 10.1 14.1 10.4 10 ·4.6 ·4.9 ·3.3 ·7.1 ·9.6 ·9.5 

CBO Projected Tax Revenues ·8 ·15 ·43 ·77 ·90 -114 ·123 ·131 ·141 

Uncollectable Revenue ·1 ·2 ·5 1 14 18 22.2 26.S 

Premiums Reserved 0 5.4 8.8 10 11.3 11.1 9.1 7.6 

Subtotal ·9 ·11.6 ·39.2 ·66 .72.7 ·8B.9 ·95.9 ·101.2 ·107.2 

Net Change in Projected 14.1 16.1 11.8 ·20.2 ·0.6 47.4 88.8 101 108.2 119.3 Deficit 

Percentage alCDP 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.27 0.50 0.55 0.58 0.62 

Massachusetts and Tennessee provide recent examples where insurance coverage 

expansion has led to substantial cost increases, instead of savings. In 1994, 

Tennessee implemented a massive Medicaid expansion (eventually covering 

500,000 additional residents). A decade later, the state abandoned the experiment 

after costs more than tripled from $2.5 billion in 1995 to $8 billion in 2004, 

consuming one-third of the state' budget. When the experiment unraveled in 2005, 

170,000 enrollees were dropped. More recently in April 2010, Tennessee 

17 

2019 

1072 

·455 

253.5 

274.6 

73.1 

·739 

7S 

70.2 

·590.S 

554.3 

2.90 
118 


71722.072

announced that, due to cost overruns, the program would need to cut an additional 

100,000 people from Medicaid rolls.22 

In Massachusetts, the state's Special Commission on the Health Care Payment 

System has produced payment recommendations in the wake of passing an 

individual insurance mandate, but the commission has so far failed to bend the cost 

curve on medical inflation (growing 8 percent annually in Massachusetts).23 The 

federally impaneled Independent Payment Advisory Board would likely follow a 

similar trajectory. 

The second adjustment, "Unscored Budget Effects", highlights acknowledged costs 

that are not included in the CBO score. To operate the new health care programs 

over the first ten years, future Congresses will need to vote for $274.6 billion in 

additional spending. This spending includes the discretionary costs for the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) to enforce and the CMS to administer insurance coverage, 

explicitly authorized health care grant programs, and the Medicare Physician 

Payment Reform Act, which revises the sustainable growth rate for physician 

reimbursement. 

Adjustment three, "Uncollectable Revenue", questions the political will of Congress 

and directly refers to the excise tax on high-premium, "Cadillac" health plans. This 

tax was supposed to start immediately in the Senate's version of ACA. After intense 

lobbying by organized labor, Congress relented and pushed the tax back to 2018. 

This raises the possibility that it will prove politically infeasible to ever implement 

the tax. Thus, the scenario shows the impact of not collecting the associated tax 

revenue of $78 billion over the next ten years. 

The final adjustment, "Reserved Premiums", focuses on the CLASS Act premiums for 

long-term care insurance and the potential increase in Social Security receipts. In 

principle, these receipts should be reserved to cover future payments and not be 

devoted to short-term deficit reduction. Specifically, the scenario shows the 

implications of reserving the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the 

first ten years for the legislation's new long-term care insurance. 

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation uses $53 billion for 

deficit reduction from an anticipated increase in Social Security tax revenue. The 

CBO estimates that outlays for Social Security benefits would increase by only about 

$2 billion over the 2010-2019 period, and that the coverage provisions would have 

22 Wadhwani A. Tennessee removes about 100,000 people from Medicaid rolls. 

Kaiser Health News. 2010 Apr 8. Available from: ~L.hY.....ww.kaiscrhca!thnews,org/Storic~ /20 1 0 !Annl/OfiLIsllnG.ru:~A~J2~ 

23 Kowalczyk L. Pay for care a new way, state is urged. The Boston Globe. 2009 July 

19. Available from: httn:!Iwww.hoston.com/news/localLmassachtlscttshrticllliIQJ!9J.Q1Ll11D.i.lv for C,'lrc a new way state is urgcdl?pJgc=2 

18 
119 


71722.073

a negligible effect on the outlays for other federal programs. If Social Security 

revenues do rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying 

higher wages, the extra money raised from payroll taxes should be preserved for the 

Social Security trust fund. 

What is the bottom line? Removing the potentially unrealistic annual savings, 

reflecting the full costs of implementing the programs, acknowledging the 

unlikelihood of raising all of the promised revenues, and preserving premiums for 

the programs they are intended to finance, produces a radically different bottom 

line. The Act generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first ten years. And, 

as the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly 

expanding as far as the eye can see, the deficit in the second ten years would 

approach $1.5 trillion. 

Of course, this is not the only source of budgetary uncertainty. Proponents point 

toward the possibility that the Act will "bend the curve" more than anticipated, 

thereby reducing health care spending in federal programs and beyond. In this 

light, it is important to note that if federal subsidies do not grow at all between 2020 

and 2029 - a herculean reduction in annual spending growth of 3.4 percentage 

points - it will reduce outlays by under $500 billion. That is, extraordinary success 

in bending the cost curve amounts to less than one-third of the downside budgetary 

risks embedded in the Act. 

The future of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is likely to be even 

more important than its passage. In light of the extraordinarily precarious state of 

federal fiscal affairs and the enormous downside risks presented by the Act, one can 

only hope that every future effort is devoted to reducing its budgetary footprint. 

Conclusion 

The ACA will have a dramatic impact on the evolution oflabor market incentives, 

economic growth, and the budget outlook over the near term. Unfortunately, at a 

time when job growth and controlling spending to restore fiscal balance are top 

policy priorities, its true cost will be become apparent in the form of diminished 

growth, slower labor market recovery, and greater fiscal distress. Thank you and I 

look forward to answering your questions. 

19 
120 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes Mr. 

Cutler for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID CUTLER 

Mr. CUTLER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pallone and members of the 

committee, I appreciate the invitation to appear before you today. 

The high level and rapid growth of medical spending in the 

United States is an enormous policy challenge and understanding 

the Affordable Care Act will affect that is extremely important. As 

we consider that, there are two principles that I think ought to 

guide that discussion. 

First, we need to eliminate wasteful spending, not valuable 

spending, so we need to be careful about how we cut. Second, we 

need to reduce the overall level of spending, not simply shift costs 

from one payer to another. Many proposals would shift costs 

around without reducing the overall level of spending. The key 

question is finding areas where we can accomplish both of those 

goals, where we can both reduce wasteful spending and not just 

shift costs. The health policy literature suggests there are three 

areas where that is possible. One is by improving the management 

of acute and postacute care for patients who are very sick and who 

receive more care than almost all physicians believe is necessary. 

Second is greater attention to prevention, where we spend a good 

deal of additional money by not having prevented disease, and 

third is reducing excessive administrative spending, which takes 

anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of medical care costs without 

bringing any commensurate benefits. 

To give you a sense of the total, most experts estimate that about $750 billion to $1 trillion a year is spent on medical care that has 

relatively low value to patients or no value to patients. The Affordable Care Act is designed to address those sources of inefficiency 

and it does so in a number of different ways. The philosophy behind the Affordable Care Act is straightforward. First, get the right 

information to people so that we know what works and what 

doesn’t. As one friend of mine told me once, name a business that 

ever got better without knowing what it was doing. It is important 

to note that the HITECH provisions of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 are centrally linked to those of the Affordable Care Act because they create the foundation for learning 

that information. 

Second, you need to reward doing the right thing, not doing too 

much, not doing too little but doing the right amount. Physicians 

are frustrated, not because cannot treat individual patients, which 

they can, but because they know the system sends them off in directions that are counterproductive, that the only way to earn 

enough to keep their practice in business is to do more, to do things 

that are uncoordinated because coordination has expenses but no 

revenues and to not focus on prevention. The Affordable Care Act 

affects these incentives in a number of ways including direct payment innovation such as higher reimbursement for preventive care 

services, bundled payments for acute and postacute medical services, shared savings or capitation payments for accountable provider groups that assume responsibility for continuum of patents’ 

care, pay-for-performance incentives for Medicare providers, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
121 

creased funding for comparative effectiveness research, the Independent Payment Advisory Board and an Innovation Center in the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to test and disseminate new care models, an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans 

to provide incentives to reduce wasteful spending there, increased 

emphasis on wellness and prevention. This set of policy reforms, I 

should note, is neither a Democratic list nor a Republican list. It 

draws on both sides of the spectrum. Former CMS or HCFA administrators from both Democratic and Republican Administrations 

stress these are the single most important steps we can take to reduce the amount of inefficient medical spending in the United 

States. 

In addition, in very little noticed provisions, the Affordable Care 

Act takes a major step to reduce burdens to administrative practices. Particularly sections 1104 and 10909 lay the foundation for 

reducing administrative burden, which I believe could be reduced 

by half and save the American people approximately 10 percent of 

medical spending simply by getting of administrative costs, not 

services that are no longer needed. 

The effect of these changes on medical spending, on federal and 

State budgets and on job growth are profound. I estimate that 

when you are able to do this, the Affordable Care Act will reduce 

national medical spending by over $500 billion in the next decade. 

It will reduce the federal budget deficit by over $400 billion and 

lead to the creation of 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually. 

The urgent need is for this Congress and the Administration to 

work together on these ideas that are neither Democratic nor Republican ideas but they are ideas that come from across the spectrum of thinkers and people in the health care sector to work together to ensure that the Affordable Care Act is as successful as 

it can be. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here and I look forward to answering any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler follows:] 

122 


71722.074

RilRVARD UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES 

DEPAR rMENT OF ECONOMICS 

DAVID M. CUTLER 

OTTO ECKSTEIN PROFESSOR OF ApPLIED ECONOMICS 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID M. CUTLER 

Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics 

Harvard University 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Summary 

There are two important rules that need to guide any discussion of cost containment. First, we 

need to eliminate wasteful spending, not valuable spending. Second, we need to reduce the 

overall level of spending, not simply shift costs from one payer to another. 

The question that faces policy analysts, therefore, is finding areas where money can be saved 

while simultaneollsly improving care quality. The health policy literature suggests there arc 

three areas where costs can be saved: (l) improved management of acute and post·aclite care; (2) 

greater attention to prevention; and (3) reducing excessive administrative spending. At least onethird of medical spending is not associated with improved health, implying waste of about $750 

billion annually. 

The Affordable Care Act has a number of provisions designed to address these areas of cost 

savings. These include direct payment innovations such as higher reimbursement for preventive 

care services, bundled payment for acute and post-acute medical services, shared savings or 

capitation payments for accountable provider groups that assume responsibility for the 

continuum ofa patient's care, and pay·tl)f·perfonnance incentives for Medicare providers; 

increased funding in comparative effectiveness research; an Independent Payment Advisory 

Board and an innovation Center in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to test and 

disseminate new care models; an excise tax on high cost insurance plan; increased emphasis on 

wellness and prevention; and standardization of costly and burdensome administrative practices. 

The effect of these change on medical spending, federal and state budgets, and job growth are 

profound. I estimate that over the next decade, the Affordable Care Act will reduce national 

medical spending by over $500 billion, reduce the federal budget deficit by over $400 billion, 

and lead to the creation of 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually. The urgent need is for this 

Congress and administration to work together to ensure that the Affordable Care Act is as 

successful as it can be. 
123 


71722.075

HARVARD UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES 

DEPARTMENT OF ECON01\lICS 

DA VID M. CUTLER 

OTTO ECKSTEIN PROFESSOR OF ApPLIED ECONOMICS 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID M. CUTLER 

Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics 

Harvard University 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

March 30. 2011 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pallone, and members of the committee, ! appreciate the invitation to appear 

before you today to discuss the topic of"The True Cost of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act (the Affordable Care Act)," My name is David Cutler. and I am the Otto Eckstein 

Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard University, I have appointments in the Department 

of Economics, the Kennedy School of Government and the School of Public Health at Harvard, 

I have studied the health care industry for over 20 years and have written extensively about the 

economic and fiscal consequences of health care reform, 

The high level and rapid growth of medical spending in the United States is an enormous policy 

challenge, and understanding how the Aflorclable Care Act affects those costs is extremely 

important. High medical costs have an immediate effect on family budgets, by reducing the 

amount that families can spend on housing. clothing, education, and other important goods and 

2 
124 


71722.076

services. In addition, high costs for businesses lead to a variety of labor market impediments.' 

These include people feeling locked into their current job, 2 reduced business startups, and 

reduced employment, especially of lower wage workers.] Further, high medical spending, when 

combined with constant or falling tax collections, posc a strain on budgets at all levels of 

government. Thus, policy must focus on constraining medical spending. 

That said, not all policies to lower medical spending are the same. There are two important rules 

that need to guide any discussion of cost containment: 

o We need to eliminate wasteful spending, not valuable spending. Cutting payments 

across-the-board is not a good policy unless measures are put in place to ensure that the 

provision of valuable care is enhanced and that the most vulnerable members of our society are 

protected from the adverse effects that could result from, indiscriminate cost reductions. Those 

measures are included in the Affordable Care Act, as described below. 

o We need to reduce the overall level of spending, not simply shifi costs from one payer to 

another. It would be easy for businesses to reduce their spending on medical care; they could 

simply stop providing health insurance and let their employees buy individually. While this 

would lower business costs, it would raise spending by families. Indeed, family spending would 

I Gruber, Jonathan, "Health Insurance and the Labor Market," in Anthony J. Culyer and Joseph P. Newhouse, eds., 

Handbook a/Health Economics, Volume lA, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2000; Janet Currie and Brigitte Madrian, 

"Health, Health Insurance and the Labor Market," in Orley Ashenfelter and David Card, eds., Handbook 0/ Labor 

Economics, 1(3), Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1999,3309-3416. 

2 Brigitte Madrian, "Employment-Based Health Insurance and Job Mobility: Is There Evidence of Job-Lock?," 

Quarterly Journal a/Economics, 1994, 109(1),27-54. 

1 Neeraj Sood, Arkadipta Ghosh, Jose Escarce, "Employer-Sponsored Insurance, Health Care Cost Growth, and the 

Economic Performance of U.S. 1ndustries", Healrh Services Research, 44(5), October 2009,1449 -1464; Katherine 

Bakker and Amitabh Chandra, "The Labor Market Effects of Rising Health Insurance Premiums", Journal 0/ Labor 

Economics, 24(3), July 2006, 609-634, 

3 
125 


71722.077

likely increase by more than business spending fell, since the administrative costs of individual 

insurance are many times greater than the administrative costs of group coverage. Similarly, 

governments could reduce their liability for medical care by shifting costs to individuals -

requiring higher premiums for Medicare beneficiaries or restricting eligibility for Medicaid. But 

this too is a shift of costs that may lead to an increase in the overall level of medical spending, 

not a reduction in expenses. 

OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE MEDICAL SPENDING 

The question that faces policy analysts, therefore, is finding areas where money can be saved 

while simultaneously improving care quality. The health policy literature suggests there are 

three areas where money can be saved and quality simultaneously improved: 

o Improved management of acute and post-acute care. When people develop acute 

illnesses, they receive care that is uncoordinated, frequently inappropriate, and provided in 

settings that are more expensive than needed. For example, the Dartmouth Atlas shows that 

Medicare beneficiaries who live in areas of the country that spend more receive more medical 

care, but their health is no better.4 The magnitude is such that nearly one-third of Medicare 

spending could be eliminated by bringing spending in more expensive areas to the level ofless 

expensive areas. Another study shows significant unnecessary hospital readmissions, again in 

the Medicare population. Nationally, about 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are readmitted 

4 Fisher, Elliott, et ai., "The Implications of Regional Variations in Medicare Spending. Part 1: The Content, 

Quality, and Accessibility of Care." Annals of Internal Medicine 2003a, 138: 273-87; Fisher, Elliott, et aI., "The 

Implications of Regional Variations in Medicare Spending. Part 2: Health Outcomes and Satisfaction with Care." 

Annals of Internal Medicine 2003b, 138: 288-98. 

4 
126 


71722.078

to a hospital within one month of a previous discharge. 5 In the best health systems, the rate is 

close to 5 percent. 6 The difference between these rates is tens of billions of dollars annually, and 

needless suffering for many families. 

Improvement in acute and post-acute care management has been demonstrated numerous times. 

The journal Health Affairs recently profiled 15 successful organizations.7 The Institute of 

Medicine has reported on several more.s Organizations such as the Cleveland Clinic, Geisinger 

Health System, Group Health Cooperative, Intermountain Health Care, Kaiser Permanente, 

Massachusetts General Hospital, the Mayo Clinic, and the Virginia Mason Medical Center all 

have achieved high quality, lower cost outcomes. These organizations are not concentrated 

geographically, nor do they share particular demographic characteristics of enrollees. Rather, 

they have three other features in common: (J) they use information technology to learn what 

works and what does not; (2) they have removed themselves from the fee-for-service payment 

grid and instead use volume-neutral or value-based payments; and (3) they have freed up 

employees to do the right job, by training leaders who facilitate quality improvement and 

empowering employees to make the right care the heart of their mission. All of this would be 

possible to replicate nationally, but not without major changes in how medical care is structured. 

S Stephen F. Jencks, et al.. "Rehospitalization among Patients in the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program," New 

England Journal of Medicine. 2009; 360: 1418-1428. 

6 Maureen Bisognano and Amy Boutwell, "Improving Transitions to Reduce Readmissions," Frontiers of Health 

Services Management, Spring 2009,25(3),3-10. 

7 Profiles of Innovation in Health Care Delivery, Health Affairs, March 2011. 

S Institute of Medicine, The Healtheare imperative: Lowering Costs and improving Outcomes: Workshop Summary. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. 

5 
127 


71722.079

o Increased attention to prevention. Prevention extends lives, and in many cases lowers 

medical spending as well.9 Thus, preventing acute illnesses is'a second way to lower medical 

costs and improve the quality of care. There are several aspects of prevention: primary 

prevention (mammograms, colonoscopies, obesity reduction programs, and the like), secondary 

prevention (medication for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other chronic diseases to prevent acute 

events), and tertiary prevention (reducing the risk of hospital readmission, as noted above). 

Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention are all poor in the United States. For example, only 

43 percent of diabetic patients in the United States report receiving recommended screening for 

diabetes.lO That is about average internationally, but far below the best countries. Two-thirds of 

diabetics in the United Kingdom and nearly 60 percent of diabetics in the Netherlands report 

having received all recommended screenings. Thus, we know we can do better. 

There are several features ofthe British and Dutch health care systems that likely contribute to 

their better prevention. First, providers in these countries regularly use information technology. 

Eighty-nine percent of British physicians and 54 percent of Dutch physicians have extensive 

access to electronic medical records and decision support systems, compared to only 26 percent 

of U.S. physicians.}} Physicians cannot help patients manage their care ifthey do not know what 

care their patients have and have not received. Second, both the United Kingdom and the 

Netherlands encourage a team-based approach to care provision. In the Netherlands, physicians 

have established after-hours cooperatives to provide care on nights and weekends. The United 

9 Dana P. Goldman, et aI., "The benefits of risk factor prevention in Americans aged 51 years and older," American 

Journal of Public Health, 2009, 99(11), 2096-101. 

}O Cathy Schoen, Robin Osborn, Sabrina K.H. How, et aI., "In Chronic Condition: Experiences of Patients with 

Complex Health Care Needs, in Eight Countries, 2008," lfealth Affairs, 2009, 28(1), wl-wI6. 

" Cathy Schoen, Robin Osborn, Michelle M. Daly, et aI., "A Survey of Primary Care Physicians in Eleven 

Countries, 2009: Perspectives on Care, Costs, and Experiences," Health Affairs, 2009, 28(6), wl171-wl183. 

6 
128 


71722.080

Kingdom has national call centers for the same purpose. Third, physicians are rewarded for care 

coordination in both countries. Performance on quality measures has been an important part of 

physician compensation in the United Kingdom since the early 2000s, and the same is truethough to a more limited extent - in the Netherlands. Neither care coordination nor good 

outcomes are rewarded in the U.S. health care system, especially Medicare. Fourth, nurses are 

allowed to playa key role in organizing care in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. While 

neither the United Kingdom nor the Netherlands have more nurses than the United States, both 

countries allow nurses greater autonomy in helping care for patients. The United States could 

well implement a system like that in these other countries. But will require significant change in 

the way that medical care is delivered. 

o Eliminating excessive administrative costs. Spending on administration is much higher 

than in the United States than in other countries, and is much greater than any analyst suggests is 

needed. For example, the Institute of Medicine estimated that providers and payers in the United 

States spend $361 billion on billing and insurance-related administrative costs, of which about 

half are not associated with improved system operation. 12 The McKinsey Global Institute, the 

Medical Group Management Association, the American Medical Association, and the 

association of America's Health Insurance Plans also suggest that administrative costs are 

excessive.13 

"Institute of Medicine, The Healtheare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes: Workshop 

Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 20 I 0; James G. Kahn, et aI., "The cost of health 

insurance administration in California: estimates for insurers, physicians, and hospitals," Health Affairs, 2005; 

24(6),1629-39. 

13 McKinsey Global Institute, Accounting/or the Cost 0/ US Health Care. A New Look at Why Americans Spend 

More, Washington, D.C: McKinsey Global Institute, 2008; Medical Group Management Association, 

"Administrative Simplification for Medical Group Practices," MGMA Position Paper, June 2005; Stephen J. Ubi 

and others, Letter to President Obama, May 11,2009, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov!assets/documents/05-II-09 _Health __ Costs_Letter_ 

7 
129 


71722.081

Excessive administrative costs are a result of several factors: credentialing processes that differ 

for each insurer and care organization; claims subm iss ion and payment processes that are not 

standardized; and eligibility verification that is needless complex. There is no doubt that these 

costs could be reduced. Credentialing has been partially streamlined in some areas, and could be 

streamlined further. There are proposals for standardizing claims submission, payment 

notification, and eligibility verification, and statewide examples in Massachusetts and Utah that 

could be expanded. The major impediment to reducing administrative waste is not lack of 

knowledge, but instead lack of willpower. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 

Act gave the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to streamline 

administrative costs, but this was pursued only haphazardly. The Affordable Care Act provides 

additional authority and the means to carry this out. 

Summary. All told, the amount of excessive medical spending is staggering. A rough consensus 

among experts, including a recent consensus document from the Institute of Medicine, is that at 

least one-third of medical spending is not associated with improved health. This implies waste 

of about $750 billion annually.14 Many experts in medical care delivery suggest that the amount 

of excessive spending is even higher. To put this in perspective, the lower bound is about the 

entire spending of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Thus, the United 

States wastes approximately a stimulus bill every year on medical spending that is not associated 

with improved health. 

to_the_President.pdf; 

"Institute of Medicine, The Healtheare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes' Workshop 

Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010. 

8 
130 


71722.082

THE IMPACT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ON COST SAVINGS 

The Affordable Care Act has provisions that address each of these three areas of excessive 

spending. Before highlighting these areas, it is important to note that the Affordable Care Act 

builds upon the HITECH Act passed as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009. The HITECH Act provided the funding and incentives (0 make medical records 

electronic. The next step is to create incentives to use those records appropriately and change in 

the delivery of services to promote better care, not just more expensive care. Together, the two 

pieces of legislation bring the medical system to the point where significant productivity 

improvements are possible. 

Many provisions of the Affordable Care Act will affect costs in ihe areas of noted above. For 

example, Accountable Care Organizations will have incentives to both limit hospital readmission 

rates and to prevent episodes of illness through better chronic care management. They will also 

streamline administrative costs within the systems. For simplicity, I delineate the provisions of 

the Affordable Care Act in two groups: those that are primarily designed to affect the provision 

of medical services; and those that are primarily related to administrative simplification. 

Provisions related to the delivery o/medical services. The Affordable Care Act begins the 

process ofa wholesale restructuring of how Medicare and private insurers pay for medical care, 

moving away from payment-for-volume and towards payment-for-value. Within the Medicare 

and Medicaid programs, the specific provisions of the Act include: 

9 
131 


71722.083

Direct payment innovations, including higher reimbursement for preventive care services 

and patient-centered primary care, bundled payment for acute and post-acute medical services, shared savings or capitation payments for accountable provider groups that assume 

responsibility for the continuum of a patient's care, and pay-for-performance incentives for 

Medicare providers; 

Increasedfundingfor comparative effectiveness research, to enhance our knowledge of 

what medical care is helpful, and what is not; 

Distinguishing medical care providers on the basis of cost and quality, making that data 

available to providers, consumers, and insurance plans, and providing financial incentives 

for relatively low-quality, high-cost providers to improve their care; 

An Independent Payment Advisory Board to recommend structural changes to Medicare, 

along with an Innovation Center in CMS to sponsor and encourage innovative care 

delivery models; 

An excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, to provide incentives for firms with high 

spending to lower those costs; and 

Increased emphasis on wellness and prevention, through lower cost sharing for preventive 

care, mandatory nutrition labeling at chain restaurants, employee wellness discounts, and 

dedicated funding for prevention and public health. 

10 
132 


71722.084

Together, these provisions should have a profound effect on the delivery of medical services. 

They bring to Medicare the same management tools and incentives that underlie the care 

delivered in the best medical systems in the country, and in the best businesses outside of 

medical care. 

Additional provisions affecting administrative simplification. One of the least noted features of 

the Affordable Care Act are the provisions addressing administrative simplification. In 

particular, Sections 1104 and 10909 of the Act establish uniform operating rules for claims 

submission, adjudication, and other communications between providers and insurers. They also 

extend the areas where standardization is sought. In combination with the transformation to 

electronic medical records, these provisions will lay the foundation for a major reduction in the 

administrative burden of medicine. 

THE FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT 

Estimating the impact of any reform bill on medical spending and the economy is difficult, let 

alone one with as many pieces as the Affordable Care Act. Partly as a result of this uncertainty, 

the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of the Actuary assume only minor savings from 

the delivery system provisions in the legislation. For example, CBO estimated that the parts of 

the law noted above will cost $10 billion over the 20 I 0-20 19 period, while the Office of the 

Actuary determined savings of only $2 billion. 

Other estimates, however, suggest that an aggressive approach to changing the delivery of 

medical services could result in significantly greater cost reductions. Consider, for example, the 

II 
133 


71722.085

30 percent or more of medical care that is estimated to be wasteful. How rapidly would an 

improved system be able to eliminate this waste? If the waste could be eliminated in 10 years, 

the implied reduction in costs relative to trend is 3 percent annually. An efficiency initiative that 

took 20 years would lower costs relative to trend by 1.5 percentage points annually. 

Studies of the American economy as a whole suggest that information intensive industries have 

productivity growth of 1.5 percentage points annually above other industries. 15 However, 

medical care is more complex than most industries. Thus, cost savings in medical care may be 

somewhat slower. For this reason, I consider savings of 1.0 to 1.5 percentage points annually a 

reasonable expectation for the impact of the type of reforms included in the Affordable Care 

ACt. 16 Relative to cost savings of this magnitude, the Business Roundtable suggests a larger 

potential reduction in spending,17 as do health care groups such as the American Medical 

Association and American Hospital Association. 

The impact of cost savings of this magnitude are profound. Figure 1 shows the effect on national 

medical spending ofa reduction in cost growth of 1.5 percentage points annually. I project that 

national spending on health care will decline relative to trend by over $500 billion in the first 

decade, by $3.5 trillion in the second decade, and by nearly $5 trillion in the third decade. These 

15 Stephen D. Oliner, et aI., "Explaining a productive decade," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2007, I: 81-

137. 

16 David M. Cutler, Karen Davis, and KristofStremikis, The Impact of Health Reform on Health System Spending. 

Center for American Progress and the Commonwealth Fund, May 2010; Melinda Beeuwkes-Buntin and David 

Cutler, The Two Trillion Dollar Solution: Saving Money by Moderni=ing the Health Care System. Center for 

American Progress, June 2009; David Cutler, "How Health Care Reform Must Bend the Cost Curve," Health 

A/(airs, 2010,29(6),1131-1135. . 

1 Hewitt Associates, Health Care Reform: Creating a Sustainable Health Care Marketplace, Washington, D.C.: 

Business Roundtable, 2009; Stephen J. Ubi and others, Letter to President Obama, May 11,2009, available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/05-11-09 _Health_Costs _Letter_ 

to_the ]resident. pdf; 

12 
134 


71722.086

savings would translate into enormous savings for the federal budget. In comparison to the 

Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Affordable Care Act will save about $130 billion 

over the next decade, assuming reasonable savings from the provisions noted above suggests 

budgetary savings of over $400 billion over the first decade. The savings in subsequent 

decades would be even greater, as cost savings cumulate. 

If the Affordable Care Act were repealed, the ability to achieve cost savings would be very 

significantly reduced, even were tight constraints on Medicare and Medicaid substituted instead. 

The Affordable Care Act will save money not by mandating any specific level of savings, but by 

incentivizing better care. 

Insurance premiums would decline with reductions in overall medical spending, and this would 

lead firms to hire more workers. Improving the productivity of the medical sector by 1 to 1.5 

percent per year would create 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade. Jobs 

would be created in virtually all industries with the exception of health care, where more 

efficient production should allow for some reduction in administrative staff. Estimates from 

other groups suggest job creation along the same lines. The President's Council of Economic 

Advisers used a different methodology but reached a similar conclusion. 18 And a recent Urban 

Institute study agrees that long-term cost savings are the major determinant of the employment 

effects of health reform, though they do not provide a specific jobs estimate.19 

18 Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisers, "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform," 

June 2009; Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisers, "The Economic Case for Health Care 

Reform: Update," December 2009. 

J9 John Holahan and Bowen Garrett, "How Will the Affordable Care Act Affect Jobs?" Washington D.C.: The 

Urban Institute, March 2011. 

I3 
135 


71722.087

Of course, other provisions ofthe Affordable Care Act will affect employment as well. But 

those provisions will affect employment in different directions and on net have a minor impact 

on job creation. Expanded insurance coverage will increase demand for health care workers, 

while reductions in Medicare and Medicaid spending will lower demand. Universal coverage 

will increase the ability of workers to change jobs or leave the labor force entirely, while 

reductions in costs for small firms and some large firms will boost employment there. As 

virtually all analysts note, these effects will roughly cancel out. The major impact of the 

Affordable Care Act on employment will stem from its impact on overall medical spending. 

SUMMARY 

In sum, economic research on the potential impact of the Affordable Care Act is clear: the 

Affordable Care Act creates an opportunity for changes in the way that medical care is delivered 

that will cut the growth of medical care costs; improve the fiscal situation of federal, state, and 

local governments; and spur job creation. The issue for this Congress is how to strengthen the 

Affordable Care Act. There are many provisions of the Act that could be stronger, and some that 

ought to be reconsidered. In the former category are provisions to speed new program models in 

all parts of Medicare and Medicaid. There are steps to address this in the Affordable Care Act, 

but they could and should be strengthened. By working together with the administration, this 

Congress can help set the path for an era of health reform that is valuable for our economic 

health as well as our personal health. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you might have. 

14 
136 


71722.088

~ 

.!! 

0 

-0 

'0 

'" c 

~ iii 

Figure 1: The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on National Health 

Expenditures 

$0 t 

-$200 

jOll 

I 

I -$400 

1 -$600 

-$800 J 

-$1,000 j 1st decade: $579 billion 2nd decade: $3.5 trillion 3rd decade: 

-$1,200 J $4.9 trillion 

Data are from David Cutler, "How Health Care Reform Must Bend the Cost Curve," HealTh Affairs, 2010,29(6), 

1131-1135. 

..c '" 

.Q 

1000 

800 

'0 600 

~ c 

~ 

" o 

~ 

400 

200 

Figure 2: Health Reform Results in Job Creation 

250,000 jobs on average 

o +---~~-------,~,-,,-,-,--,-,------,"-. 

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

-Less Rapid Change -More Rapid Change 

2019 

Data are from David-Cutler and Neeraj Sood, "New Jobs Through Better Health Care," Washington, D.C.: Center 

for American Progress, 2010. 

15 
137 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair thanks the 

gentleman and recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP K. KENNEDY 

Mr. KENNEDY. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me to testify before you today on the effects that this complex and 

erroneous reform will have on my business. My name is Phil Kennedy and I own Comanche Lumber Company, Incorporated, located 

in Lawton, Oklahoma. I am here to speak to you on behalf of the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce today. 

My family began operating Comanche Lumber Company in 1967. 

As Lawton grew, so did Comanche Lumber Company, eventually 

adding flooring and decorating products. What began as a simple 

lumberyard almost 44 years ago has become one of southwest Oklahoma’s leading building material retailers. Today we remain independently owned and operated and a strong member and supporter 

of the Lawton community. However, the past few years have been 

difficult. As I waded through the new health care law, I began to 

grasp the mandates and their bearing on my business. I am deeply 

concerned about the future of my family’s business. 

We have roughly 50 full-time employees, sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on the time of the year, because the bulk of 

our business occurs in the spring and summer months. Comanche 

currently offers a generous health plan to our employees. Over half 

of us take advantage of this coverage, including me. Comanche 

pays approximately 50 percent of the premiums for our employees 

and offers two different high-deductible plan options, one with a 

$1,500 deductible and another more comprehensive plan with a 

lower $1,000 deductible. Fortunately, we have been able to get good 

rates because Oklahoma has good free market laws that encourage 

competition among insurance companies for my business. However, 

premiums have been climbing. In order to prevent large increases, 

we have had to make tough choices which have included increasing 

our plans’ deductibles and implementing a more tiered prescription 

drug plan. 

I understand the new law includes a number of new insurance 

rules billed as patient protections which require free preventive 

services and place restrictions on annual and lifetime limits, among 

other things. While new services may sound nice, we must realize 

they are not free. Instead, these new mandates will hamper the 

flexibility to modify plans’ designs and restrict premium growth. 

Even with the flexibility we had over the past two years, our premiums have increased roughly 30 percent. 

There are many other aspects of the law that will increase Comanche’s premiums including numerous taxes on health industries 

including taxes on medical devices, prescription drugs and small 

business health insurance that will be passed on to me and my employees in the form of higher premiums. While these new insurance 

rules and taxes are problematic, their impact pales in comparison 

to what will happen when the new mandates kick in. Beginning in 

January 2014, businesses with 50 or more employees will be punished with fines if they don’t offer a certain level of coverage. Even 

more troubling is the fact that businesses that over qualified plans 

138 

might still be fined just as much. It is ironic that the fine for businesses that don’t offer coverage is $2,000 per employee while the 

fine for a business that does offer coverage is $3,000 per employee 

plus the cost of paying for coverage. Considering that Comanche’s 

profits are about 1 percent, I am sure you can see how these fines 

would dramatically impact our business. 

It appears that to avoid these fines, I can either reduce my staff 

to less than 50 full-time employees or consider alternative staffing 

like employing part-time workers or outsourcing. I can’t imagine 

why a law would incent these actions at a time when our economy 

is struggling to recover from such a terrible recession, but as a 

business owner my job is to protect the business, keep the doors 

open and sell building materials. I hope I will not have to seriously 

consider these choices but the health care law may force my hand 

as well as that as many other small business people. 

Small business owners were hopeful that health care reform 

would rein in health care costs and bend the so-called cost curve 

down. However, looking through the bill I don’t see any real medical liability reform other than the vague acknowledgement that 

says States should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives. 

It seems to me that if really want to address rising costs, medical 

liability reform should be tackled head on. We need to fix the existing civil litigation system instead of merely saying it needs to be 

fixed. Real health reform would include ideas like this. Instead, the 

law just taxes, subsidizes and dramatically increases my paperwork burdens by provisions such as the 1099 reporting. 

In conclusion, I understand that given the existing political realities in Washington, a total repeal of the health care law is an unlikely proposition for now. However, I am hopeful that this subcommittee and your colleagues in the House and Senate will start 

on repairing and eliminating the most erroneous mandates and 

provisions starting with the repeal of the employer mandate. Your 

decisions can either help or hinder us. The law you create can either foster an environment to give small business owners greater 

confidence and certainty to grow and generate new jobs or one that 

does just the opposite. Regrettably, the new health care law is already doing the latter. Congress needs to take action to rectify this 

problem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:] 

139 


71722.089

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

on behalf of the 

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

By 

Phil Kennedy 

Owner and President 

Comanche Lumber Company Inc. 

Summary of Written Testimony 

Introduction 

Overview of Comanche Lumber Company, Inc. 

Company's Health Care Offerings 

Impact of the PPACA on Comanche Lumber Company, Inc. 

Conclusion 
140 


71722.090

ON: "True Cost of PPACA: Effects on the Budget and 

Jobs" 

TO: 

DATE: 

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce's 

Subcommittee on Health 

March 30, 2011 
141 


71722.091

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation, representing the 

interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, see tor, and region. 

More than 96 percent of the Chamber's members arc small businesses with 100 or fewer 

employees, 70 percent of which have 10 or fewer employees. Y ct, virtually all of the nation's 

largest companies are also active members. As a result, we are particularly cognizant of both the 

problems with which smaller businesses grapple, as well as those issues facing the business 

community at large. 

Besides representing a cross-section of the American business community in terms of 

number of employees, the Chamber represents a wide management speetmm across many varied 

types of business and location. Eaeh major classification of American business-manufacturing, 

retailing, services, constmetion, wholesaling, and tinance···is represented. Also, the Chamber has 

substantial membership in all 50 states. 

The Chamber's international reach is substantial as well. In addition to the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce's 115 American Chambers of Commerce abroad, an increasing number of our member 

companies engage in the export and import of both goods and services and have ongoing investment 

activities. The Chamber favors greater international competitiveness and opposes artificial U.S. and 

foreign barriers to international business. 

Positions on national issues are developed by a cross-section of Chamber members serving 

on eommittees, subcommittees, and task forces. More than 1,000 business people participate in this 

process. 

2 
142 


71722.092

Statement on 

"True Cost of PPACA: Effects on the Budget and Jobs" 

Submitted to 

THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

on behalf of the 

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

By 

Phil Kennedy 

Owner and President 

Comanche Lumber Company Inc. 

Lawton, OK 

March 30, 2011 

Chainnan Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the impacts of the new health care law on 

my business and employees. I commend your efforts in holding this important hearing to better 

understand the eiTeets this complex and onerous 'refonn' will have on the ability of businesses to 

grow and create jobs as we are required to sort out and contend with the labyrinth ofregulations and 

cloud of mandates now hanging over our heads. 

I am Phil Kennedy, Owner and President of Comanche Lumber Company Inc., which is 

located in Lawton. Oklahoma. I am here to speak with you today on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce. I have the honor of serving on the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce and as Past Chainnan of the State Chamber of Oklahoma and Past Chainnan of the 

Lawton-Fort Sill Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I am also owner of South em Hardlines, Inc., 

a floor covering and decorating supplier and am a partner in a number of other small businesses in 

Lawton. In addition to my business activities, I believe it is important to give back to the Lawton 

community which has been so good to my family. I serve on the Board of the Comanche County 

3 
143 


71722.093

Memorial Hospital Foundation and the Grcat Plains Technology Center Foundation. I am also the 

Past Prcsident of the Lawton-Fort Sill United Way. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation, representing the 

interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region. 

More than 96 pereent of the Chamber's members are small businesses with 100 or fewer employees, 

70 percent of which have 10 or fewer employees. Yet, virtually all of the nation's largest companies 

arc also active members. Therefore, the Chamber is particularly cognizant of the problems of 

smaller businesses, as well as the issues facing the business community at large. 

Company Background 

Before remarking on the daunting challenges posed by the new health care law, I want to 

share with you a little infonnation about our family-owned business. Comanche Lumber Company, 

Inc. began operating in Lawton, Oklahoma, in October 1967 in what was once the Rock Island 

Railroad Depot building, located at the comer of Railroad Street and Southwest 'C' Avenue. 

My father and mother, Nonnan and Christine Kennedy, began selling lumber and building 

materials for new home construction and remodeling projects for a growing Lawton, and operated 

for the first five years without a forklift or any other material handling equipment. It truly was a 

family business. My dad would work inside the store during the day and deliver the orders in the 

evening, after the store was closed, loading and unloading all materials by hand. My mom was 

4 
144 


71722.094

integrally involved keeping the books for the business. I have fond memories as a child of spending 

countless hours at our family business. 

As Lawton grew, so did Comanche Lumber Company, venturing into the floor covering 

market in 1982 and occupying land up and down Railroad Street to house the inventory. In 1990, 

the company outgrew the old Depot building and pureha~ed the structure at #2 SW 'C' A venue. 

This building became Comanche Home Center, an Ace Hardware Store and Lumber facility. The 

old Rock Island Railroad Depot was tom down, and replaced with new, covered storage units that 

today house our large lumber and building material inventory. 

As 1 took over the family business, I wanted to make sure the company continued to b'TOW as 

we moved forward into the 21 st eentury. We were already members of Allied Building Stores 

(ABS) and Ace Hardware. In 2001, we took another major step forward with the company by 

joining another buying group Carpet One, the world's largest floor covering retailer. In 2004, we 

added a new warehouse to help house the growing inventory of the tinest flooring and decorating 

products in Southwest Oklahoma. 

1 credit my father and mother for not only starting and successfully running this business 

over the years, but for also instilling in me a strong work ethic, a deep appreciation for our business' 

greatest asset, our employees, and a profound sense of pride in our community. We care greatly 

about providing outstanding service and quality products to our customers. What began as a simple 

lumberyard almost forty-four years ago has become one of Lawton's leading building material 

retailers. We remain independently owned and operated and a strong member and supporter of the 

5 
145 


71722.095

Lawton community. In addition, we are a major supplier of the lumber, nails and other materials 

used for eonstruction projects at Fort Sill, a United States Army base that is home of the U.S. Army 

Field Artillery School as well as the Marine Corps' site for Field Artillery MaS school, U.S. Army 

Air Defense Artillery School, the 31 st Air Defense Artillery Brigade, the 75th Fires Brigade and the 

214th Fires Brigade. As we like to say, for 44 years we have helped people build it right. 

Our produets are often used in the construction of military housing on the base at Fort Sill. lt 

is very rewarding to know that our materials are being used to improve housing for men and women 

serving in our Armed Forces and their families who sacrifice so much for our country. Whether 

through direct sales to Fort Sill or to contractors doing work there, we are humbled and honored to 

play our small role in improving the quality oflife of the Soldiers and Marines stationed there and 

helping them fulfill their critical mission. Our staff also takes personal pride in this because many 

of their spouses service in the U.S. Armed Forces. 

For the past couple of years, we have hovered around 50 full-time employees, sometimes 

dipping just below and sometimes cresting just above this mark depending on the time of the year. 

With the bulk of our business occurring in the spring and summer, we also hire some part-time 

employees to assist us. This year has been a struggle for the business. Starting in January, we have 

reduced staffing levels through natural attrition which hopefully will help us avoid any further need 

to seale back. But as I wade through the new health eare law and begin to grasp the mandates and 

their bearing on my business, I am deeply concerned. 

6 
146 


71722.096

Health Care 

Comanche currently offers a generous plan to our employees about 50 percent of us take 

Comanche up on this coverage offering, including me. Many others arc covered by their spouses or 

other plans. We pay about 50 percent of the premium for employees that elect the higher deductible 

options (SI500), and also otTer a more comprehensive plan with a lower, SIOOO deductible. I am 

able to get good rates for Comanche's health insurance benefits because Oklahoma has good freemarket laws that encourage competition among insurance companies for my business. However, 

premiums continue to climb. In order to prevent large increases, we have had to make some tough 

choices, including increasing our plans' deductiblcs and implementing a more tiered drug formulary 

structure. 

It is my understanding that the new health care law includes a number of new insurance 

rules billed as "patient protections," such as requiring free preventatives services, requiring plans to 

allow "adult children" to be added as dependents, placing restrictions on annual and lifetime limits, 

and other changes. While this sounds nice, it ecrtainly lessens our flexibility in changing plan 

design to restrict premium growth. Changes such as maximum out-of-pocket limits and maximum 

deduetiblcs similarly will guarantee that premiums will be harder to control. Even with the 

flexibility we had, over the past two years the premiums for the plan have increased about 30 

percent. 

Other aspects of the law that will increase Comanche's premiums include the numerous ncw 

taxes on health industries including taxes on medical devices, prescription drugs, and small business 

7 
147 


71722.097

health insurance. The director of the Congressional Budget Office has testified that these taxes will 

be passed on to me and my employees in the fom] of higher premiums. 

While these new insurance rules and taxes arc problematic, their impact pales in comparison 

to what will happen when the new mandate kicks in January of2014. The mandate will basically 

punish businesses that have 50 or more employees by fining them if they don't offer a certain level 

of coverage. Even if a business docs offer a "qualified plan," it still might be fined just as much. 

Ironically, the fine for businesses that don't offer coverage is $2,000 per employee ... and the fine 

for a business that docs offer coverage is $3,000 per employee, plus the cost they're paying for 

coverage. In other words, it may be more cost-effective for Comanche to drop its coverage under 

the new mandate. Considering that Comanche's profits arc about 1 percent, I am not sure how we 

could afford to pay these fines. 

It seems that there is one way for me to avoid paying these tines I can either get (and stay) 

under 50 employees, or I can start forcing employees to part-time status, making them independent 

contractors, outsourcing certain services, and taking similar efforts to negate the fines. It seems 

strange that the law would incent these choices at a time when the economy is struggling to recover 

from such a terrible recession. I don't understand it, but as a business owner my job is to protect the 

business, keep the doors open, and sell lumber. I hope I don't have to do any of this, but the health 

care law may force my hand, as well as that of many other small business people. I do not want to 

lose anyone on my payroll, but if it comes down to laying off a few employees or being saddled 

with these fines, I won't have a choice. 

8 
148 


71722.098

If Comanche doesn't offer health insurance, I suppose many of my employees will have no 

choice but to try and obtain coverage through the new exchanges. I do not know what kinds of 

plans will be allowed in an exchange, what the minimum level of coverage will look like or cost, or 

whether there will be a big enough pool and enough competing plans to make coverage in an 

exchange affordable. I hope high-deductible plans will still be oflcred, but that is unclear in the 

legislation. 

I know that my fellow small businessmen (and women) will not be allowed to shop among 

competing health insurers across state lines. I understand the exchange is supposed to create a new 

"marketplace" for purchasing insurance, but that doesn't mean that small businesses arc going to be 

able to create favorable pools and have more negotiating power against insurance companies. Real 

health reform would have included ideas like this, instead of just taxing, subsidizing and 

dramatically increasing my paperwork burdens which the new 1099 provision would place on me. 

Small business owners were hopeful that health reform would rein in health care costs and 

bend the so-called cost-curve down. However, looking through the bill I don't sec anything about 

real medical liability reform other than vague acknowledgment (termed "sense of the Senate") that 

"States should be encouraged to develop and test alternatives." It seems to me that if we really want 

to address rising costs, medical liability reform should be tackled head on. We need to fix the 

existing civil litigation system and instead ofmercly saying it needs to be fixed. 

9 
149 


71722.099

Conclusion 

I understand that given the existing political realities in Washington, DC, a total repeal of 

the health carc law by Congress is an unlikely proposition for now. However, I am hopcful that this 

Subcommittee and your colleagues in thc House and Senate will focus on repairing or eliminating 

thc more onerous mandatcs and provisions which saddle busincsscs with burdens that actually 

encouragc us not to expand our business and astoundingly discourage job crcation. Thc bottom line 

is that your dccisions can help or hinder us. By that I mcan thc laws you crcate will cithcr fostcr an 

cnvironment that givcs small busincss owncrs greater confidencc and certainty to grow and gcnerate 

new jobs, or onc that does just the opposite. Regrettably, this new health carc law is alrcady doing 

the lattcr and Congress must take the necessmy action to rectify it. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

10 
150 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. The gentleman’s 

time is expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Poore, for 

5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF RICK POORE 

Mr. POORE. Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone and members of the subcommittee, it is nice to see so many of you here. 

Thanks for having me to testify today. My name is Rick Poore and 

I own DesignWear, a screen printing and embroidery business in 

Lincoln, Nebraska. I am also a member of the Main Street Alliance, a network of small businesses, as well as the Lincoln Independent Business Association. 

I have been a small business owner for 17 years and I started 

with three employees and now we have 29. I offer insurance to my 

employees and pay for part of it. I would rather have my employees 

worried about the product we are producing rather than whether 

Timmy can get his medicine and put food on the table at the same 

time. But every year our premiums go up, sometimes over 30 percent over the last 10 years. At the same time, in an effort to keep 

things affordable, our benefits were whittled away until we had 

nothing left but the insurance equivalent of a fig leaf. Only in the 

last 2 years have I been able to keep premiums under control without giving up benefits and in fact adding benefits. 

The country counts on small businesses to create jobs. You hear 

it all the time. If you want to talk about job killing, you look no 

further than the runaway health care costs that I have experienced. Small businesses’ ability to create jobs has been seriously 

undermined by insurance costs more than doubling in 10 years. We 

saw a lot of years of steep increases with no tools to do anything 

about it. Without a lot of choice and bargaining power, I stood a 

better chance at a carnie game at the midway than I did against 

my insurance company. 

The Affordable Care Act is finally changing that in my favor. The 

argument that the health care law will cost our economy jobs ignores the lessons of the last decade where it was the lack of action 

by Congress to curb skyrocketing costs leaving small businesses in 

the lurch. The real threat to job creation is the threat of repealing 

this law and going back to a system that stacks the deck against 

me, diverting money away from investment and growth. 

Concerning the employer responsibility requirement, we have got 

to remember two facts. First, over 95 percent of our Nation’s businesses have less than 50 workers and won’t be impacted. Second, 

96 percent of businesses with more than 50 workers already offer 

coverage. If some larger businesses complain that paying for health 

coverage will harm their ability to create jobs, remember that when 

they don’t pay, the rest of us pay their way for them and that hurts 

my ability to create jobs. Imagine if my competition decided they 

didn’t want to pay wages anymore but I was held responsible for 

their payroll. That is effectively what we are doing with cost shifting in health care. 

Recent data from insurers in Nebraska and Kansas City, national companies like United Health Group and Coventry, show encouraging increases in small business coverage. The tax credits are 

already helping small businesses offer coverage, save money and 

151 

plow those savings back into businesses. We will get even more 

help when the exchanges open. I need that kind of broad risk pooling and bargaining power and a Nebraska exchange to lower costs. 

I know insurance lobbyists are trying to blame recent rate increases on the new law but insurers find an excuse to raise rates 

every year. If they are raising them again, then it is in spite of the 

law, not because of it. Even insurance executives admit this. One 

in Massachusetts said recently that only one point of his company’s 

increases this year were due to the new law. 

Small business people, in conclusion, above all are problem solvers. We wake up every day looking for a better way to do our business. We take whatever pitch is thrown at us and we do what we 

can with it. My best employees become problem solvers for me. 

Problem solving is what Americans send you guys to Washington 

to do, and there is a funny thing about solutions I have found is 

that most solutions aren’t perfect right out of the box. You don’t 

scrap them; you make a start in the right direction and then you 

change course and correct the course as you need. One thing for 

sure, our country and our economy can’t afford to go back to a 

health system that doesn’t work for small business. I already know 

that it won’t work. We have got to move forward. 

When I was first approached about this, I had to think about 

what year I started the business, and I was talking to my wife, and 

as a habit I don’t think a lot of businesspeople look back that 

much. I think they look forward as much as they can. There is just 

not a lot of time for looking back. So that is what I am asking you 

guys to do. You can call it Obamacare if you like but I kind of call 

it Rick Care. By moving forward, you can level the playing field for 

small businesses allowing us to focus on creating jobs and building 

our local economies. 

Thanks again for having me, and it is something I am not really 

used to doing, so thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poore follows:] 

152 


71722.100

Statement of Rick Poore, owner of DesignWear, Inc, dba ShirtslO1.com in 

Lincoln, Nebraska and member of the Nebraska Main Street Alliance 

To: Health Subcommittee of the House Energy & Commerce Committee 

Hearing on: "True Cost of PPACA: Effects on the Budget and Jobs" 

March 30, 2011 
153 


71722.101

Introduction 

Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and members ofthe Health Subcommittee, 

Thank you for the invitation to testify today on behalf of my business and small businesses in Nebraska 

and across the country in the Main Street Alliance network. I appreciate the opportunity to share my 

business's story with health care issues and discuss what the health law means for small business job 

creation. 

My name is Rick Poore, and I'm the owner of DesignWear, Inc (doing business as Shirts101.com) in 

Lincoln, Nebraska. I'm also an active member ofthe Main Street Alliance small business network. I've 

been a small business ownerfor 17 years. I started my business, a custom screen printing business, in 

Lincoln in 1994. We started with three employees, and over the years we've grown to employ 29 people. 

I've been offering a group health plan to my employees and paying a large portio n of the costs since 

2000 or so. It felt like the right thing to do, offering health coverage. It also made good sense from the 

perspective of employee morale and retention. But it hasn't been easy to sustain. Since we started 

offering coverage, our rates have gone up every single year - several times in excess of 30 percentforcing me to cut back on benefits to keep the premiums within reach. 

Two years ago, under the pressure of ever-mounting costs, I switched to a new insurer, Coventry, that 

specializes in small business coverage. They do their rating differently, spreading risk and costs more 

evenly across younger and older enrollees. It means the premiums for my youngest workers are a little 

higher, but for everyone who's older, they're a lot lower. I can subsidize some additional cost of the 

insurance, making it more affordable for my younger employees, and it's still markedly cheaper overall 

forme. 

In fact, if I'd kept the same benefit levels when we switched insurers two years ago, we'd be paying 

about the same amount now as we were paying then - I would have experienced Virtually no increase in 
154 


71722.102

premiums over the last two years. That's pretty unheard of. (Instead, we took the opportunity to 

improve our benefits significantly - so we're paying more, but it's for greater value.) 

I am lucky to have finally found this option, but still there are no guarantees. For years I was at the 

mercy of an insurance company's whim because I only had the leverage of ten or twenty employees. 

This principle of pooling risk across the younger and older and healthier and sicker, this is exactly what 

the new health insurance exchanges, which I'll discuss more later, are designed to do. 

The Impact of Runaway Health Insurance Costs Without Health Reform 

The country is counting on small businesses to create the jobs that will put people back to work and 

jumpstart the economy. But the situation we've put small businesses in with health insurance costs over 

the last 20 years is seriously impeding our ability to do that. 

If you want to talk about a job-killer, you don't need to look any further than runaway health insurance 

costs. I've seen insurance costs consume an ever increasing share of my business income - as I said, my 

rates went up every single year until I switched to my current insurer, and the increases have far 

outstripped inflation or my other labor costs. Small businesses across the country have found their 

ability to create new jobs seriously undermined by health insurance costs that have more than doubled 

in the last 10 years. 

Before the passage of health reform, for all those years of steep premium hikes, we had no tools to 

control off-the-charts rate increases or ensure that small businesses were getting value for our premium 

dollars. Without any bargaining power, small businesses like mine were left at the losing end of a "my 

way or the highway" negotiation. 

As a result, more and more small businesses were priced out of the market. By 2009, only 30 percent of 

businesses with less than 50 employees in Nebraska offered health insurance, compared to 96 percent 
155 


71722.103

of businesses with 50 or more workers. Nationally, it was 41 percent compared to 96 percent.' Facing 

unsustainable rate increases, small businesses have been forced to either drop coverage, cut benefits 

and end up with a watered down plan that isn't worth much, or pay a king's ransom (taking money away 

from other productive uses) for a plan that actually provides some security. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is finally changing the game on health care and giving 

small businesses tools and opportunities to control costs and increase value. From the small business tax 

credits to stronger rate review and the value for premiums requirement, the health law is already 

throwing a lifeline to small businesses, creating opportunities for businesses to offer health coverage, 

save money on premiums, and plow those savings back into business investment and job creation. We'll 

get even more help in 2014 when the new competitive marketplaces for health insurance (the state 

health insurance exchanges) open for business, giving small businesses greater transparency, better 

choices, broader risk pooling, and more bargaining power. 

The argument that the Affordable Care Act will cost our economy jobs ignores reality. It ignores our 

experience of the last 10 years, where the lack of any concerted response to skyrocketing insurance 

costs left small businesses in the lurch and undermined our ability to create jobs. The unlevel playing 

field for small businesses and the near impossibility of getting good, affordable coverage in a small 

business locked people into jobs with large employers that offered health security for themselves and 

their families, stifling the American spirit that drives innovation. 

The real threat to job creation going forward would be to repeal or undermine the health care law, to 

return to a system that stacks the deck against small businesses, a system where insurance premium 

hikes knock the wind out of us every year in the absence of effective measures to level the playing field. 

1 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, Medica! Expenditure Panel 

Survey -Insurance Component, Table 1I.A.2{2009} Percent of private~sector establishments that offer health insurance by 

firm size and State: U.S., 2009, http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/2009/tiia2.htm 
156 


71722.104

Preventing Cost-Shifting and Protecting Jobs by Ensuring Everyone Contributes 

While some may raise concerns about the health law's employer responsibility requirement for 

businesses with more than 50 workers, we have to remem ber two important facts. First, over 95 percent 

of our nation's businesses have less than 50 workers, and so will not be touched by this requirement. 

Second, 96 percent of businesses with more than 50 workers already offer health coverage.' 

As a small business owner who offers good health coverage and pays a large share of the cost, I find it 

difficult to sympathize with the complaints of larger companies that choose not to offer decent health 

coverage to their employees and pay a fair share. Through that choice, they're shifting the cost of health 

care for their workforce onto others - specifically, onto me and every other business owner who is 

paying for health coverage. 

If some businesses over the 50 employee threshold complain that paying their fair share toward health 

care will harm their ability to create jobs, we've got to remember that when they don't pay, the rest of 

us are paying their way for them, and that hurts our ability to create jobs. This is anti-competitive. 

Imagine if a larger screen printer in Lincoln, my direct competition, decided to stop paying wages and I 

was held responsible for making his payroll. It may sound crazy, but that's effectively what we're doing 

with health care when larger businesses choose not to offer it and pass the costs along to the rest of us. 

Not only is this anti-competitive, it's also inefficient (since more workers left without insurance leads to 

less preventive care and more costly ER visits), driving up costs in the system overall. And that means a 

negative net impact on our ability to create jobs. 

The employer responsibility provision reinforces what the vast majority of larger employers already do, 

and ensures that responsible employers - both large and small- who offer health benefits aren't 

2 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, Medica! Expenditure Panel 

Survey -Insurance Component, Table II.A.2(2009} Percent of private·sector establishments that offer health insurance by 

firm size and State: U.S., 2009, http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/2009/tiia2.htm 

4 
157 


71722.105

undercut by competitors who shun this responsibility, In this way, ensuring that larger employers pay 

their fair share will help protect and create jobs for our economy, 

Small Businesses Moving Forward on Health Care 

Small businesses are eager to put the health care nightmares of the past behind us and move forward, 

Already, news reports are suggesting that more small businesses are signing up for health coverage since 

the passage of the new law - both in Nebraska and across the country: 

A February 1 article in the Lincoln Journol Stor reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 

Nebraska saw a 34 percent increase in health insurance sales to small businesses for 2011,3 

In the six months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, United Health Group added 

75,000 enrollees in small businesses with less than 50 workers, according to the Los Angeles 

Times' 

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City recently reported a 58 percent increase in small businesses 

purchasing insurance since April 2010, the first month after the passage of the ACA, S 

And my insurer, Coventry, a national company that focuses on small businesses, added new 

business to cover 115,000 more workers in the first nine months of 2010,6 

Some of these encouraging numbers are likely thanks to the small business tax credits in the Affordable 

Care Act, which are effective for tax year 2010 and offer thousands of qualifying Nebraska small 

businesses a credit of as much as 3S percent on their health premium costs if they offer coverage and 

pay at least 50 percent of the premiums, Thanks to the tax credit, smaller businesses that have endured 

year after year of punishing rate increases are finally seeing their after-tax health insurance costs go 

down for the first time in memory, 

3 Mark Andersen, "Blue Cross sees big jump in small-business policies," Lincoln Journal Star, February 1, 2011, 

http://journalstar,com/business/localjartiele_df47Sfde-14b1-S88a-92ba-d3fa 7e9a3e84. html. 

4 Noam N. Levey, "More small businesses are offering health benefits to workers," Los Angeles Times, December 27,2010, 

http://www.latimes.com/health/hea Ithcare/la -fi-health-coverage-20101227 ,O,S024491.story [H ere ina fter Levey j, 

S levey. 

6 levey, 

5 
158 


71722.106

But a business doesn't have to qualify for the new tax credit to benefit from the health care law and get 

into a better position to create jobs. For small businesses across the country, whether you get the credit 

or not, there's a lot to look forward to as more provisions of the law take effect this year and going 

forward. 

Small Business Benefits of the Affordable Care Act and Implications for Job Creation 

The Affordable Care Act includes a number of provisions that will give states and small businesses new 

tools to get a handle on health insurance costs and allow us to invest in job creation. These measures 

include: 

Stronger rate review: The law gives states new tools and resources to strengthen review of 

insurance rate increases and protect small businesses from the unreasonable rate hikes we've 

endured for so many years. This is one of the most direct ways to protect small businesses and 

help us do our part to create jobs and grow the economy. Given the high level of market 

concentration in the health insurance industry and its negative effects on competition, we need 

this stronger rate review to protect us from unreasonable and unjustifiable rate increases. 

A value for premiums requirement: The new minimum medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement will 

ensure that small businesses are getting good value for our premium dollars. By requiring 

insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of premiums collected from small group and 

individual customers on health costs (as opposed to administrative costs, advertising, lobbying, 

executive compensation, and profits) or pay a rebate if they fail to meet the requirement, we will 

increase the value of insurance or decrease its cost - or both. 

New competitive marketplaces for health insurance: In 2014, the state health insurance 

exchanges will give small businesses more transparency, better choices, broader risk pooling and 

more bargaining power by allowing us to band together to shop for coverage. 

Reduced cost-shifting: As the provisions above help more small businesses (and others) gain 

health coverage and start paying into the system, those of us who already provide coverage will 

see the "hidden tax" we pay now to cover cost-shifting from uncompensated care decrease, 

lowering our costs overall. 

6 
159 


71722.107

Health Insurance Exchanges in Microcosm 

For my business, I'm especially looking forward to the new health insurance exchange and the big 

increase in risk pooling and bargaining power it will mean for my business to be able to band together 

with other businesses across Nebraska. The way I see it, my experience with my current insurerspecifically, the way they spread risk more evenly across our group and how that's helped us control 

costs - is a microcosm of how things should work with the new insurance exchange. 

I can't wait to join a Nebraska health insurance exchange that gives me access to a combined risk pool 

and a joint purchasing bloc with thousands of other small businesses. If we create an active purchaser 

exchange that negotiates better deals on our behalf, then we'll have both economies of scale and some 

serious muscle at the bargaining table. There are more than 40,000 private sector firms in Nebraska with 

less than 50 employees that could be eligible to join the exchange, and these firms employ about 

230,000 people.' Talk about increasing my bargaining power. 

Recent Trends in Insurance Rates 

I want to make one point about continuing rate increases by health insurers. I know many insurers are 

pursuing steep rate increases again this year, and I know insurance lobbyists are trying to blame these 

increases on the new law. That claim is not based in reality - it doesn't hold up. 

Insurers have found an excuse to raise their rates every year, as my experience of non-stop increases for 

more than a decade indicates. Ifthey're raising rates again this year, it's in spite of the health care law, 

not because of it. If anything, they're taking the opportunity to push through one more steep increase 

before measures in the law that will help rein in these increases take effect. 

7 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Financing, Access and Cost Trends, 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel 

Survey -Insurance Component, Table II.A.l(2009) Number of private~sector establishments by firm size and State: United 

States. 2009, http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/2009/tiial.htm; Table 

II.B.1(2009) Number of private-sector employees by firm size and State: United States, 2009, 

http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/summ_tables/insr/state/series_2/2009/tiibl.htm 

7 
160 


71722.108

Even executives from the insurance industry have admitted the new law is not to blame for their rate 

increases. A senior vice president at Harvard Pilgrim in Massachusetts told The New York Times recently 

that only one percentage point of this year's increases was due to the new law'ln return forthis single 

point increase, we'll have access to free preventive services that will help reduce long-term costs, people 

will no longer face annual or lifetime limits, and families can keep young adult children on their policy up 

to age 2.6, among other things. That sounds like good value and a smart investment for a single point 

increase. 

As for medical inflation - the rising costs of care itself - we have to remember it's taken us decades to 

dig ourselves into the hole we're in. It's going to take more than one year to dig ourselves out. 

Conclusion 

Small businesses are benefiting already from the new law and looking forward to more improvements 

around the corner. Our country and our economy can't afford to send us back to a health system that 

stacks the deck against us. We've got to keep moving forward. 

With proper implementation of the health law, we can level the playing field for small businesses and 

begin to get control of insurance costs. That will allow small businesses to focus on what we do best: 

creating jobs, serving our communities, and building local economies across Nebraska and across the 

country. 

Thank you. 

8 Robert Pear, "As Health Costs Soar, G.O.P, and Insurers Differ on Cause," The New York Times, March 4, 2011/ 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/0S/health/ policy /OScost.htm I? J;l&emc;tnt&tntem aill;y 

8 
161 


71722.109

Statement of Rick Poore: One-Page Summary 

Introduction 

I've been a small business owner for 17 years, and now employ 29 people. I've been offering a group 

health plan since 2000 or so. Since we started offering coverage, our rates have gone up every year. Two 

years ago, I switched to a new insurer that does rating differently, spreading risk and costs more evenly. 

This is saving me money. I see it as a preview of the new health insurance exchanges coming in 2014. 

The Impact of Runaway Health Insurance Costs Without Health Reform 

Small businesses have found their ability to create new jobs undermined by health insurance costs that 

have more than doubled in the last 10 years. The argument that the ACA will cost our economy jobs 

ignores our experience ofthe last 10 years, where skyrocketing insurance costs and the lack of any 

concerted response undermined our ability to create jobs. The real threat to job creation would be to 

repeal the health care law and return to a system that stacks the deck against small businesses. 

Preventing Cost-Shifting and Protecting Jobs by Ensuring Everyone Contributes 

While some may raise concerns about the health law's employer responsibility requirement, we have to 

remember two facts. First, over 95 percent of our nation's businesses have less than 50 workers, and so 

will not be touched by this requirement. Second, 96 percent of businesses with more than 50 workers 

already offer health coverage. If some businesses over the 50 employee threshold complain that paying 

for health care will harm their ability to create jobs, we've got to remember that when they don't pay, 

the rest of us pay their way for them, and that hurts our ability to create jobs. This is anti-competitive. 

Small Businesses Moving Forward on Health Care 

Small businesses are eager to put the health care nightmares of the past behind us and move forward. 

Already, news reports are suggesting that more small businesses are signing up for health coverage since 

the passage of the new law - both in Nebraska and across the country. 

Small Business Benefits of the Affordable Care Act and Implications for Job Creation 

The Affordable Care Act includes a number of provisions that will give states and small businesses new 

tools to get a handle on health insurance costs and allow us to invest in job creation. These measures 

include stronger rate review, the value for premiums (MLR) requirement, and the state insurance 

exchanges. Together, these provisions that control costs and expand coverage will reduce cost-shifting. 

Recent Trends in Insurance Rates 

Insurers find an excuse to raise rates every year. If they're raising rates again this year, it's in spite a/the 

health care law, not because of it. Even executives from the insurance industry have admitted the new 

law is not to blame for their rate increases. 

Conclusion 

Small businesses are benefiting already from the new law and looking forward to more improvements 

around the corner. Our country and our economy can't afford to send us back to a health system that 

stacks the deck against us. We've got to keep moving forward. 

9 
162 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman, Mr. Schuler, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY SCHULER 

Mr. SCHULER. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the 

new health care law on behalf of the National Restaurant Association. My name is Larry Schuler and I am an independent restaurateur operating a fourth-generation family business. 

Small businesses dominate the industry with more than seven 

out of ten eating and drinking establishments being single-unit operators. We also employ a high proportion of part-time, seasonal 

and temporary workers. Our workforce is typically young with 

nearly half under the age of 25. Growth and success in the restaurant industry means opening more restaurants and locations, 

which in turn means jobs in our communities. 

When I closely examined the impact of this new health care law 

on my businesses, I began to reexamine my expansion plans and 

may now not take an additional growth on. My written testimony 

submitted for the record outlines some specific fixes the industry 

is calling for but I would like to use my time to outline for you how 

the new health care law affects my business specifically. 

My businesses are typical of many restaurants in our industry. 

We have a large group of seasonal employees that include a number of college students, some who work seasonally for us multiple 

times per year. We are very close to the 50 full-time equivalent 

worker threshold. How many hours our part-time employees work 

will determine if we are a large applicable employer or not. 

What this means for my restaurants and our employees that, depending on the time of year and the number of hours worked by 

our team, we could be considered a large applicable employer and 

subject to the most stringent employer mandates in the law some 

months but not in others. In addition, our employees could be fulltime employees one month and part-time employees the next. 

Using our 2010 employment numbers, the calculations for our largest location would put us over the 50 full-time-equivalent threshold. In 2010, on the average, we employed 33 full-time employees 

and 26 full-time equivalents working part time hours for a total of 

59 full-time equivalents that place us over the threshold and subject us to the coverage and penalty requirements of the law. We 

employ 24 seasonal part-time employees and five seasonal full-time 

employees as well, for a total of 38 full-time employees to whom we 

would be required to offer coverage under the new law as a large 

employer. Should all 38 employees opt in to the coverage, we would 

see a 282 percent cost increase to the business over current premiums from $2,067 monthly or $24,808 annually today to $7,892 

a month or $94,669 annually. If we chose not to offer coverage at 

all, we would pay an average of $1,375 monthly or $16,500 annually in penalties. The penalties would be less than what we are 

paying for health care now. 

Faced with these very large increases in coverage cost which do 

not take into consideration the likely premium increases, it will be 

extremely difficult for us to absorb these costs and continue offering coverage. We cannot raise many prices high enough to cover 

these costs and to do so would drive away customers who are just 

163 

beginning to return to our tables. Our only option would be to 

closely manage our workforce hours to be able to eliminate ten fulltime equivalents from our staff and remain below the 50 full-timeequivalent large employer threshold. 

The industry will begin to closely manage employees’ hours to 29 

or less. In practice, it will mean a larger employer base working 

less hours, no more than 25 hours to avoid bumping into the cap, 

and an increase in labor and training costs. For employees, it will 

mean the need to get a second and third job to make up the lost 

hours and thus income. 

Another issue that impacts my situation is the lack of consistency in compliance timelines. The new law allows for a maximum 

waiting period of 90 days before coverage must be offered or an employer is considered as not offering coverage. However, a seasonal 

employee is defined as working 120 days or less. The new law requires that a large applicable employer offer seasonal employees 

who work full time coverage. One of my businesses is strictly seasonal, open 107 days a year from the week before Memorial Day 

weekend until the week after Labor Day weekend. In 2014, I will 

be required to offer my seasonal full-time employees coverage from 

day 91 through day 107 or pay the penalty for that month on each 

of them for not offering coverage. 

Mr. PITTS. Could you wrap up? 

Mr. SCHULER. Without legislation change, I would probably 

shorten the number of days. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on the true 

costs of the new health care law and its negative impact on the jobs 

of the restaurant industry and my business in particular. I look forward to addressing your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schuler follows:] 

164 


71722.110

Statement 

behalf of the 

National Restaurant Association 

ON: TRUE COST OF PPACA: EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET AND JOBS 

To: SUFlCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, u.s. HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE 

COMMITTEE 

By: LARRY SCIIULER, OWNER 

SCl-IU'S GRILL & BAR AND SCHULER'S RESTAURANT Of' MARSHALL 

MARSHALL, MICHIGAN 

DATE:MARCI-I30,20Il 
165 


71722.111

Statement on 

True Cost of PPACA: Effects on the Budget and Jobs 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Health, U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee 

By 

Larry Schuler, Owner 

Schu's Grill & Bar and Schuler's Restaurant of Marshall 

Marshall, Michigan 

On behalf of the 

National Restaurant Association 

March 30, 2011 

Chairman Pitts, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the Subcommittee on 

Health of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify before you today on behalf of the National Restaurant Association. It is an honor 

to be able to share with you the impact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

("PPACA") is having on businesses like mine, particularly in our ability to crcate jobs. 

My name is Larry Schuler. [am an independent restaurateur operating a 4th 

generation family business with my father lIans, as well as two of my own operations. 

Schuler's Restaurant of Marshall, Michigan is an institution in the community and has 

been knmvn as such sinee my great-grandfather opcned the business back in 1909. My 

grandfather and father continued in the business as have I. Tn 1990, T opened a casual 

themed restaurant called Schu's Grill and Bar in downtown St. Joscph, and also a 

seasonal business called S.O.S.--Schu's on Silver Bcach--right on the beach. My 

children JeIma, Kaitlin. and Rob have all worked as fifth gcneration Schulers at Schu's 

Grill and Bar and S.O.S. 

I have had the distinct honor to serve as President of the Michigan Restaurant 

Association in 2002-2003, as my grandfathcr Winston Schuler had done in 1965. and 

continue to be involved with both the Michigan Restaurant Association and the National 

Restaurant Association. 

THE RESTAURANT AND FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY IS UNIQUE AND THESE 

CHARACTERISTICS INCREASE THE IMPACT OF THE NEW HEALTH CARE LAW 

The National Restaurant Association is the leading business assoeiation for the 

restaurant and food service industry. Its mission is to help its members, such as myself: 

establish customer loyalty, build rewarding careers, and achieve financial success. The 

industry is comprised 01'960,000 restaurant and foodservicc outlets employing 12.8 

million people who serve 130 million guests daily. Restaurants arejob creators. Despite 

being an industry of predominately small businesses, the restaurant industry is the 

Page 2 
166 


71722.112

nation's second-largest private-sector employer, employing over nine percent of the U.S. 

workforce. 

The restaurant and food service industry is unique for several reasons. First and 

foremost, small businesses dominate the industry-with more than seven out often 

eating and drinking establishments being single-unit operators. We also employ a high 

proportion of part-time, seasonal, and temporary workers. Restaurants are employers of 

choice, especially for employees looking for flexible work hours. 

Our workforce is typically young, with nearly half under the age of25. We also 

have a high average workforce turnover rate relative to other industries-75 percent 

average turnover rate in 2008 compared to 49 percent for the overall private sector. In 

addition, the business model of the restaurant industry produces relatively low profit 

margins of only four to six percent before taxes, with labor costs being one of the most 

significant line items for a restaurant. 

The National Restaurant Association supports repeal of this law and the 

development of new health care reform that promotes an affordable health insurance 

system in America that functions well for low-profit per cmployee, labor-intensive, 

industries, such as the restaurant and hospitality industry. Restaurants are proponents of 

cost containment in the health care system. 

Our industry's goal is to lower the cost of employer provided and employee 

accessed health insurance by passing real health care cost containment measures and by 

eliminating the current employer mandate. The restaurant and food service industry 

wants health care reform, but PP ACA is not the solution. 

THE LAW'S IMPACT ON RESTAURANT INDUSTRY JOBS 

Growth and success in the restaurant industry means opening more restaurants 

and locations, which in tum mean jobs in our communities. For some time, I have been 

considering several options to expand our businesses, including adding a managcmcnt 

contract and another restaurant location. Up until recently, when I closely examined the 

impact ofthis new law on my businesses, I had not taken into account the additional costs 

and burdens this law imposes. I am now reexamining these expansion options and may 

not take on that additional growth. 

The uncertainty of the regulatory process and the many rules that are yet to be 

clarified and fully defined worry me. The cost increase estimates we have done will only 

increase as we know more about this law. As a business owner, you plan several years in 

advance. Thus, 2014, when the most serious employer requirements take effect, is not 

that far away. Regulatory implementation is moving ahead at full-steam and it seems like 

a new requirement comes to light every day that is even more burdensomc than the last. 

Entrepreneurs, like me, are used to dealing with uncertainty and risk. We do so 

by preparing as best we can for the unknown. We have a glimpse of what is to come and 

Page 3 
167 


71722.113

havc already begun preparing for the full implementation of this new law to preserve our 

businesses. It requircs close examination of our employment base and how we handle it 

going forward. We are already an industry that utilizes many part-time employees and I 

believe we will see an even greater trend towards that type of cmployment in our industry 

because of this law. 

RESTAURANT INDllSTRY CHALLENGES WITH PP ACA 

As we witness the implementation of this new law by the agencies, we have 

discovercd troubling challenges that need to be addressed. We are actively participating 

in the regulatory process to address these challenges. 

While we would prefer repeal of PPACA, serious changes need to be made to its 

implementation now to avoid serious job dislocation in our industry not just in 2014, but 

right now, as we begin attempts to comply with its new requirements. In addition, many 

of the new requirements impact all employers, regardless of size, and come into effcct 

well before January 1,2014. Below is a brief mention of the industry's main conccrns 

and suggested changes. 

THE EMPLOYER MANDATE SHOULD BE REPEALED 

The requirement that large applicable employers' offer minimum essential 

coverage to full-time employees or face penalties will create a significant cost escalation 

for employcrs offering such coverage. Our industry forecast shows that the combined 

penalties will become the largest cost-driver for restaurateurs after 2014.1 Thus, we call 

on Congress and the President to eliminate thc costly employers' mandate. 

THE DEFINITION OF FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE SHOULD BE BASED ON A 40 lIOUR WORK WEEK 

The new law redefines full-time employmcnt as 30 hours per week, which will 

have significant implications for business management and employee work hours in the 

industry. I have spoken with fellow restaurateurs and everyone agreed that one of the 

biggest impacts will come from this change in definition. 

As a result of this change in the dcfinition of a full-time employee, the industry 

will very closely manage employees' hours to 29 hours or less. In practice, it will mean a 

larger employce base, working less hours-no more than 25 hours to avoid bumping into 

the cap---and an increase in labor and training costs, already one ofthc most significant 

line item costs for our businesses. For the employecs, it will mean the need to get a 

second and third job to make up for lost hours and, thus, income. 

In addition, compliance is nearly impossible without guidance on what "any given 

month" actually means. For consistency and to avoid having cmployers cut the hours of 

I Specifically, this would be the case for those who currently offer coverage today and will be considered 

'large applicable employers" under the new law. 

Page 4 
168 


71722.114

part-time workers below the new 30 hours threshold, it makes sense to continue basing 

full-time work under the current 40 hour work week standard. 

COMPLIANCE TlMELlNES MUST BE CONSISTENT AT 120 DAYS 

The inconsistent timelines will cause unnecessary increased costs for 

restaurateurs. Currently the employer waiting period is 90 days, a seasonal employee is 

defined as working 120 days or less, and the definition of full-time employee considers 

hours worked per week in any given month. A consistent 120 day compliance timeline 

should exist for all of these provisions. 

ELIMINATE MINIMUM ESENTlAL COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR LOW PROFIT-PER 

EMPLOYEE INDUSTRJE"S 

The new law requires employers to offer a certain level of coverage to satisty the 

mandate requirements that low profit-per-employee industrics, like ours, will find 

difficult to comply. In fact, we fully expect many restaurants that are already operating 

on the margins of profitability to close. We would also urge you to allow catastrophic 

coverage to be an option for employers to offer their employees to satisfy current or any 

future coverage requirement. 

Sixteen to twenty-four year olds make up the majority of the industry's 

workforce. If an individual under 30 years of age can purchase catastrophic coverage to 

satisfy the individual mandate, employers should be able to offer this same coverage to 

employees to satisfy the employer mandate obligations. 

REPEAL THE EXPANDED 1099 REQUIREMENTS 

We also call on Congress to repeal the expanded 1099 information reporting 

requirements contained in the new law. This is a bipartisan issue-one that almost 

everyone agrees must go away. Both the House and the Senate have voted to repeal this 

provision. 

The 1099 repeal bill should be sent as soon as possible to the President for his 

signature. Otherwise, businesses will have to start wasting money, time, and resources 

this year to start preparing to comply with this requirement because our systems would 

have to be up and running when the mandate starts on January 1,2012. There are more 

pressing challenges that we must address as the implementation of this law continues to 

move forward than complying with a requirement that most in Congress agree needs to 

be repealed. 

A UTO-ENROLLMENT REQUIREMENT IS DUPLICA TlVE AND SHOULD BE ELIMINA TED 

This requirement will increase employer costs and create greater exposure to 

penalties or free choice vouchers. This provision poses additional administrative burdens 

for our industry, especially due to the high turnover rate the industry experiences. The 

Page 5 
169 


71722.115

applicability of the waiting period to this provision must also be clarified through 

regulations. 

ZERO PAYCHECKS AND PPA CA 

Paychecks of zero or negative value are common in the restaurant industry, as 

tipped employees rcceive most of their income in tips paid by the customer. The 

paychecks paid by the restaurant sometimes cannot even cover the rcquired federal and 

state taxes that must be applied. Today, if an employee chooses to participate and take 

health care coverage offered at the restaurant, they would pay their portion of the 

premium. If the employee contribution is not paid through the paycheck, then, it is paid 

directly to the insurer to maintain coverage. Today, if payment for the coverage is not 

received, coverage is dropped for nonpayment. However, under the new law, if that 

employee were dropped from an cmployer's plan and, instead, obtained a premium tax 

credit and used it to purchase coverage on the exchange, the employer would be 

penalized. 

THE IMPACT OF PP ACA ON My BUSINESS 

My businesses are typical of many restaurants in our industry. Each of my 3 

restaurant locations is a distinct cntity: a Sub-S Corporation with sharcd ownership with 

my father, and two Limited Liability Corporations fully owned by me, one of which is 

solely a seasonal business. 

For the most part each of these businesses employs different employees with 

some overlap. We have a large group of seasonal employees that include a number of 

college students, some who work seasonally for us multiple times per year. The law 

defines a single employer based on the common control clause in the tax code and so 

based on the ownership of these restaurants we must consider the employees of all three 

restaurants as one employee pool for the purposes for the health care law. 

Yet other benefits, such as 401(k), will continue to be offered separately by each 

company, making benefits administration more complicated. Our employees appreciate 

the flexible scheduling the industry is known for, and their hours can fluctuate greatly 

based on the time of year. For one of our locations, average hours worked during the 2nd 

quarter range from 18 to 35 hours per week, while the 4th quarter is our busy season and 

hours average 40 to 65 hours per week for the same employees. 

We are very close to the fifty full-time equivalent workers threshold. How many 

hours our part-time employees work will determine if we are a "large applicable 

employer" or not. What this means for my restaurants and our employees is that 

depending on the time of year and the number of hours worked by our team, the three 

entities considered together could be eonsidered a large applicable employer and subject 

to the most stringent employer mandates in the law some months, but not others. 

Page 6 
170 


71722.116

In addition, our employees could be full-time employees one month and part-time 

employees the next, changing the obligation we have as a large applicable employer to 

each of them under the new law. Like so many of my peers, how closely employee's 

hours are managed may determine if we are above or below the large applicable 

employer threshold of 50 full-time equivalent employees. 

We recently completed a detailed analysis of the new law's impact on our 

restaurants, including the impact of the seasonality of our business. We examined four 

different work periods in each quarter throughout the year2 for just one of our restaurants 

(the S-corp) and first considered the cost impact to the business if all full-time employees 

were offered and took our plan.3 We also considered the costs if half of the regular and 

seasonal full-time employees to whom coverage would be required to be offered declined 

the coverage. 

Lastly, we considered the penalty amount we would be required to pay if we 

decided to no longer offer coverage to our employees. This is not something we want to 

do, as we are very proud of the fact that we have offered full medical coverage to our 

employees for a long time. Not only is it the right thing to do, but in such a competitive 

industry, where good employees who stay with the company for a long time are rare, 

offering coverage like we have does create a competitive advantage for a business like 

mine. Employee loyalty also keeps training costs to a minimum. The restaurant and 

foodservice industry experiences such high turnover rates that attracting and retaining 

employees is a top priority for all restaurant operations. 

We first calculated the number offull-time equivalent (FTEs) employees just for 

this one location as defined in the law, using real 2010 employment numbers.4 Whether 

combined with the other restaurants as one employer or not, this one location would put 

us over the 50 FTE threshold. We feel that we are a small business yet this law considers 

us a "large applicable employer." Here, we present the average of our analysis and what 

follows are the breakouts by quarterly periods examined. 

In 2010, on average, the restaurant employed 33 full-time employees and 26 fulltime equivalents working part-time hours, for a total of 59 FTEs that place us over the 

threshold and subject to the coverage and penalty requirements of the law. We employed 

24 seasonal part-time employees and 5 seasonal full-time employees as well, for a total of 

38 full-time employees to whom we would be required to offer coverage under the new 

law as a large applicable employer. 

2 Work periods are based on payroll periods in looking at the employment data for our restaurant in 2010. 

(Qtr I) Period 2: 1/25110 -2/21110; (Qtr 2) Period 6: 5/17110 6/13110; (Qtr 3) Period 9: 8/09110 

91511 0; and (Qtr 4) Period 13: 11129/10 12/26110. 

J We had to assume that current premium rates would apply and that we would continue to contribute 50 

percent towards the premium. However, premiums will continue to increase and there is also a possibility 

that depending on how minimum essential coverage is defined, our current plan may not satisfY the 

requirements for large applicable employers. This would also cause an increase in our premiums as well. 

4 For compliance purposes, all employees of each of the three locations would be combined into one pool, 

however currently there are two different health care plans between the three businesses. 

Page 7 
171 


71722.117

Should all 38 employees opt-in to the coverage, we would see a 282% cost 

increase to the business over current premiums. Today, we insure 7 employees at a cost 

of $2,067 monthly/$24,808 annually. This would jump to $7,892 per month or $94,669 

per year, if all 38 full-time employees opted into our coveragc. 

Ifwe assume our pick-up rate is 50 pcrccnt and half of those eligible opted in for 

coverage (19 employees) the cost increase would be 141 % ovcr current premiums, or 

$4,979 monthly/$59,754 annually. Ifwe chose not to offcr coverage at all, we could pay 

on average $1,375 monthl y/$16,500 annually in penalties. 

The penalties are less than what we are paying for health care now. We believe 

that offering health care coverage is the right thing to do. However, faced with these very 

large increases in coverage costs, which do not take into consideration the likely premium 

increases, it will be extremely difficult for us to absorb these costs and continue offering 

coverage. 

We cannot raise menu prices high enough to cover these costs and to do so would 

drive away the customers who are just beginning to return to our tables. Our only option 

will be to closely manage our workforce's hours to be able to eliminate lO FIEs from our 

staff and remain below the 50 FIEs large applicable employer threshold. Across the 

industry, part-time will probably be 25 hours or less on average in a week, impacting the 

number of jobs some of our employees may need to take on. It is not something I want to 

do, but given that this law will only increase my costs, I will have to do what I can to 

keep our 4th generation family business profitable and operating. 

My fellow restaurateurs are thinking about this law in the same context as I am. 

As a result, we arc all taking a second look at any expansion opportunities we had been 

considering because of the additional burden and cost, which is somewhat still undefined. 

Because this law is so complicated and there remain so many unanswered questions 

about how it would function, it is extremely difficult to know how to expand and handle 

the hurdles you know will be coming at you. 

Every fellow restaurateur I talk to says that they feel in the dark, that they had no 

idea just how complicated and burdensome this law is. I fear that there are many in our 

industry who, despite our efforts to educate them about these challenges, do not yet 

realize the magnitude of the impact this law will have on their businesses. At the very 

least, this law and the requirements it imposes on employers will impact all of our 

decisions going forward, especially in regards to our employee base. 

Quarter 1: Large Applicable Employer with 55 FTEs. 

Ihis is one of the slowest work periods for our restaurant given the slowdown in 

customer traffic following the holidays in January to February. We have determined that 

during the first quarter, we had 26 full-time employees working an average of30 hours 

per week with an additional 29 full-time equivalents for a total of 55 FIEs. In addition 

we had 18 seasonal part-time employees and 3 seasonal full-time employees. Since we 

Page 8 
172 


71722.118

would be required to offer coverage to all full-time employees, including seasonal fulltime employees past the allowed waiting period, we could be required to offer 29 

employees coverage. 

If all of these employees accepted our offer and took the coverage, assuming 

current premium rate and our 50 percent employer contribution, the business would 

experience a 200 percent increase in premiums to be paid just for this 4 week period. 

Should half of those 29 employees opt out of our offer of coverage, we would experience 

a 100 percent increase in premium cost. And, finally, if we were to no longer offer 

coverage and instead decide to pay the $2,000 annual penalty per full-time employee 

(including seasonal full-time employees), we would be subject to no penalty. 

The law allows an employer to consider the number of their full-time employees 

minus 30 for the purposes of calculating this penalty. Since we have 29 regular full-time 

and seasonal full-time employees combined in this period, we would have zero 

employees for whom to pay the penalty. 

Quarter 2: Large Applicable Employer with 60 FTEs. 

During the second quarter, we employed 31 full-time employees and 29 full-time 

equivalents working part-time hours for a total of 60 FTEs. In addition, we employed 22 

seasonal part-time employees and 3 seasonal full-time employees. We employed a total 

of34 full-time employees in this time period. Should all 34 full-time employees accept 

our offer of coverage it would represent a 245% increase in premium costs for that 

month. 

If half of the full-time employees opted out of our coverage, it would represent a 

123% increase in premiums for us during just that month. Ifwe chose to pay the penalty 

for not offering any coverage, we would be subject to a $667 penalty per month for this 

period oftime. 5 

Quarter 3: Large Applicable Employer with 59 FTEs. 

During the third quarter, we employed 38 full-time employees and 21 full-time 

equivalents working part-time hours for a total of 59 FTEs. We employed 31 seasonal 

part-time and 4 seasonal full-time employees. We employed a total of 42 full-time 

employees-both regular and seasonal-in this time period. Should all full-time 

employees accept our coverage otTer, it would represent a 318% increase in premiums for 

the business. 

If half of these employees opted out it would represent a 159% increased cost. If 

we decided to pay the penalty, then it would be assessed as $2,000 per month for this 

period because, with the 30 employee discount, we would be paying the penalty on 12 

employees. 

5 34 full-time employees minus 30 multiplied by $166.67 equals $667. 

Page 9 
173 


71722.119

Quarter 4: Large Applicable Employer with 61 FTEs. 

During the fourth quarter, we employed 38 full-time employees and 23 full-time 

equivalents working part-time hours for a total of 61 FTEs. In addition, we had 25 

seasonal part-time staff and 9 seasonal full-time employees. In total, we had 47 full-time 

employees to whom we would be required to offer coverage. If they all accepted the 

offer of coverage, it would mean a 364% increase over our current premiums. If half 

declined, it would be a 182% increase. If we decided to pay the penalty, then it would be 

assessed as $2,833 per month for this period because, with the 30 employee discount, we 

would be paying the penalty on 17 employees. 

Currently, we offer coverage and 7 employees opt-in to take our plan in one of 

our restaurants. However, with the requirements of the new law on the individual, this 

will greatly impact how many employees will opt-in to take our offer of coverage. I have 

one employee who has worked for us for a very long time. He is a valuable member of 

our team, and health care coverage has been offered to him many times over the years. 

He has a wife who also works, and a child who will be going into the armed 

forces soon. However, he chooses not to take advantage of the major medical coverage 

we offer but instead chooses it as more take-home pay. And, we aren't talking a lot of 

money for the premiums per month---only $90 per month for an individual and $180 per 

month for a family. There are a lot of employees in our industry, like this particular 

employee of mine, who have an option and simply do not wish to take it. 

Another issue that impacts my situation in particular is the lack of consistency in 

compliance timelines. The new law allows for a maximum waiting period of90 days 

before coverage must be offered or an employer is considered as not offering coverage. 

However, a seasonal employee is defined as working 120 days or less. 

The new law requires that a large applicable employer offer seasonal employees 

who work full-time (more than 30 hours on average a week) coverage. One of my LLC's 

is strictly a seasonal business that is open 107 days a year, from the week before 

Memorial Day weekend until the week after Labor Day weekend. We do employ a few 

employees before that time to get the operation ready for business, but most work fulltime during this time. 

As I understand this portion of the new law, in 2014, I am now required to offer 

my seasonal full-time employees in this restaurant coverage from day 91 through day 107 

or pay the penalty for that month on each of them for not offering coverage. 

There are two solutions to this. First, Congress eould change the waiting period 

and make it consistent with the seasonal employee definition of 120 days. Such a change 

in the waiting period time would prevent driving up the cost of my premiums by ensuring 

that such a group of people would not be added to insurance roles one month,just to be 

dropped the next. An employer could also just pay the penalty for one month, but that 

does not achieve anyone's goal ofredueing cost or offering the uninsured coverage. 

Page 10 
174 


71722.120

Second, I could shorten the number of days I will be open to 89 to avoid the complexity 

and cost of being open an additional 17 days. 

This is the perfect example of how this new law will drive the way restaurants 

across the country will run their businesses. It will certainly change it dramatically and 

likely change the dynamics of our workforce as well. 

HEALTH CARE REFORM RESTAURANTS SUPPORT 

The restaurant and food service industry has long supported health care reform 

that controls costs and in turn makes affordable coverage available to more people. One 

of the key factors of cost-reduction is informed consumer choice in health care product 

purchasing. The new health care law does not address the rising costs of health care 

coverage and, in some instances, works to increase costs by limiting the use and 

flexibility of cost-reducing policies. 

The National Restaurant Association supports allowing purchasing across state 

lines. For many years, the industry has supported health care pooling arrangements that 

provide small businesses increased options for affordable health care. Pooling statewide 

or nationwide would work to achieve lower rates for employees' health care coverage. 

The Association long supported the bipartisan Small Business Health Options 

Program Act (SHOP Act), a concept that was used in developing the SHOP exchanges in 

the law. Mr. Chairman, we also support your bipartisan Small Business Cooperative for 

Healthcare Options to Improve Coverage for Employees Act (Small Business CHOICE 

Act) that would allow all businesses to form cooperatives of similar to risk pools and 

provide coverage for high-cost claims. We continue to encourage Chairman Pitts of this 

Subcommittee and Representative Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) to reintroduce the bill again 

in this Congress, and for the Congress to consider including it in alternatives to replace 

PPACA. 

The new health care law limits the use and flexibility given to Health Savings 

Accounts (lISA), Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HI{As), and Flexible Spending 

Accounts (FSAs). No longer can over-the-counter medicines be reimbursed by thesc 

cost-reduction tools without a prescription by a doctor. 

Opinion polling the Association conducted several years ago shows that 70 

percent of restaurant employees have a strong interest in HSAs. We support expansion of 

the flexibility in use and contribution amounts to these accounts as a means to give 

consumers the ability to control and reduce their own health care costs. In addition, the 

law restricts contributions to FSAs beginning in 2013. We support repeal of this 

provision, as FSAs reduce health care costs for consumers. 

The industry supports health insurance coverage portability options that put 

control of health care decisions in the individual consumers' hands. To provide coverage 

to a mobile workforce, allow uninterrupted coverage, and extend coverage to the 

Page 11 
175 


71722.121

uninsured, tax laws and insurance regulations should permit employees to take their 

coverage with them when they change jobs. Given that restaurant employecs change jobs 

more often than other workers, such an option would be of great bcnefit to them. 

Tort-related matters have contributed to the increasing cost of health insurance 

and medical care through law-suit abusc. The skyrocketing health insurance premiums 

caused by frivolous suits hurt both employers and employees. The National Restaurant 

Association supports medical malpractice reform to address one of the cost-drivers of 

health insurance premiums. 

IN CONCLUSION, LET Us WORK TOGETHER To FIND A SOLUTION THAT BOTH 

LOWERS HEALTH CARE COSTS AND PROVIDES BETTER BENEFITS WITHOUT 

BANKRUPTING THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY 

Since enactment ofPPACA, the National Restaurant Association has been 

attempting to constructively shape the regulations. Nevertheless, there are limits to the 

scope of change we can achieve through regulations, particularly if those charged with 

their drafting choose to ignore the industry's comments. Ultimately, PPACA itself needs 

to be repealed or drastically changed to mitigate the most harmful effects on the 

restaurant industry. 

The National Restaurant Association will continue to be active in urging Congress 

to either repeal or pass major legislative changes to PPACA because some of the 

fundamental problems cannot be fixed through regulations alone. The National 

Restaurant Association looks forward to working with this Committee and all of 

Congress on these and other important issues to improve health care for our employees 

without sacrificing their jobs in the process. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify today on the true cost ofthe new 

health care law and its negative impact onjobs in the restaurant industry and my 

businesses in particular. 

Page 12 
176 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman. I thank the panel for 

your opening statements. I will now begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes, and I will start with you, Mr. Schuler. 

You mentioned you are considering closing your seasonal operation for a couple of weeks in order to avoid some of PPACA’s requirements. You may continue to elaborate further on that. 

Mr. SCHULER. Thank you. To avoid the complexity costs of being 

open those additional 17 days, it will be easier for me to manage 

the business to that shortened time period so I will not be required 

to do that. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Kennedy, in your testimony you mentioned that 

PPACA provides the wrong incentives for job creation at a time 

when we are still struggling to recover from a recession. Specifically, you state that PPACA incentivizes you to get below the employer mandate threshold of 50 workers. Would you elaborate further on that, please? 

Mr. KENNEDY. We definitely would be considering that because 

of the new regulations and what that entails as far health insurance, and are currently even looking at that as we go about making 

sure that what levels we have as far as employees and that has become a decision factor in our progressing forward in growth whereas used to we would want to grow as much as possible. Now as we 

grow above 50 we have another item we have to consider and how 

that would impact us as far as cost and whether those actual costs 

can be offset by profits that we make. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, I would like to go through a few points regarding the score of PPACA to give us some broader context of what 

these numbers mean, and I would also like to explore what burdens have been imposed on taxpayers and States that by their nature wouldn’t be reflected in CBO’s score. CBO estimates that $86 

billion in premiums from the new long-term care program known 

as the CLASS program are used to offset the cost of the new entitlement in Medicaid expansion in PPACA. Can those funds be used 

to pay for both PPACA and future CLASS program benefits? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. No, they cannot. They will be gone in the first 

10 years and additional funds will have to be found after that. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. CBO estimates that $53 billion in Social Security payroll taxes are used to offset the cost of the new entitlement and Medicaid expansion in PPACA. Can those funds be used 

to pay for both PPACA and future Social Security benefits? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. Same story is true. Those will be gone in the 

first 10 years and additional funds will be needed to be found to 

make good on Social Security promises. 

Mr. PITTS. Now, some proponents of the law have claimed that 

Medicare cuts included in PPACA can both pay for new entitlement 

spending and finance future benefits. Is this an accurate statement? Would you elaborate on that? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. It is not accurate. Federal accounting notwithstanding, the money will be spent only once and cannot both extend the Medicare program and pay for the insurance subsidies. 

Mr. PITTS. Proponents of the bill argue that PPACA costs under $1 trillion over 10 years during its passage. However, the CBO 

score of the bill was artificially low because the other side of the 

177 

aisle delayed the bill’s major spending until 2014. Now, we recently 

found out that with just 2 more years of spending, PPACA’s spending estimates shot up to $1.44 trillion. However, this number still 

doesn’t account for the full 10 years of implementation. If we extrapolate CBO’s estimates to the full 10 years, what would you estimate the real cost of the bill to be? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I think over a full 10 years, fully imple- mented, this bill is easily going to exceed $1.6, $1.8 trillion. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. The original House health care bill included 

the doc fix but the provision was taken out towards the end of the 

process. This is despite the fact that PPACA uses Medicare cuts to 

fund a new entitlement program rather than fix the SGR that we 

all agree is a real problem. How much did the removal of the SGR 

artificially lower the cost of the health care law? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. As I recall, it reduced it by about $250 billion 

over the first 10 years. 

Mr. PITTS. How much? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. By about $250 billion in the first 10 years. 

Mr. PITTS. And the score for the health care law also did not include nearly $115 billion in the discretionary program cost to run 

Obamacare. Is that not correct? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. That is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the panel and will recognize now the 

ranking member, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to try to get 

one question in for Mr. Cutler and one for Mr. Poore, so bear with 

me if we can try to split the time between you. 

Let me start with Mr. Cutler. Opponents of the Affordable Care 

Act claim that the law will kill jobs. They argue that requiring employers to offer health insurance and to improve their benefits will 

increase the costs of labor. Now, I don’t think that is true. I think 

that in fact the Affordable Care Act helps to create thousands of 

jobs in the public and private health care sectors. In June 2010, 

funds were allocated to train more than 16,000 new primary care 

providers including physicians, physician assistants and nurses. It 

seems logical that the newly insured 30 million people will need 

doctors, nurses and other health care personnel to meet their medical needs. Now, the Republican critics say they fear the country 

might not have enough doctors and hospitals to serve those people 

but my answer is a growing workforce, more jobs and improved efficiencies. Specifically, less spending on health care premiums will 

free up money for business to invest in a new workforce. Now, the 

CBO said today that to the extent that changes in the health insurance system lead to improved health status among workers and the 

nation’s economic productivity would be enhanced. 

Mr. Cutler, you have done work on what effects the bill will have 

on the job market. Your study predicts that the health reform will 

strengthen the economy and the job market by creating 250,000 to 

400,000 jobs a year for the next decade. I just want you to elaborate on your study and explain to us how the health care reform 

is a job creator, not a job killer, and talk about some of the other 

factors that I mentioned. 

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. Health insurance costs are 

an absolutely critical indicator for hiring. Industries in which more 

178 

businesses are providing health insurance to their workers have 

grown less rapidly than industries where fewer employers provide 

health insurance, and that is particularly true in the United States 

in comparison to other countries. And so the central, the fundamental issue about any health care reform is what will it do over 

time to the cost that businesses face for health insurance. As I discussed in the testimony and in the opening statement, the Affordable Care Act contains essentially all of the tools that economists 

and policy analysts have put forward for reducing the costs of medical care over time. It is my belief that what those provisions will 

do is to reduce premiums by the end of this decade by about $2,000 

per person relative to what they would have been. That will free 

up money for firms that are now providing insurance, that are 

thinking about providing insurance but are on the margin, and 

allow them to take that money and use that to grow businesses, 

to pay higher wages, to do anything of the things that businesses 

would like to do that they have been stifled from doing. 

In addition, by creating a universal coverage system, we will no 

longer have people locked into jobs because they are worried about 

getting insurance or not starting new businesses because a member 

of their family is ill and won’t be able to afford it and all the 

rigidities that come from people being scared about health care, 

which is very common, will disappear and that will create more entrepreneurship in the economy as well. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. And thank you for also limiting your answer so I can get to Mr. Poore. 

Mr. Poore, Rand estimates that small businesses will increasingly offer health coverage—now we are talking about the Affordable Care Act. Rand estimates that small businesses will increasingly offer health coverage because they will have the same purchasing power as large employers as well as access to more choices. 

Rand also reports that the Affordable Care Act will increase the 

number of small employers, those under 50, who offer health insurance up from, say, 57 percent to 85 percent. So basically they are 

talking about all the different advantages that the Affordable Care 

Act would provide. 

A lot of this comes from the State exchanges once those State exchanges are up, so I just wanted you to describe how you think 

these State exchanges will affect your business and other small 

businesses in the country. 

Mr. POORE. Well, first of all, I think that we are already starting 

to see more small businesses getting coverage. Statistics are showing that from Coventry and several others. But for me alone, every 

year my insurance guy would come in and say listen, your rates 

are going up 16 percent or 23 percent, and I would say, you know, 

Troy, why is that. And he was like, well, you are just a little group. 

And so I said Troy, if I had 10,000 people in my risk pool, would 

my rates go down; well, absolutely. So that is where the exchanges 

come in for me. You know, if I can shop and get—once again, just 

going back for a minute, Troy would also come in and he would 

give me two companies, three plans from each, and that was my 

choice, but a big company or like a service employees, not service 

employees but like public employees, the State offers this broad— 

179 

they almost already have exchanges running that I don’t have access to so I am kind of hamstrung that way right now. 

In the last 2 years, I have been able to keep my rates from going 

up. I have actually added some benefits. My rates have gone up 

over 2 years 16 percent. That is the lowest increase in rates that 

I have ever seen in 11 or 12 years of offering insurance, and the 

only reason they went up is because I was putting—I was lowering 

my deductible and I was lowering my out-of-pocket, so if I would 

have left it the same, I might actually be level, which, believe me, 

if there is anybody that has ever—I have never had a situation 

where my rates didn’t go up. It a pretty phenomenal statement to 

be able to make. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS [presiding]. The gentleman’s time is expired. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of questions. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin and Mr. Cutler, you have both been at this a 

long time. You both remember the summer of 2009, specifically August of 2009. My little sleepy town hall meetings that I would hold 

typically attracted one or two dozen people, attracted 1,000 or 

2,000 people. They were concerned about what they saw the Congress of the United States doing but what I heard over and over 

again was, number one, if you are going to do anything, please 

don’t mess up what is already working for arguably 65 percent of 

the country; if you have to fix some things for some people, do so 

without being disruptive, and number two, if you are going to do 

anything at all, could you please help us with cost. So I would ask 

you both to be brief as you can but how did we do on those two 

requests? Mr. Cutler, if you will go first and then we will go to Mr. 

Holtz-Eakin. Did we mess it up for people and did we hold down 

costs? 

Mr. CUTLER. I believe we did very well on both counts. 

Mr. BURGESS. All right. Let me ask Mr. Holtz-Eakin. How did we 

do on both counts? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I think you are 0-for-3 actually. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, Mr. Cutler, let me just ask you, how is it indicative that we didn’t alter the system for people who thought it 

was working, thought it was working oK, although they are concerned about cost but now we have got, what is it, 1,040 waivers. 

We have got whole States asking for waivers. We have got Anthony 

Weiner of New York asking for a waiver, for crying out loud. Is this 

indicative of a system that is well functioning and has matured to 

the point where you think it is in good shape? 

Mr. CUTLER. What we are seeing is the difficulties of the current 

system as they are being mapped out. Remember, this legislation 

takes effect over a number of years. 

Mr. BURGESS. Correct. 

Mr. CUTLER. Mr. Poore said the creation of the exchanges will be 

a very big—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me ask you another question. 

Mr. CUTLER [continuing]. Factor for small businesses but those 

come in a few years. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, Dr. Holtz-Eakin, do you have an opinion as 

to is the system working well? 

180 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. No. I mean, in the end the fundamental issue 

was the size of the Nation’s health care bill. Insurance was just a 

layer on top of that. And so you could have the world’s finest insurance exchanges but we haven’t solved the fundamental problem. As 

a result, insurance will continue to get more expensive and that is 

what the American people are upset about. 

Mr. BURGESS. One of the things I never understood, we had 

these hearings when Mr. Pallone was chairman and people would 

come in and talk to us about expanding Medicaid and the various 

federal programs and public options. We never asked Mitch Daniels 

to come in here and talk to us about how he was able to hold down 

costs for his State employees with the Healthy Indiana plan by 11 

percent over 2 years. Those same 2 years, standard PPO insurance 

was going up 7 or 8 percent. Medicare and Medicaid, as it turned 

out retrospectively, were going up 10 and 12 percent. You just have 

to ask yourself why you wouldn’t look to the States as laboratories 

and found out what is working and see if perhaps there is some 

applicability to the greater world at large and perhaps we wouldn’t 

be so disruptive to Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Schuler. Mr. Poore is apparently doing oK with the system as it is written today. 

Now, Mr. Cutler, you were a fan of the Independent Payment 

Advisory Board but you know virtually everyone on the House side 

was not, and in my opinion, the Independent Payment Advisory 

Board really is indicative of one of the problems with the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act in that the House bill, as bad 

it was, never got a fair hearing in a conference committee. The 

Senate passed a bill before Christmas Eve. They lost a critical Senate vote in Massachusetts 2 weeks later, and it was, you just have 

to pass this thing in the House, and as I alluded to earlier, the 

Senate bill did have a House number and it previously passed the 

House as a housing bill so that actually structurally was able to 

work and also conveniently, since there was a lot of tax increase 

in the bill, it started in the House of Representatives technically, 

although it actually did not, but what do you make of the Independent Payment Advisory Board now? You said it would be apolitical and yet you have groups that are opting or politicking to be 

left out of it. Is it working? 

Mr. CUTLER. One of the issues with Medicare has been that it 

has been very difficult to make the program modernized when 

every single change has to go through the Congress at a glacial 

pace, and I think that has been a complaint from both sides of the 

aisle. 

Mr. BURGESS. But in expediting, by saying if Congress can’t 

agree what those cuts are going to be, they reject the current cuts 

that are presented, they can’t come up with their own cuts, and on 

the following April 15th the Secretary just implements what the 

board put forward. I don’t know. That is giving up a lot of constitutional authority that I think many of us, at least on the Republican 

side, have problems with, and I rather suspect our friends on the 

Democratic side of the dais had difficulty as well. 

Cost shifting, yes, the uninsured, Dr. Holtz-Eakin, caused some 

cost shifting but what about the cost shifting from Medicare and 

Medicaid and what did we do with the vast expansion of Medicaid 

into the Affordable Care Act? Are those people going to have a docVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
181 

tor or are they still going to show up at the same emergency room 

they have always gone to? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. I think CMS Actuary Foster evinced some concern about the future of Medicare, about access to providers, given 

the cost shifting that goes on there, 77 cents on the dollar relative 

to private payers. I am deeply pessimistic about the future of Medicaid where outside of the near term federal pickup of the tab at 

50 cents on the dollar, we are simply not going to see access, particularly to primary cares physicians, and we know they show up 

in ERs at far too high a rate. So to use that as the mechanism for 

coverage expansion I think was one of the unwise choices of the 

act. 

Mr. BURGESS. Yes, why wouldn’t they show up to the ER? It is 

the same place they used to go when they were uninsured. They 

see the same doctor. They get the same hospital room. In fact, 

many will not even sign up for Medicaid because why go to the 

bother, what I have always done is go to the emergency room and 

get the care. 

My time is expired. I will recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Cassidy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. We in Louisiana have great affection for Bo Pelini. 

I wish you all the best in the Big Ten. 

Mr. POORE. It has been great. 

Mr. CASSIDY. As long as you don’t play LSU, we are rooting for 

you, buddy. 

Mr. POORE. It has been great. He is a great guy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Listen, how many employees do you have? 

Mr. POORE. Twenty-nine. 

Mr. CASSIDY. OK. As I read this bill, if you have 25 employees 

or less, average income of $25,000, you get a 50 percent tax credit. 

Mr. POORE. I should fire four of them. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And if you lose four of them by whatever reason, 

would you go back up to 29 and lose this tax credit? 

Mr. POOR. Absolutely. I can’t do the business I have got right 

now. 

Mr. CASSIDY. That is good. Others tell me differently, but thank 

you for your response. 

Mr. Cutler, earlier when I was speaking with Mr. Foster, he accepted the premise of that 2008, I think, Milliman article that 

there is a hydraulic effect, particularly as we see the Gingrey chart 

where there is this cliff and there is going to be this inevitable increase. In fact, I am struck in Nebraska, they are estimating that 

in 2014 to 2019 there will be 189 million increased dollars spent 

on Medicaid on Nebraska, so undoubtedly an increased tax burden. 

You just disregard that. I am not quite sure why. 

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you for the question. What we have seen in 

the past few years in both Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance is that the number of services people receive goes up and 

as a result governments and private insurers lower the rates that 

they pay. What will work in the health care system is to run that 

in reverse, to figure out which services are not worth—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. So you are postulating that we are going to have 

more efficient delivery of care, and even though we are taking out 

according to that cliff, we are going to pay physicians 31 percent 

182 

less than they currently receive, somehow we are going to be held 

harmless. 

Mr. CUTLER. Our best guess of most experts is that at least onethird of medical spending is completely wasteful and the—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, I am struck—just because we are short of 

time, I don’t mean to be rude, obviously if we could pick out that 

one-third, wouldn’t it be great. It is just so hard to pick one that 

one-third. I am a practicing physician. I still see patients. It is that 

one-third that is critical, eye of the beholder, if you will. Do you see 

accountable care organizations as being one of the mechanisms by 

which we squeeze out this waste? 

Mr. CUTLER. I do believe that is one of the mechanisms. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, I am struck that there is an article published 

frankly last week in the New England Journal of Medicine in 

which these people look at the accountable care organization and 

says that basically looking at the CMS demonstration project, 

which was structured frankly to find a positive result, and indeed 

they found that over 3 years they all lost money. Eight of the ten 

in physician groups and the demonstration did not receive any 

shared savings in the first year. In the second year, six of ten did 

not. In the third, half of the participants were still not eligible, and 

they point out that these were structured, these were already existing groups that had gamed the system to have a positive result. 

They all lose money over the first 3 years. I don’t see these ACOs 

as this huge, efficiency-generating cost savings. This article suggests not. Why do you hold that position? 

Mr. CUTLER. What we know is that some organizations are able 

to do extremely well including if you look at, say, the Mayo Clinic 

or the Cleveland Clinic or Geisinger Health Care. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Which I think were included here, certainly 

Geisinger was. 

Mr. CUTLER. Now, those tend not to be in those organizations. 

Most of the demonstrations were not there. So those organizations 

have figured out how to improve the quality of care and save 

money. Other organizations are still learning how. The failures are 

generally because they don’t have the right information systems in 

place because they still work off of fee-for-service payment basis 

and so the doctors still know that doing more is the way you earn 

more or because they haven’t figured out how to efficiently manage 

the practices that are involved. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Excuse me. I am not seeing the list of people here 

but I actually think it has groups that were well established but 

I do think I am taking from you that what you are arguing is the 

theoretical benefit, nothing that has been actually demonstrated. If 

you will, it is a hope by and by but it is not the experience currently. 

Mr. CUTLER. Actually it is the experience of a number of organizations across the country. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I haven’t seen that data, and this is a review of 

those CMS demonstration projects. If you can refute this article, I 

would appreciate that. 

Mr. CUTLER. The Institute of Medicine just published a lengthy 

volume in which they went through a number of the successful examples and they estimated—— 

183 

Mr. CASSIDY. I have not seen a single ACO article that suggests 

that, but please forward that. 

Mr. CUTLER. I will indeed. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Secondly, regarding preventive services, again, I 

am a physician, preventive services have never been shown to save 

money unless it is immunizations or maybe the management of 

obesity by increasing premiums for those who don’t lose weight. 

This article actually eviscerates that ability. And so when you postulate that preventive services will save money, there is no empiric 

data for that. 

Mr. CUTLER. There are different kinds of preventive services. The 

ones which clearly save money are, for example, tertiary prevention, that is someone is in the hospital with congestive heart failure 

or COPD. We know that if a nurse visits them within a couple of 

days after the hospital, they are less likely to be readmitted in the 

hospital. You can take the readmission rate—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Your testimony mentions colonoscopies, cholesterol 

checks, but that hasn’t really been shown. You are speaking about 

reducing readmissions? 

Mr. CUTLER. Some of those, if you look at the studies, actually 

do save money. Some just extend life but don’t save money. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Which of those would save money? Because 

colonoscopy does not. I am a gastroenterologist and so—— 

Mr. CUTLER. Obesity reduction saves money. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, the obesity reduction actually saves money, 

according to people like Safeway by increasing premiums for those 

who do not enter into a weight-loss reduction program but I am 

struck that the PPACA basically does away with that. And so it 

seems like you are endorsing something that PPACA does away 

with. 

Mr. CUTLER. I am not sure I agree with that. The Affordable 

Care Act has the discount for wellness management, 30 percent 

which can increase to 50 percent. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So I will look at that and if I am wrong I will stand 

corrected, but it is my understanding we no longer decrease premiums for those who do not participate in stop smoking or obesity 

reduction. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I am going to address my first question to Mr. Cutler. Is it Mr. 

Cutler or Dr. Cutler? 

Mr. CUTLER. I am officially a Dr. Cutler but I am happy either 

way. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, the brain power sitting at the witness table, 

I feel a little sheepish calling any of you Mister unless you are 

Brits, but in any regard, I will address my first question then to 

Mr. Cutler. 

In the March 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed, you wrote that 

there have been several broad ideas offered to bend the cost curve 

over the last decade including medical malpractice reform. As you 

might know, I have a very keen interest in that as a practicing 

physician and Member of Congress. Do you believe that this ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
184 

gress, unlike the last, should finally address medical malpractice 

reform, and what is its potential impact on health care cost? 

Mr. CUTLER. There are a number of areas in which I think the 

legislation could be strengthened, and that is one where I personally would strengthen the legislation some. Most of the estimates 

of the impact of malpractice reform on medical spending suggest 

that the direct spending impact and the reduction in defensive 

medicine would be relatively small, on the order of 4 percent or so. 

What I think it is important for is in sending a signal to physicians 

and the physician community that we are serious about freeing 

them to practice care in the right way, not in the way that just 

earns you money. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, let’s move on to that same question then, Mr. 

Cutler. I will move to Mr. Holtz-Eakin, our former CBO director, 

and ask really the same question. What Mr. Cutler said doesn’t 

really jibe with what I think my fund of knowledge tells me in regard to defensive medicine and the actual cost. I mean, even the 

CBO, Mr. Elmendorf, said $54 billion over 10 years. That is a lot 

of bread. But I think it is a lot more than that. I think it could 

very easily be $150 billion annually because some of the doctors on 

the Energy and Commerce Committee could tell you in their practices how much ordering of very expensive imaging procedures in 

particular and drawing a lot of blood. I could go on and on and on. 

But I would like for you to comment on that same question. 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. This issue has been around for a long time. I 

think there is no question that malpractice reform should be on the 

table. How much would come out of the Nation’s health care bill 

really revolves around the degree to which practice patterns have 

been dictated implicitly by some defensive medicine driven by lawsuits or if it is really just the way groups practice and so new doctors come in and they are told this is the way we practice. Is that 

really just a matter of caution or is it deeply imbedded in a reaction to the legal environment. We don’t know how big that will be 

and that has been the conundrum for a long, long time. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, the President of course has promised and we 

hope that there would be something in the Affordable Care Act 

that was not. We heard earlier testimony that this would save a 

tremendous amount of money. I don’t know what the true value is 

but I think it is time for us to get that done. 

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, I am going to stay with you. Proponents of this 

law argue that the bill will help reduce the deficit in the second 

and third decades of implementation, not just this first 10-year period. Doesn’t this claim rest on the assumption that the dramatic 

reductions in Medicare and massive tax increases on employersponsored health coverage of working-class America stays in effect? 

Can you explain how ever-increasing taxes are used to offset the 

massive increases in spending that are contained in the Affordable 

Care Act? 

Mr. HOLTZ-EAKIN. At the heart of it is the notion that the spending will go up as we have seen these long-term projections for 

Medicare and Medicaid go up for a long, long time. CBO has put 

these out and Medicare and Medicaid go up from 4 percent of GDP 

to 12 or 20 percent over the next several decades, and for a long 

time the presumption has been by any reasonable analyst, you canVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:25 Dec 21, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-27 033011\112-27 CHRIS
185 

not tax your way out of that problem. You have to take on the 

spending. What the Affordable Care Act does is essentially recreate 

that spending and promise to tax its way out of it, and I don’t view 

that as a plausible economic proposition. We are not going to raise 

the Cadillac tax so high to make this balance over the long term. 

You have got to control the growth of spending, and no analyst outside of David has come in and believed that this controls the spending growth. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Cutler, you are shaking your head. I have got 

20 seconds left if you would like to weigh in on that. I will cut you 

off if I decide to, but go ahead. 

Mr. CUTLER. If you look at what the Business Roundtable has 

said, they said that this way of making reforms would lead to big 

changes in cost savings. If you look at what the American Medical 

Association has said, what the American Hospital Association has 

said, what the Association of America’s Health Insurance Plans 

have said, all of them have said that this is the way to go and that 

they believe that this is the potential for saving enormous amounts 

of money. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, that might be true with a policy like this you 

end up forcing all of the doctors who practice privately to sell their 

subspecialty practices to charitable hospitals who bill under Part A 

rather than Part B and eventually then the Federal Government 

will have control over the whole ball of wax and then we will have 

national health insurance. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Poore, I want to ask you a question. As we heard today, the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce prides itself on being the world’s largest business federation, representing the needs of businesses large 

and small alike, but it seems to me that when the chamber accepted $86 million from the health insurance industry, companies such 

as Cigna and United Health Group, to lobby against health reform, 

it gave up any credibility it had to represent small businesses. The 

Small Business Majority released a study to demonstrate what 

would happen to small businesses without health reform. The findings show that 178,000 small business jobs, $834 billion in small 

business wages and $52 billion in small business profits would be 

lost due to high health care premiums, and over 1.5 million small 

business employees would continue to fall victim to job lock. If the 

chamber claims to represent small businesses, then why does it oppose health reform provisions that would prevent small businesses 

from facing these challenges? Do you feel that the U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce represents you as a small business owner? 

Mr. POORE. To be honest, no, for mainly the reason you gave. I 

have never had a national commerce guy call me but I don’t have 

$86 million in the bank, either. So to be frank, I really don’t believe 

that—I mean, they lost their credibility when they did that, when 

they accepted money from the insurance lobby. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Then they are no longer representing businesses, 

they are representing—— 

Mr. POORE. In a lot of ways I don’t think—— 

186 

Mr. WAXMAN. But I want to use my time to ask another question 

in my limited time, but I thank you very much for your contribution to this hearing. 

We are once again, after we talked about the Affordable Care 

Act, which is a bill that reduces the deficit in responsible ways, extends coverage to over 30 million people while freeing people from 

job lock and fighting insurance company abuses. We are now hearing from the Republicans whose next step is to undermine health 

reform by destroying its foundation, the Medicaid program. The Republicans are about to unveil a budget that by all media accounts 

and statements from Republican Budget Committee members will 

block grant Medicaid to create hundreds of billions of dollars in 

savings, some reporting as high as $850 billion. At the same time, 

we could expect the budget to extend the Bush tax cuts permanently. The exorbitant price tag for extending those cuts just for 

the wealthiest Americans is striking $950 billion. The current Republican Majority is not serious about deficit reduction. They are 

about ideological stances that help the rich get richer while the 

middle class and poor are attacked from every side. 

Who is it they are targeting in the Medicaid program? Thirty 

million children, 14 million seniors and persons with disabilities, 1 

million nursing home residents, 3 million home and communitybased care residents, all who are relying on Medicaid, and Medicaid is an efficient program. Medicaid cost per enrollee growth was 

4.6 percent between 2000 and 2009. That is slower than premiums 

in employer-sponsored insurance and national health expenditures. 

Current Medicaid spending increases criticized by the right are 

merely because the program works as intended, to help people who 

have lost their jobs and health insurance during the recession, not 

because of excessive cost growth on a per-enrollee basis. Hundreds 

of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid is a blind ax that will 

merely shift costs to the States, to providers and mostly to beneficiaries who will go without care. 

Mr. Cutler, can you talk about what such large cuts in Medicaid 

would mean for States’ economies, for families and for providers? 

Mr. CUTLER. I think cuts of that magnitude would be catastrophically bad. If you run through this past recession, the Great Recession, without the ability to expand Medicaid by having the Federal 

Government be able to do that, you would have produced millions 

more uninsured people, people suffering lack of care, substantially 

worse health outcomes, hospitals and physicians that go under because they are overwhelmed by the number of uninsured people, 

and at the same time you would not have achieved any real reductions because the block grant itself does nothing to actually figure 

out how to run the system better. What we need to do is save 

money in Medicaid and throughout the health care system by running systems better, not by just shifting costs and making bad 

times be even worse. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And in order to pay for this program, which has 

been a successful program, and it is a lifeline. It is a safety-net program. In order to pay for this, we are refusing to ask the people 

at the very top 1 percent to pay their fair share of taxes so the people at the very bottom will just be thrown to the bottom of society 

without access to the care they desperately need. 

187 

Mr. CUTLER. A very large share of economists agree that over 

time we need to reduce medical spending and to raise revenue, particularly from higher-income people whose incomes have gone up a 

lot. Those two facts are not in much dispute. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank all of the witnesses and the 

members that have participated in today’s hearing. This was an excellent panel. I want to remind members that they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record, and I ask that the 

witnesses all agree to respond promptly to those questions. 

Thank you. This subcommittee hearing is now adjourned. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, we will hold the record open for 

your comment on the policy for the committee for the future on—— 

Mr. PITTS. We will give you that in writing. I understood that the 

staff had talked to your staff about hat. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Without objection, can we just put it into the 

record and we will look forward to getting that. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

188 


71722.049

Bloomberg Business Week 

Politics & Policy March 24, 2011 

The Republican Response to Obamacare 

According to a Bloomberg allalysis, GOP alternatives would save less thall $5 billion a year, 

or less thall 1 percent of what health care cost in 2009 

By Li§.~.J&I_~t and Drew Armstrong 

Two weeks after Republicans took control of the House in January, thcy kept a key campaign 

promise and voted to repeal President Barack Obama's health-care law. The Democratic Senatc 

later rejected the repeal, but House Republicans say they still plan to "replace Obamacare with 

something that's a lot better," says Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee. Their focus. he says, is to lower the cost of care. 

Yet according to a Bloomberg analysis, the alternatives suggested so far-ranging from limiting 

malpractice lawsuits to allowing insurers to sell across state lines-- would save less than $5 

billion a year. That's less than 0.6 percent of the $836 billion the government spent on health care 

in 2009. "None of these proposals get to the heart of what the issue is. which is to really address 

cost," says Ashish Kaura. a health-care analyst with Booz & Co. "They nibble around at the 

margins." 

The Congressional Budget Office, the legislature's research arn1. projects that Obama's law, 

which celebrated its first anniversary on Mar. 23, will reduce the deficit by $143 billion by 2019. 

RepUblicans say that estimate is too rosy and doesn't account for fast-rising medical costs that are 

driving up insurance premiums and Medicare and Medicaid spending. In making repeal a key 

issue, Republicans arc opening themselves to attacks in the 2012 elections if they can't offer 

convincing alternatives that maintain the bill's deficit reductions while tamping down health-care 

costs. 

Some of their proposals, such as exempting abortion from federal funding, would have little 

economic impact. Others, such as creating "high-risk pools" for those with preexisting conditions 

and keeping peoplc up to age 26 on their parents' insurance, are already features of Obama's law. 

At the top of the Republicans' wish list: curbing medical malpractice lawsuits. Proponents say 

the ease of suing physicians and the likelihood of winning sizable verdicts cause doctors and 

hospitals to perform costly, duplicative tests out of caution, raising insurance prices. The CBO 

estimates that limiting lawsuits would save about $54 billion over 10 years and reduce total 

medical cxpenditures by just 0.5 percent. Actual savings could be less. Since 2003, Texas has 

limited noneconomic damages in malpractice suits to $250,000. Yet Medicare costs in the state 

arc second only to New Jersey, according to Ihe Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. In the region 

around McAllen, a Texas city along the Mexico border, the averagc patient costs Medicare 

$15,695 per year. highcr than anywhere cxcept Miami. The malpractice proposal just "chips 

away" at costs, says Joseph Antos, a health policy expeli at the Republican-leaning American 

Entcrprise lnstitutc, who supports the idea. 
189 


71722.050

Another leading plan would let health insurers sell their products across state lines, something 

now prohibited by federal law. Certain states, including New York, have rules requiring insurers 

to cover specific benefits or guarantee coverage to people with preexisting conditions. Some also 

limit how much premiums can rise as people get older. Those mandates drive up the cost of 

insurance. People in states such as New York should be able to save money by purchasing 

coverage in a less regulated state, say Republicans. 

But according to the CBO, only the healthy would benefIt, since they could shop around for the 

best deals. Sick people would stay in the more regulated states, where coverage protections arc 

stronger. That would drive up prices for everyone in those markets, which would have a larger 

proportion of sick people. The cno says the plan would save the government about $7.4 billion 

over a decade, a modest amount in annual tcrms, since it would encourage people to use post-tax 

dollars to buy cheaper coverage in other states rather than accept work-provided benefits, which 

arc tax-exempt. 

Helping small businesses band together when negoiiating policies, another Republican proposal, 

also yields little in the way of cost savings. Even large businesses with tens of thousands of 

employees have little bargaining power in the health-care market. "If GM can't control costs, do 

you think a small group of firms in Texas can'?" says Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University 

health economist. "They would never have enough clout against thc hospitals." 

Republicans also want to expand hcalth savings accounts, which are coupled with a highdeductible insurance plan. Until a person reaches the annual limit, which can run to $3,000 or 

more, they pay for all their care~-from a flu shot to a quadruple bypass- -out of a pretax savings 

account. Economists who support the idea say that since consumers are directly paying for care, 

they'll shop for lower-cost treatment or use fewer health-care services. Reinhardt says the change 

would mostly benefit high-income consumers, who would use the accounts to shield income 

from taxes. "HSAs are not a cost-containment device," he says. And· the CBO estimates it would 

reduce federal tax revenue by $300 million from 2009 to 2018. 

Republicans argue that small changes can add up to big savings. Says Representative Phil 

Gingrey (R-Ga.), an obstetrician who leads the GOP Doctors caucus: "A billion here and a 

billion there, and the next thing you know you're talking ahout real money." And Upton, the 

Michigan conb'Tessman, adds that "it would be a mistake for anyone to think the cntirety of 

proposals for health-care reform are already on the table." 

17,e bottom line: Republican proposals 10 control health-care costs would save the government 

only about $5 billion a year, or 0.6 percent. 

Lerer is a repOlier for Bloomberg News. Armstrong is a reporter for Bloomberg News. 
190 


71722.051

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Waxman: 

March 30, 2011 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

Administration on Aging 

20201 

Thank you for your March 23, 2011 letter seeking clarity in my statements before the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Health hearing on March 17,201 l. I 

appreciate the opportunity to provide a more comprehensive response to questions regarding the 

estimated savings attributed to the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports 

(CLASS) program by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 

As I stated in my testimony, the goals ofthe CLASS program are to provide an opportunity for 

individuals to take responsibility and prepare financially for their own long-term needs, support 

consumer choices related to their own care and living arrangements, and facilitate independence 

and community living. The law clearly states that the program must be able to pay for benefits 

with the premiums it takes in and that no taxpayer dollars may be used to pay for CLASS 

benefits. 

We continue to explore several areas within our statutory flexibility to strengthen the CLASS 

program, and President Obama and Secretary Sebelius have pledged to use the discretion already 

provided in the law to make necessary changes to ensure that CLASS meets its progranunatic 

goals and is financially solvent and stable. 

As I testified at the Subcommittee hearing, the CBO estimates the Affordable Care Act will 

reduce the deficit by $210 billion in the first decade and $1 trillion in the ncxt decade. In 

developing these estimates, CBO is following the same budgeting methods put into law in 1990 

and used for more than two decades. These budgeting practices have been used by the Medicare 

program for many years. Since 1981, the CBO and the Medicare Trustees have prepared 

estimates for specific statutory changes that would achieve savings in Medicare and extend the 

solvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund while contributing to deficit or surplus calculations. 

For example, this process was used to estimate savings during the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 

and the Deficit Reduction Act of2005. 

As Joseph Antos, the Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the 

American Enterprise Institute, reccntly testified in the same hearing before the Energy and 

Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health, this approach is a method that has been in use 

for many years and is not a budgeting gimmick and should not be considered double counting. 
191 


71722.052

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

March 30,2010 

Page 2 

To better understand these budgetary calculations, it is important to note that the premium 

revenues of the CLASS program, like other trust fund revenues, are part of the larger unified 

federal budget. Under current budget practices, CLASS revenues and costs are taken account of 

on an annual basis. Therefore, CLASS premiums are treated as revenue and in the absence of 

CLASS expenditures contribute to deficit reduction. When CLASS benefits become payable 

they will be treated as reductions against accumulated premium revenue. This is similar to the 

treatment of revenues and expenditures from the Medicare Trust Fund. 

CLASS premiums will be deposited into a trust fund called the CLASS Independence Fund, 

which will be managed by the Secretary of the Treasury and Board of Trustees. A primary 

function of the Board of Trustees is to review program operation and ensure that CLASS is 

actuarially sound and fiscally solvent over the 20 and 75 year periods stipulated in the law. This 

is particularly important because no taxpayer funds may be used to pay for CLASS program 

benefits. 

Thank you again for the opp011unity to testify before the Subcommittee and for your important 

questions. We remain strongly committed to transparency as we work to strengthen the CLASS 

program, and look forward to working with you and your colleagues to ensure responsible and 

successful implementation. A similar response has also been provided to Representative Pallone. 

Sincerely, 

Kathy Greenlee 
192 


71722.053

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20201 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Member 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Waxman: 

March 30, 2011 

Thank you for your March 23, 2011 letter regarding my statements before the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce on March 3, 2011. I remain committed to working with you and your 

colleagues to ensure successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and appreciate the 

opportunity to respond directly to questions regardiog efficiencies in the Medicare program. 

It is important to reiterate the facts: the new law will not cut guaranteed benefits for seniors or 

alter the current protections for Medicare beneficiaries. In fact, the Affordable Care Act will add 

benefits such as free prevention services, an annual wellness visit, and a phase-out of the 

Medicare donut hole in the prescription drug benefit. Moreover, by reducing waste, fraud, and 

abuse and cracking down on overpayments, the law will lower beneficiary premiums, reduce 

beneficiary cost sharing and, as I stated in my testimony, slow the projected growth rate of 

Medicare over 10 years, extending the life of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by 12 

years. 

As I have testified, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Affordable Care 

Act will reduce the deficit by $210 billion in the first decade and $1 trillion io the next decade. 

Additionally, the Medicare Trustees estimated that the Medicare trust fund will remain solvent 

for an additional 12 years because of changes called for in the Affordable Care Act. 

In developing these estimates, CBO and the Trustees are following the budgeting methods put 

ioto law in 1990 and used for more than two decades. Similarly, since 1981, Republican and 

Democratic Congresses alike have enacted at least ten laws that the CBO and the Medicare 

Trustees estimated would achieve savings in Medicare, extending the solvency of the Medicare 

Part A Trust Fund and reducing the deficit. For example, this process was used to estimate 

savings during the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and the Deficit Reduction Act of2005. 

As Joseph Antos, the Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and Retirement Policy at the 

American Enterprise Institute, recently testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Health, this budgetiog method has been in use for many years and is not a 

budgeting gimmick. CBO is not double counting. 
193 


71722.054

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

March 30, 2011 

Page 2 

To better understand these budget calculations, it is important to note that the Medicare savings, 

like other trust fund savings, are part of a larger deficit calculation. Under these longstanding 

budget practices, Medicare spending is part of the unified federal budget. Therefore, program 

changes that reduce the growth in spending contribute to reducing the budget deficit. When 

these changes specifically affect Medicare Part A spending, they also favorably affect solvency 

projections for the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. 

Paul Van de Water, a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, also recently 

testified that there is no double counting in recognizing that Medicare savings improve the status 

of both the Federal budget and the Medicare Trust Funds. He gave an example, "In the same 

way, when a baseball player hits a homer, it both adds one run to his team's score and also 

improves his batting average. Neither situation involves double-counting." 

Thank you again for your letter and for seeking clarity in my responses to these important 

questions. I look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues to responsibly 

implement the Affordable Care Act and deliver its benefits to the American people. A similar 

response has also been provided to Representative Pallone. 

Sincerely, 

~~ Kathleen Sebelius 
194 


71722.122

The~oUP® 

The Impact of the Medicaid Expansions and Other Provisions of Health Reform 

on State Medicaid Spending 

Staff Working Paper #12 

Prepared by: John Sheils 

Kathy Kuhmerker 

Randy Haught 

Joel Menges 

Chris Park 

December 9, 2010 
195 


71722.123

Table of Contents 

ABOUT THE LEWIN GROUP ................................................................................................................. I 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... II 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 

A. Current Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility .................................................................................... 1 

B. Changes in Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility under the Act ..................................................... 6 

C. Changes in Medicaid and CHIP Spending under Health Reform ........................................ 11 

D. Net Impact of Reform on State Spending ................................................................................. 19 

E. Understanding Reform at the State LeveL ............................................................................... 20 

523136 
196 


71722.124

About The Lewin Group 

The Lewin Group is a health care and human services policy research and management 

consulting firm. We have OVer 25 years of experience in estimating the impact of major health 

reform proposals. The Lewin Group is committed to providing independent, objective and nonpartisan analyses of policy options. In keeping with our tradition of objectivity, The Lewin 

Group is not an advocate for or against any legislation. The Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, Inc., 

which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UnitedHealth Group. To assure the independence of 

its work, The Lewin Group has editorial control over all of its work products. 

523136 
197 


71722.125

Executive Summary 

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA, or the Act) requires most Americans to have health 

insurance.' To assure access to affordable coverage, the Act expands the Medicaid program to 

cover all adults living below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), including non-aged 

childless adults who generally are not eligible for the current Medicaid program. The Act also 

provides a new premium subsidy program for people living below 400 percent of the FPL 

($88,000 for a family of four). 

In this study, we focus on the impact of health reform on state spending for Medicaid and the 

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This includes the impact of several key 

provisions of the Act including: 

The cost of covering newly-eligible adults; 

Increases in enrollment among currently eligible people; 

Enrollment reductions due to increased employer coverage under the Act; 

New prescription drug rebates for Medicaid Managed Care Organization (MCO) plans; 

Other increases in rebates; 

The increase in federal matching funds for states that already cover adults to at least 100 

percent of the FPL (the federal matching percentage is increased to 90 percent for 

childless adults in these states by 2020); and 

Reductions in federal disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments of $14.1 billion 

nationally over the 2014 through 2019 period. 

We estimate that the number of people enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP will increase by 17.4 

million people by 2019 under the ACA. The Act will increase Medicaid spending by $421.3 

billion over the 2014 through 2019 period, of which states would pay $17.4 billion (i.e., 4.1 

percent of total new spending). For states, this is an average increase in spending of 1.1 percent 

over this period. However, the impact will vary across states, ranging from a spending increase 

of 7.8 percent in Alabama to an actual reduction in state spending of 10.7 percent in Arizona 

(Figure E5-1). 

We estimate that state Medicaid spending would be reduced under the Act in Arizona, 

Delaware, Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont. All of these states see little new 

enrollment because they already cover most childless adults living below 133 percent of the 

FPL. These states also benefit from an increase in the federal match under the Act for the 

childless adults they already cover (reaching 90 percent by 2020, the same percentage that states 

that do not currently cover this group will receive for this expansion population in 2020). By 

contrast, states that currently have only limited coverage for adults - such as Alabama and 

Mississippi - will tend to see the largest percentage increases in state government spending. 

1 The bill exempts certain individuals from the requirement to have insurance including undocumented 

immigrants, people who do not have enough income to be able to file taxes, and people who would 

find that the cost of insurance exceeds 8 percent of income. 

ii 

523136 
198 


71722.126

523136 

Figure ES-1 

Percent Change in State Medicaid Spending for 2014 through 2019 by State 

Alabama 

$outh"Carolina 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 

New Hampshire 

West Virginia 

Utah 

Missouri 

Nevada 

Colorado 

Texas 

Kentucky 

Arkansas 

Tennessee 

Montana 

North Carotina 

Idaho 

Georgia 

Ohio 

Indiana 

Oregon 

Michigan 

Connecticut 

IUinois 

District of Columbia 

Nebraska 

Florida 

Iowa 

South Dakota 

North Dakota 

Oklahoma 

New Jersey 

Wyoming 

California 

Kansas. 

Washington 

Maine 

Alaska 

Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Rhode Island 

Maryland 

Pennsylvania 

New Mexico 

Minnesota 

Massachusetts ·3.4% 

Hawaii -3.4% 

"=::::::-; 7.8% 10 7.0% 

6.7% 

"=::::~ 6.0% 10 5.6% /-____ 5.6% 

"=::: 4.3% 10 4.2% 

4.2% 

4.0% 

4.0% 

4.0% 

3.7% 

3.7% 

3.6% 

3.5% 

3.4% 

3.3% 

Delaware Vermont -4.7% -4.3~:':===~ New York -5.3% 

Arizona ·10.7% 
199 


71722.127

States with large Medicaid managed care programs will also benefit substantially from the new 

rebates required for prescription drugs provided in managed care organizations. These include 

states with substantial enrollment in managed care plans such as Arizona, Pennsylvania, and 

California. This is especially true for Arizona, which currently enrolls all of their covered 

population in managed care plans. 

This analysis covers only the Medicaid impacts of health reform and does not provide state 

level analyses of other elements of the Act that will have significant impacts on state and local 

government costs under the bill. For example, as employers, state and local governments that 

do not cover all of their full-time employees are required to pay a significant new penalty. 

Significant changes in employer coverage and spending will affect state tax revenues, in 

addition to having direct effects on the health system. 

The Act will have a major impact on uncompensated care and safety net programs. 

Uncompensated care could be reduced by up to two-thirds as 30 million or more people become 

insured nationwide. Public hospitals and clinics would see increased revenues from newly 

insured patients that will now be covered by Medicaid or privately insured patients. Payer mix 

will change significantly for all types of providers now serving the uninsured. Expected 

increases in health services utilization for newly insured people also raise questions about the 

adequacy of physician supply in many areas. 

All estimates of the impact of health reform are dependent upon key assumptions concerning 

the strength of the economy and the ways in which employers, consumers, insurers, and 

providers respond to elements of the Act. For example, in this analysis we relied upon economic 

projections developed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) at the national level. However, 

the recession and the recovery will be very different across states, with different cost 

implications for state governments. 

The Lewin Group data and models of the heath care system provide impact analyses at both the 

state and county levels. We have used the model to develop estimates of changes in coverage 

and spending for several state governments. We are also using these data to evaluate the impact 

of the ACA on individual counties and metropolitan areas. In particular, the models can be 

used to estimate the effects of reform under various assumptions and alternative economic 

scenarios that are specific to individual state health systems and economies. 

In addition to these services, the models can be used to evaluate options for reducing the cost of 

state Medicaid and CHIP programs within the maintenance of effort requirements of the Act. 

For example, states have the option of using alternative "benchmark" benefits packages rather 

than the Medicaid benefit. Also, states that now have adult income eligibility levels above 133 

percent of the FPL have the option of reducing eligibility to 133 percent of the FPL. We have 

also assisted several states in identifying ways of minimizing costs and maximizing federal 

matching funds. Any or all of these alternatives could impact the findings presented in this 

paper. 

1k~oup' iv 

523136 
200 


71722.128

Introduction 

The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) requires most Americans to have health insurance.' To 

assure access to affordable coverage, the Act expands the Medicaid program to cover all adults 

living below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), including both parents and nonaged childless adults. The Act also provides a new premium subsidy program for people living 

below 400 percent of the FPL ($88,000 for a family of four). 

In this study, we focus on the impact of health reform on state spending for Medicaid and the 

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This primarily includes the cost of covering 

newly-eligible adults and increases in enrollment among currently eligible people. It also 

includes changes in prescription drug rebates under the Act and increases in federal matching 

funds for state that already cover childless adults. States will also see a reduction in federal 

disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments under the Act as the number of uninsured is 

reduced. 

Our analysis differs from prior state-level estimates of Medicaid impacts in that we look at more 

than just the cost of expanded eligibility under the program. We include estimates of the effects 

of the drug rebate provisions and the reductions in DSH payments under the Act. We also 

present estimates that reflect changes in access to employer coverage under the Act and the 

impact this will have on Medicaid and CHIP enrollment. We do not, however, include the 

effects of the temporary increase in reimbursement rates for primary care providers required 

under the bill. This should have little impact on state spending because the federal government 

will pay the full cost of these payment increases.' 

We present our analysis in the following sections: 

Current Medicaid and CHIP eligibility; 

Changes in Medicaid and CHIP eligibility under the Act; 

Changes in Medicaid and CHIP spending under health reform; 

Net impact of reform on state Medicaid spending; and 

Understanding health reform at the state level. 

A. Current Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility 

Eligibility for the existing Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) varies 

substantially across states. Under current law, children are typically eligible for either Medicaid 

2 The ACA exempts certain individuals from the requirement to have insurance including 

undocumented immigrants, people who do not have enough income to be able to file taxes, and 

people who would find that the cost of insurance exceeds 8 percent of income. 

3 The Act requires states to increase provider reimbursement rates for primary care providers to 100 

percent of Medicare payment levels for similar services for 2013 and 2014, after which, states are 

permitted to return to lower payment rates for these services. The federal government will pay the full 

amount of the cost for increasing these payment rates. 

""~OUP' 1 

523136 
201 


71722.129

or the CHIP programs if their family income is less than 200 percent of the FPL, although many 

states have raised the eligibility level to 300 percent or more of the FPL Pregnant women are 

typically eligible through 150 percent of the FPL 

Custodial parents are typically eligible for Medicaid if their income is below an average of 

about 50 percent of the FPL, although this varies widely by state. For example, the income 

eligibility level for parents varies from 17 percent of the FPL in Arkansas to 206 percent of the 

FPL in Maine. Also, in all but seven states, non-disabled adults without custodial 

responsibilities for children (i.e., childless adults) are not eligible at allY level of income (Figure 

1).' 

The federal government currently matches state spending for Medicaid and CHIP according to 

a Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). Federal matching rates vary across states 

based upon differences in state per capita personal income levels and other factors. Although 

the federal contribution varies by state, the federal government currently pays for about 57 

percent of the Medicaid program and about 71 percent of the CHIP program. 

~ 

0 

g:, 

~ 

1: 

£ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

Figure 1; Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility for a "Typical State" Under Current Law ,f 

250% 

200% 

150% 

133% 

100% 

76% 

50% 

13% 

0% 

Aged Pregnant 

Women 

Infants Children 

Aged 

1 to 5 

I11III Medicaid 0 CHIP 

Children 

Aged 

6 to 18 

parents Disabled Noncustodial 

Adults 

al Figures are roughly based upon average income eligibility levels across states by eligibility group. 

Source: Program data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 

In Figure 2 we present state-level projections of enrollment and spending under the existing 

Medicaid and CHII' programs without health reform for each stah~ over the 2014 through 2019 

period.' These are the first six years that eligibility expansions under the health reform 

legislation will apply. These estimates are based upon enrollment and expenditure data for 

Medicaid and CHIP for 2008 and 2009, whieh we projected through 2019 based upon 

Childless adults are defined to include people age 19 to 64 who are not qualified as disabled and who 

do not have custodial responsibilities for children. 

The M"rch 2010 CBO projections of enrollment and spending without the ACA relleet that without the 

ACA, federal funding for CI!II' is authorized through 2013 only. 

Ik~Oup· 2 

523136 
202 


71722.130

enrollment and spending trends assumed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in their 

March 2010 baseline budget assumptions. 

The CBO develops a baseline projection of average monthly enrollment and spending which 

includes enrollment and spending projections for Medicaid and CHIP for the next ten years. In 

their March 2010 baseline projections, CBO projects that average monthly enrollment in 

Medicaid and CHIP would reach 63.6 million people in 2010 (57.6 million Medicaid and 6.0 

million CHIP). CBO projects that without the ACA, enrollment would have declined to 60.2 

million people by 2014 based on their assumption that the economy will improve after 2010, 

thus reducing enrollment. After 2014, the CBO assumes a return to historical growth rates, with 

steady enrollment growth through 2019, when enrollment will reach 62.4 million people. 

We need to adjust these figures to limit our analysis to only those qualifying for full coverage 

under Medicaid. The CBO estimates include all people receiving benefits under Medicaid and 

CHIP including those with only partial coverage, such as people receiving family planning 

services only and Medicare recipients for whom Medicaid pays only the Medicare Part B 

premium. When we exclude those with only partial coverage, we estimate total enrollment in 

Medicaid and CHIP would have reached 54.7 million in 2019 without health reform.' Based on 

CBO projections, total spending without health reform would be about $3.6 trillion over the 

2014 through 2019 period. The state share of spending over this period would be $1.5 trillion 

with the federal government paying $2.0 trillion. 

6 Our enrollment estimates are based upon enrollment for December 2009 as compiled by Health 

Management Associates for the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. The Kaiser 

numbers have been standardized to comparable definitions of enrollment, which excludes people 

receiving partial benefits, such as family planning or Medicare Part B payments only. We did not use 

enrollment data for 2010 because the programs are expected to reach a peak level of enrollment during 

2010 due to the recession and will start to fall in 2011. Our judgment was that the 2009 data are more 

indicative of enrollment in the years of recovery following 2010. 

3 

523136 

71722.131

Figure 2: Projections of Enrollment and State and Federal Spending for Medicaid and CHIP by State Without Health Reform: 2

Medicaid/CHIP Expenditures for Medicaid/CHIP Total Federal Matc

Enrollment in 2019 Reform: 2014-2019 (millions) bl Expenditures Percentage (FM

Without Reform Without Reform 

(thousands) " State Share Federal Share (millions) Medicaid 

Alabama 839.2 $13,408 $28,793 $42,201 68.01% Alaska 105.8 $4,494 $4,799 $9,293 51.43% Arizona 1,323.9 $26,617 $51,407 $78,024 65.75% Arkansas 597.1 $9,489 $25,614 $35,103 72.78% 

California 7,985.3 $207,062 $210,938 $418,000 50.00% Colorado 563.1 $16,747 $16,997 $33,744 50.00% Connecticut 497.6 $23,176 $23,241 $46,418 50.00% 

Delaware 191.0 $5,635 $5,716 $11,350 50.21% District of Columbia 157.9 $4,433 $10,368 $14,800 70.00% 

Florida 2,990.8 $68,890 $84,918 $153,808 54.98% 

Georgia 1,651. 9 $27,096 $51,149 $78,245 , 65.10% 

Hawaii 253.0 $5,721 $6,825 $12,545 54.24% 

Idaho 225.5 $3,893 $8,914 $12,808 , 69.40% Illinois 2,537.9 $61,023 $62,330 $123,353 50.17% 

Indiana 1,047.7 $21,735 $42,343 $64,078 65.93% Iowa 443.3 $10,814 $18,963 $29,777 63.51% 

Kansas 314.8 $9,419 $14,476 $23,896 60.38% Kentucky 848.5 $14,501 $35,670 $50,171 70.96% Louisiana 1,059.2 $20,640 $43,361 $64,001 67.61% 

Maine 296.6 $8,162 $15,233 $23,394 64.99% Maryland 815.4 $30,190 $30,664 $60,853 50.00% Massachusetts 1,263.4 $57,000 $57,790 $114,790 50.00% 

Michigan 1,954.9 $37,662 $65,214 $102,876 63.19% Minnesota 742.1 $35,923 $36,139 $72,062 50.00% 

Mississippi 673.8 $9,859 $30,971 $40,830 75.67% 

Missouri 904.0 $25,901 $47,277 $73,178 64.51% 

Montana 112.5 $2,677 $5,599 $8,276 67.42% 

Nebraska 226.6 $6,567 $10,170 $16,736 60.56% Nevada 267.7 $6,880 $7,015 $13,895 50.16% 

New Hampshire 141.6 $6,434 $6,460 $12,894 50.00% New Jersey 967.7 $50,470 $51,450 $101,921 50.00% New Mexico 484.9 $9, 32'L --,------ - $23,496 $32,825, 71.35% 

523136 

71722.132

Figure 2: Projections of Enrollment and State and Federal Spending for Medicaid and CHIP by State Without Health Reform: 2

(continued) 

Medicaid/CHIP Expenditures for Medicaid/CHIP Total Federal Matching Enrollment in Without Reform: 2014-2019 Expenditures Percentage (FMAP

2019 Without (millions) bI Without Reform Reform State Share Federal Share (millions) Medicaid CH

(thousands) " 

New York 5,163.3 $243,775 $244,766 $488,542 50.00% North Carolina 1,499.8 $37,146 $70,008 $107,154 65.13% North Dakota 69.9 $2,077 $3,568 $5,646 63.01% 

Ohio 2,088.2 $49,606 $86,633 $136,239 63.42% Oklahoma 664.3 $13,250 $24,263 $37,513 64.43% Oregon 482.8 $12,524 $21,270 $33,794 62.74% 

Pennsylvania 2,302.1 $76,058 $92,869 $168,927 54.81% Rhode Island 184.8 $9,261 $10,467 $19,727 52.63% 

South Carolina 727.9 $13,571 $32,294 $45,865 70.32% South Dakota 111.7 $2,565 $4,354 $6,919 62.72% 

Tennessee 1,377.7 $25,404 $48,590 $73,994 65.57% 

Texas 3,591.5 $94,004 $135,871 $229,875 58.73% 

'Utah 285.3 $4,548 $11,628 $16,176 71.68% 

Vermont 145.6 $4,095 $5,840 $9,934 58.73% Virginia 863.1 $28,371 $28,769 $57,141 50.00% 

Washington I 1,097.4 $32,008 $32,247 $64,255 50.12% West Virginia 367.0 $6,116 $17,525 $23,641 74.04% 

Wisconsin 1,084.9 $20,568 $31,333 $51,901 60.21% 

Wyoming I 71.5 $2,568 $2,595 $5,163 50.00% 

Total US I 54,663.3 $1,519,362 $2,039,192 I $3,558,553 I 57.07% 

a/ Based upon average monthly enrollment in December 2009 projected to 2019 using CBO March 2010 baseline assumptions on enro

growth through 2019. These estimates reflect the CBO assumptions that the economy improves by the middle of the decade. Estima

people receiving only partial benefits such as recipients of family planning services and Medicare beneficiaries receiving payment of 

Medicare Part B premium. Estimates include enrollment in the CHIP program. 

b/ Based upon state-level spending in 2008 projected through 2019 using CBO assumptions on enrollment and expenditure growth th

2019. Expenditures do not include administrative costs, accounting adjustments, or expenditures in the U.S. Territories. 

http:// www.statehealthlacts.org!comparemaptable.jsp?i ndo 177&cat 0 4 

c/ Original FMAP for 2010 without additional amount included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). 

http://www .statehealthfacts.org! comparemaptable. jsp?ind0 695&cat=4 

Source: Lewin Group estimates using the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM). 

523136 
205 


71722.133

B. Changes in Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility under the Act 

Effective January 1, 2014, the Act requires states to cover all adults under age 65 with incomes 

up to 133 percent of the FPL ($14,404 single; 519,378 married couples), including parents with 

children and non-aged individuals without custodial responsibilities for children (Figure 3). The 

federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of this expansion for adults through 2016. 

Starting in 2017, the percentage of costs paid by the federal government for these adults will 

phase down to 90 percent by 2020, leaving states to pay the remaining 10 percent. 

Figure 3: Number of People Affected by Expansions in Publicly Subsidized Coverage under the Act 

400% 

Aged Pregnant 

Women 

Infants 

Premium Subsidies 

23.6 Million 

Children 1 to 5 Children Aged 6 Parents 

to 1Ba 

DIsabled Noncustodlat 

Adults 

III Medicaid 0 CHIP 0 New Parents 0 Premjum Subsidies bS Other Adults 0 ~~:~n~~r~:l!~bte 

a/ Children age 6 through 8 must be covered up to 133 percent of the FPL under Reform 

Source: The Lewin Group estimates using the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM). 

States are required to maintain existing Medicaid eligibility levels until the new premium 

subsidies become available in 2014. At that time, states that already cover adults above 133 

percent of the FPL are permitted to reduce these eligibility le'vels to 133 percent of the FPL. 

These individuals would be eligible for the premium and cost-sharing subsidies available 

through the newly established exchanges. States must also cover children between 100 percent 

and 133 percent of the FPL under Medicaid rather than under the CHIP program. 

States are also required to maintain their CHIP programs through 2019. Federal CHIP funds are 

authorized through 2015 only, although many states will draw down their allotment of CHIP 

funding after 2016. Beginning in 2016, the match rate for CHIP is increased by 23 percentage 

points, up to a maximum of 100 percent, to permit states to draw down their federal CHIP 

funds more quickly. When a state's federal CHIP funds are exhausted, the matching rate for 

these children reverts to the regular Medicaid matching rate. 

6 

52~1J6 
206 


71722.134

We estimate that these changes will result in a net increase in Medicaid enrollment of about 17.4 

million people by 2019. These include 2.5 million newly eligible parents and 12.9 million newly 

eligible childless adults. This also includes a net increase in enrollment of 2.0 million people 

among currently eligible but not enrolled groups. In addition, we estimate that about 23.6 

million people will receive premium subsidies through the exchange. Figure 4 presents our 

estimates of changes in enrollment for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

These estimates also reflect changes in the availability of employer coverage as a result of the 

Act. For example, the Act provides a small employer tax credit to encourage employers to offer 

coverage. The Act also creates a penalty of up to $2,000 per worker for firms that do not offer 

insurance to their workers. On the other hand, many firms are likely to discontinue their 

coverage once subsidized coverage becomes available to their workers. 

In an earlier Lewin Group analysis of the health reform bill, we estimated that up to 14 million 

people would acquire employer coverage nationally, largely as a result of newly created 

employer plans.' This includes about 1.6 million people shifting from Medicaid to private 

insurance (Figure 4). However, we also estimated that 17 million people would lose employer 

coverage in cases where employers choose to discontinue their plans. This would result in about 

3.7 million people who now have employer coverage shifting to Medicaid nationwide. 

Methods: Estimation of Eligibility and Enrollment 

We estimated the impact of these coverage expansions using the March Current 

Population Survey (CPS) data for 2007 through 2009. These data provide the 

detailed health coverage information required to estimate the number of people 

potentially eligible for Medicaid and CHIP under current law and under the 

expansions for people in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

We used the Lewin Group Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM) to estimate 

eligibility using the income eligibility rules used in each state. We incorporate a 

correction for underreporting of Medicaid enrollment in surveys such as the CPS 

for each individual state. We projected coverage to future years based upon the 

March 2010 baseline projections developed by the Congressional Budget Office, 

which assume an improved economy by 2014. 

We simulated the decision for newly eligible people to enroll in the program 

based upon a multivariate model of enrollment in the existing program which 

reflects differences in enrollment by age, income, employment status, and 

demographic characteristics. The simulation results in average enrollment of 

about 75 percent of newly eligible uninsured people and 39 percent for newly 

eligible people who have access to employer health insurance. HBSM simulates 

eligibility on a month-by-month basis to capture part-year eligibility for the 

program. 

7 "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA): Long Term Costs for Government, Employer, 

Families and Providers," Staff Working Paper # 11, June 8, 2010. 

http:j (www.lewin.com( content( publications( LewinGroupAnalysisPatientProtectionandAffordableCareAct20l0.pdf 

523136 

7 

71722.135

Figure 4: Changes in the Number of People Covered under Medicaid and CHIP under the ACA in 2019 (thousands) ., 

Medicaid/CHIP Current Currently Eligible "' Newly Eligible' Total Net P

Enrollment Enrollees Children: Non- Change in Ch

Without Shifting to Medicaid Parents Parents custodial 

Reform bl Private cf and CHIP Adults f/ Enrollment En

Alabama 839.2 -16.4 17.8 26.6 70.6 244.1 342.7 Alaska 105.8 ·2.6 2.7 3.8 5.8 36.7 46.4 Arizona 1,323.9 ·57.6 49.1 90.8 1.1 14.3 97.8 Arkansas • 597.1 ' ·17.9 11.1 17.9 56.7 161.7 229.5 

California 7,985.3 ' ·251.3 219.7 374.2 193.6 1,791.2 2,327.3 Colorado 563.1 '18.6 31.9 39.6 33.0 218.1 304.2 Connecticut 497.6 '16.8 8.1 19.9 3.0 149.3 163.5 

Delaware 191.0 ·4.4 2.4 6.3 1.8 4.7 10.8 District of Columbia 157.9 -3.6 1.1 4.4 0.0 29.1 31.0 

florida 2,990.8 ·78.2 131.2 86.5 239.3 824.9 1,203.6 

Georgia 1,651.9 ·47.0 61.7 49.4 135.9 463.6 663.7 

Hawaii 253.0 ·4.7 3.1 6.3 6.8 55.9 67.4 

Idaho 225.5 ·8.4 9.8 7.2 24.8 65.7 99.1 Illinois 2,537.9 ·62.8 43.0 77.4 14.5 652.8 724.9 

Indiana 1,047.7 ·27.4 22.0 33.5 65.0 240.4 333.4 Iowa 443.3 ·13.9 9.3 16.8 25.1 104.1 141.5 

Kansas 314.8 ·12.1 14.1 13.3 29.5 118.1 163.0 

Kentucky 848.5 -19.5 14.8 30.9 54.9 217.3 298.5 Louisiana 1,059.2 ·22.0 32.3 28.1 91.9 279.3 409.6 

Maine 296.6 ·6.8 2.3 8.6 1.2 51.0 56.2 Maryland 815.4 ·18.7 15.6 26.4 10.3 257.4 291.0 Massachusetts 1,263.4 ·42.8 0.6 3.0 1.6 14.5 ·23.1 Michigan 1,954.9 ·36.7 29.6 91.4 66.6 524.2 675.1 Minnesota 742.1 i '26.8 20.1 35.1 31.0 206.2 265.6 

Mississippi 673.8 ·15.7 18.2 22.5 65.8 185.3 276.1 

Missouri 904.0 ·30.7 27.7 34.0 80.6 278.3 390.0 

Montana 112.5 ·4.0 4.0 5.7 11.9 52.3 69.9 

Nebraska 226.6 ·6.9 8.5 7.8 19.5 72.3 101.3 Nevada 267.7 ·10.5 20.7 10.9 28.0 106.9 156.0 New Hampshire 141.6 ·4.9 2.5 5.0 8.5 51.4 62.5 New Jersey 967.7 ·35.5 38.6 44.1 8.0 350.6 405.8 

----

484.9 ·13.3 17.8 23.6 16.5 109.6 154.2 

---------

523136 

71722.136

Figure 4: Changes in the Number of People Covered under Medicaid and CHIP under the ACA in 2019 (thousands) " (conti

Medicaid/CHIP I Current 

Enrollment Enrollees 

Without Shifting to 

Reform bl Private cl 

Total Net 

Change in 

Enrollment 

Pe

Ch

Enr

New York North Carolina North Dakota 

Ohio 2,088.2 i Oklahoma 664.3! ·j9.3 I 20.9 I 19.5 I 58.6 I 169.1 I 248.9 I Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

1 Rhode Island 

South Carolina South Dakota 111.71 -3.31 3.81 3.01 9.01 31.3 1 43.81 

Tennessee 1,377.7 I -31.8 I 22.4 I 58.2 I 42.2 I 295.6 I 386.6 1 

Vermont Virginia 

Washington 1,097.4 I -27.0 I 19.1 I 49.2 I 25.0 I 265.5 1 331.7 1 

West Virginia 367.01 -8.11 4.41 11.51 27.41 104.01 139.21 

I Wisconsin _. 1 1,084.91 -25.61 13.51 32.51 5.61 234.01 260·°1 

Wyommg 71.5 -1.9 2.2 2.4 6.7 26.1 35.4 

Total US 54,663.3 -1,620.2 1,552.3 2,089.4 I 2,510.3 12,875.2 17,407.1 

al Estimates include Medicaid and CHIP enrollment. 

bl Based upon enrollment in December 2009 projected to 2019 using CBO assumptions on enrollment growth through that year. 

cl Includes currently enrolled working families who take coverage from an employer who decides to start offering coverage as a res

ACA. These include employers who start to offer coverage due to the small employer tax credit, the penalty for not offering coverag

response to changes in premiums due to rating reforms. 

dl Includes currently eligible but not enrolled children who automatically become covered as a newly eligible parent becomes cove

the expanded Medicaid program. Also includes increased enrollment among currently eligible but not enrolled people in response to 

penalty for remaining uninsured. Under the Act, the penalty applies only to adults with incomes over the tax filing threshold. 

el Based upon an HBSM simulation of expanding eligibility for Medicaid in each state. We simulate the decision for newly eligible pe

enroll in the program based upon a multivariate model of enrollment in the existing program which reflects differences in enrollmen

523136 

71722.137

income, employment status, and demographic characteristics. The simulation results in average enrollment of about 75 percent of 

eligible uninsured people and 39 percent for newly eligible people who have access to employer health insurance. 

fl Includes adults who do not otherwise qualify as aged, disabled, or a parent with custodial responsibilities for children. 

gl Estimates are relative to the Arizona 2010 baseline spending projection, which predates the state's discontinuation of CHIP and t

proposition 204 Section 1115 eligibility expansion. 

Source: Lewin Group Estimates using the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM). 

523136 
210 


71722.138

C. Changes in Medicaid and CHIP Spending under Health Reform 

Total spending under the Medicaid and CHIP programs will increase by $421.3 billion over the 

2014 through 2019 period under the Act (see Attachme11t A). This is roughly a 12 percent 

increase in total program spending of $3.6 trillion over this period without health reform. The 

federal share of spending would increase by $403.9 billion (19.1 percent) over this period, while 

state Medicaid spending would increase by $17.4 billion (1.1 percent). 

Figure 5: Summary of Changes in Spending for States and the Federal Government for Medicaid and 

CHIP: 2014-2019 (billions) 

Coverage 

Expansion 

Federal Share 

FMAP 

fOf 

State Share 

Prescription 

Drug 

Rebate 

Reduced 

Federal 

DSH Revenues 

Source: The Lewin Group estimates using the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM). 

Net 

Chil;nge 

in State Spending 

These estimates include the cost of increased enrollment in Medicaid and three other major 

features of the Act. These include the increase in Medicaid enrollment, the increase in 

prescription drug rebates under the ACA, and a scheduled reduction in Federal 

Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments of $14.1 billion. It also reflects increased 

federal matching funds for states that already cover childless adults under an 1115 Medicaid 

Waiver. 

1. Expanded Enrollment 

Most of the increase in spending for both the federal and state governments would be attributed 

to the expansion in eligibility and other enrollment shifts under the Act. As discussed above, we 

estimate that Medicaid enrollment will increase by 17.4 million people under the act by 2019. 

Total spending for these people would be $452.9 billion over the 2014 through 2019 period, with 

the federal government paying $423.2 billion, which does not include the effect of other 

provisions affecting spending such ilS the changes in drug rebates. States would pay $29.7 

billion of the costs for these newly enrolled people, which is about 6.6 percent of total spending 

under the Medicaid expansion. 

I"T~G' LEWIN ROUP' 

523136 

11 
211 


71722.139

The 17.4 million newly enrolled people include 2.5 million newly eligible parents and 12.9 

million newly eligible childless adults. We also project an increase in enrollment among 

currently eligible but not enrolled children and adults. This includes 1.5 million children under 

Medicaid or CHIP and about 2.1 million parents of children now enrolled in Medicaid. This 

would be partIy offset by a shift of 1.6 million current enrollees to private insurance in cases 

where employers decide to start offering insurance in response to the small employer tax credit 

and the penalties for non-insuring employers. 

Methods: Enrollment for Currently Eligible Children and Parents 

We assume that currently eligible but not enrolled children will be enrolled as 

a newly eligible parent becomes covered under Medicaid. Also, we assume that 

eligible families will enroll in instances where the parent loses employer 

coverage because their employer decides to discontinue their health plan 

(discussed above). We also simulated a small increase in enrollment due to the 

penalty for Medicaid eligible people with income high enough to be required to 

pay taxes. 

The 17.4 million person increase in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment represents a 31.8 percent 

increase in program enrollment nationwide. All states except Massachusetts would experience 

increased enrollment ranging from 2.9 percent in Vermont to 62.1 percent in Montana (Figure 4 

above). Enrollment increases will be less than 6 percent in states that already cover childless 

adults to the FPL or higher income levels such as New York, Delaware, and Vermont. 

Enrollment in Massachusetts actually declines by 1.8 percent, which reflects the state's existing 

program to cover the uninsured. Massachusetts already has a coverage mandate and has 

expanded eligibility for parents and childless adults under Medicaid, resulting in only a small 

increase in enrollment due to the ACA eligibility expansions. At the same time, we estimate that 

about 43,000 Massachusetts Medicaid and CHIP recipients will become covered by an employer 

plan under the Act, in response to the small group tax credit and the penalty for not offering 

coverage. This results in a net reduction in enrollment of 23,100 people in 2019. 

2. State Spending for Medicaid 

As discussed above, we estimate that state Medicaid spending will increase by $17.4 billion 

nationwide. Figure 6 presents our estimates of the impact the program will have on state 

Medicaid spending including changes due to increased drug rebates, changes in federal DSH 

payments, and changes in federal matching rates for states that already cover childless adults 

through 100 percent of the FPL under an 1115 Medicaid Waiver. 

We show that the state share of Medicaid spending would increase over the 2014 through 2019 

period for all states except Delaware, New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Arizona. 

These states do not experience an increase in state costs because they have already extended 

eligibility to parents and childless adults and generally benefit from the increased federal match 

for the childless adults they now cover. 

JJ.~oup· 12 

523136 

71722.140

Figure 6: Changes in State Medicaid and CHIP Spending for Major Provisions of the ACA: 2014-2019 (millions) ,I 

State Medicaid/CHIP rake Currently N I Newly Increased Illustrative 

Spending Private Eligible Eligible Match For Changes in Reduction 

Without Coverage ,I Newly Par;' t e'l Childless Expansion Drug in Federal Reform bI Enrolled dJ n s Adults •. f! States" Rebates hi DSH Payments v 

Net 

Change in 

Spending 

Under ACA 

C

Alabama $14,2451 -:51'521 $3101 $751 $331 1 $0 1 $20 1 $52Cf 1 $1, H14 f 

Alaska $4,726 -$52 $69 $6 $34 $0 $5 $11 $73 Arizona Arkansas 

California 

ColoradoST1;85ST-- -$2641 $689 I $291 $203 I $0 I -$54 I $116 I $7191 

Connecticut - H --$23}1911 :$1%-1 $301 1- $3 I $113 I $0 I $281 $418 [---$7011 

Delaware 55;8611 -$69 I $98 I $2 I $7 I -$324 I $8 I $3 I -$176 1 District of Columbia 1 -$4,595 1:$26-1 $48 1 $01 $23 1 $01 -$47 1_ $127 1 $126 1 Florida 572,587 I -$898 $1,830 $216 $972 $0 -$422 $201 $1,900 

Georgia $28,92.() I :$4TiJ! $8n 1 - -:$3'l11 1 

Hawaii $5,998 -$68 -$70 $5 $41:$136--- -$79 -- ----1"25=$142 

Idaho $4,140 -$78 $95 $27 $83 $0 $5 $11 $142 

-illinois ----- $64,997 -$538 $1,450 $16 $506 $0 $74 $331 $1,838 

Indiana $22,819 -$266 $424 $71 $294 $0 -$192 $365 $696 

low-a------ 511,395 -$198 $267 $32 $133 $0 $12 $43. $287 

Kansas $31 1 $120 1 $01 -$89 1 $67 1 $207 1 Kentucky $66 $292 $0 -$83 $199 $604 

Louisiana $21,861 i -$182 I $352 I $93 I $380 I $0 I $31 $783 I $1,457 I 

Maine 58,549 I -$61 1 $86 I $1 1 $40 I -$1371 $id I $222 I $161 I 

Maryland $32,246 1 -$244 1 $573 I $12 1 $2.27 I $01 :$466 I $11d I $213 I 

Massachusetts 560,6151 -$682 I $35 I $j 1 $17 I -$941 I -$499 I $0 I :$2,068 I 

Michigan $39,6251 -$4661 $1,0151 $69! $5111 --sol :$5371- $466 I 51,172 I 

$31,481 1 :$244 1 $481 1- ---1"25 1 $1601-- I 

Mississippi $10,555 -$109 $207 $72 $290 $0 $11 I $168 $638 

Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire $6,681 I -$70 I $77 I $8 I $44 $0 I $5 I $3f21---$377 I 

523136 

71722.141

Figure 6: Changes in State Medicaid and CHIP Spending for Major Provisions of the ACA: 2014-2019 (millions) ,I (continue

State Illustrative MedicaidlCHIP Take Currently Newly Newly Increased Changes in Reduction Net 

Spending Private Eligible Eligible Eligible Match For Drug in Federal Change in 

Without Coverage Newly Parents el Childless Expansion Rebates hi DSH Spending 

Health ,I Enrolled dI Adults •. f! States" Under ACA 

Reform bl Payments If 

New Jersey $54,389 -$283 $844 $8 $231 $0 -$402 $877 $1,275 New Mexico $10,031 -$87 $226 $14 $105 $0 -$222 $9 $45 New York $210,298 -$1,265 $1,383 $0 $64 -$13,420 $236 $1,777 -$11,226 North Carolina $39,336 -$464 $730 $136 $555 $0 $50 $374 $1,382 North Dakota $2,203 -$23 $36 $5 $26 $0 $2 $9 $55 

Ohio $52,150 -$478 $1,299 $49 $721 $0 -$702 $711 $1,599 Oklahoma $14,083 -$242 $278 $62 $201 $0 $16 $23 $338 Oregon $13,218 -$188 $490 $31 $224 $0 -$180 $26 $403 

Pennsylvania $79,558 -$911 $1,013 $95 $537 $0 -$1,433 $1,162 $464 Rhode Island $9,943 -$54 $103 $0 $31 $0 -$84 $117 1---5113 

South Carolina $14,169 -$159 $427 $36 $316 $0 -$36 $413 $995 South Dakota $2,718 -$36 $47 $10 $35 $0 $3 $10 $68 

Tennessee $26,475 -$218 $628 $43 $341 $0 $32 $143 $969 Texas $100,649 -$1,628 $3,313 $406 $1,049 $0 $112 $770 $4,022 

Utah $4,854 -$110 $159 $33 $105 $0 $6 $15 $209 

Vermont $4,236 -$72 $11 $0 $0 -$170 $6 $41 -$184 

Virginia $30,183 -$333 $561 $77 $328 $0 -$301 $129 $461 

Washington $33,121 -$437 $797 $26 $255 $0 -$275 $313 $679 West Virginia $6,404 -$80 $128 $38 $167 $0 $12 $94 $360 Wisconsin $21,572 -$217 $408 $6 $174 $0 -$191 $107 $286 Wyoming $2,708 -$31 $49 $7 $33 $0 $3 $0 $61 

--_ Total US ___ . •.. _._. __ .... - - -$17,01.L .. $31,166 $2,470 $13,113 -$18,081 . -$1l,3!2 $14,100 $17,395 

al These estimates reflect the phase·in of provisions under the law and reflect lags in enrollment that are expected in the early years 

program. Costs are based upon reported spending amounts in the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS) data for people with simi

characteristics, which reflect the unique demographic characteristics of the newly eligible populations. The MEPS data are adjusted t

simulation year based upon CBO projections of expenditure growth for adults. Estimates include the CHIP program. 

bl Based upon state-level spending in 2008 projected to 2019 using CBO assumptions on enrollment and expenditure growth through 2

cl Includes currently enrolled working families who take coverage through an employer who decides to start offering coverage as a re

the incentives created under the ACA. These include employers who start to offer coverage due to the small employer tax credit, the 

for not offering coverage, or 1n response to changes in premiums due to rating reforms. 

523136 

71722.142

dl Includes currently eligible but not enrolled children who automatically become covered as a newly eligible parent becomes cover

the expanded Medicaid program. Also includes increased enrollment among currently eligible but not enrolled people in response to 

penalty for remaining uninsured. (This applies only to adults with incomes over the tax filing thresholds that are subject to penalties

el Based upon an HBSM simulation of expanding eligibility for Medicaid in each state. We simulated the decision for newly eligible p

enroll in the program based upon a multivariate model of enrollment in the existing program which reflects differences in enrollmen

income, employment status and demographic characteristics. The simulation results in average enrollment of about 75 percent for n

eligible uninsured people and 39 percent for newly eligible people who have access to employer health insurance. 

f 1 Indudes adults who do not otherwise qualify as aged, disabled, or a parent with custodial responsibilities for children. 

gl The law would gradually increase the federal matching percentage to 90 percent by 2020 for non· custodial adults already covered 

Medicaid 1115 Waiver. These states include Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, New York, and Vermont. 

hI The Act increases the rebates received by Medicaid from prescription drug companies, including increases in rebate amounts and 

Medicaid beneficiaries covered by states under private health plans. Recently released guidance from the Department of Health and 

Services (DHHS) indicate that many states will share in these increased rebates. 

il The ACA would reduce federal Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments by $14.1 billion over the 2014 through 2019 perare supplemental payments to hospitals serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid beneficiaries and lor uninsured people). The AC

the Secretary of DHHS to develop rules for allocating the cuts to states in proportion to the number of uninsured in the state, which 

for states designated as "low" DSH states. The reduction does not apply to DSH funds used to fund an expansion under an 1115 Waiv

illustrated the potential impact of this provision using a formula that is generally consistent with what is required in the legislation. 

jl Estimates are relative to the Arizona 2010 baseline spending projection, which predates the state's discontinuation of CHIP and th

proposition 204 Section 1115 eligibility expansion. 

Source: Lewin Group Estimates using the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM). 

523136 
215 


71722.143

Our estimate of the effect of health reform in Arizona is complicated by the fact that just prior to 

the ACA, Arizona eliminated its CHIP program beginning June 15, 2010, and its adult coverage 

expansion (proposition 204) beginning January 1, 2011. Under the maintenance of effort (MOE) 

provisions of the ACA, the state must maintain its current Medicaid and CHIP programs as of 

March 23,2010. This means that the state must reinstate these programs to continue to qualify 

for federal Medicaid funding. Arguably, the net cost of the ACA for Arizona should include the 

cost of reinstating this coverage due to the ACA MOE provisions. This would more than offset 

the savings we present in Figure 6 for Arizona, resulting in a substantial net increase in 

estimated spending.' 

3. Prescription Drug Rebates 

States will save $8.3 billion over the 2014 through 2019 period from increased prescription drug 

rebates under the Act. Under current law, drug manufacturers are required to pay rebates to 

Medicaid for drugs provided under the fee-far-service Medicaid program. In addition, many 

states negotiate "supplemental" rebates with drug manufacturers. 

The ACA requires manufacturers to begin paying rebates on drugs provided through Medicaid 

managed care organizations (MCOs).' For brand name drugs, the minimum rebate is increased 

from 15.1 percent of average manufacturer price (AMP) to 23.1 percent of AMP. Rebates for 

generic drugs are increased from 11.0 percent of AMP to 13.0 percent of AMP. It also changes 

how the additional inflationary rebate on line extensions of a brand name drug is calculated. 

In addition, the Act requires that the amounts" attributable" to these increased rebates be 

passed on (offset) to the Federal government. In a recent letter to State Medicaid Directors 

(SMDL#1O-019), issued September 28, 2010, CMS provided guidance that this offset would 

apply only to rebate dollars that are collected above and beyond what would have been 

received under the previous rebate formulas. 

Methods: Modeling the Prescription Drug Rebate Provisions of the ACA 

To estimate the impact of the drug rebate provisions in ACA, we estimated state-level 

pharmacy expenditures under fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicaid managed care using 

Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) data_ For Medicaid FFS expenditures, 

we estimated a net increase in pharmacy costs of approximately 1.5 percent due to a 

decrease in supplemental rebates. For Medicaid MCa expenditures, we estimated 

savings of approximately 30 percent as MCa utilization will now have access to the 

large Federally-mandated rebates. These impacts will be shared by the states and the 

Federal government. In addition, we estimated that the Federal government will save 

an additional 4 percent due to increased rebate levels mandated by the ACA. 

8 The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) of the Arizona state legislature estimated that if the 

cost of reinstating these programs is included, the coverage provisions of the Act will actually increase 

by $6.7 billion over the 2011 through 2019 period. See: " Analysis of the Cost of Federal Health Care 

Legislation," jLBC report, March 30, 2010. 

9 This will only affect plans where prescription drugs are included in the MCa capitation. Medicaid 

already receives rebates for prescription drugs provided as a "carve out" from the Mca plan. 

u.~oup· 

523136 

16 
216 


71722.144

We estimate that about half of all states will see net savings as a result of these changes in drug 

rebate policy. Savings will be particularly large for states that currently have a large portion of 

their covered population enrolled in MCOs with the drug expense included in the capitation 

amount (i.e., state where a pharmacy "carve in" model is used), where the drug manufacturers 

must start to pay a rebate. These include Arizona, California, and Pennsylvania. 

However, in response to these increases in required rebates, drug manufacturers are expected to 

be less willing to provide supplemental rebates to states. Consequently, we estimate that when 

these reductions in supplemental rebates are included, about half of the states will experience a 

net reduction in rebates. 

4. Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments (DSH) 

The ACA will reduce payments to states under the Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) 

program. Under the DSH program, the federal government makes payments to states that are 

intended to provide additional funds for hospitals treating a disproportionate share of the 

Medicaid and uninsured populations. However, several states have used some or all of these 

funds to pay for an expansion in eligibility and coverage under a Medicaid 1115 Waiver 

program. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that payments will be $8.1 billion in 

2010 (excluding amounts added under the economic recovery legislation), rising to $10.5 billion 

by 2019.10 

The Act specifies that total federal DSH payments will be reduced by $14.1 billion over the 2014 

through 2019 period, reflecting the expected reduction in the number of uninsured under the 

ACA. Reductions will be as foIlows: 

$0.5 billion in 2014 

$0.6 billion in 2015 

$0.6 billion in 2016 

$1.8 billion in 2017 

$5.0 billion in 2018 

$5.6 billion in 2019 

$4.0 billion in 2020 

The Act does not specify the amount of the reductions by state, but directs the Secretary to 

develop a methodology subject to several guidelines specified in the legislation. The 

methodology must: 

Impose the largest percentage reductions on states with the largest projected percentage 

reductions of uninsured or those that do not target funds to hospitals with high volumes 

of Medicaid recipients or uncompensated care; 

10 "Spending and Enrollment Data for CBO's March 2010 Baseline: Medicaid", CongreSSional Budget 

Office, http:j /www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11521/CHIP.pdf 

n.~OUP· 

523136 

17 
217 


71722.145

Take into account the extent to which the DSH allotment is included in the budget 

neutrality calculation for an expansion in coverage under an 1115 Waiver; and 

Impose a smaller percentage reduction on the 16 states designated as "Iow-DSH" states. 

For illustrative purposes, we estimated the amount of the DSH reduction for each state using an 

algorithm that meets the general requirements specified in the legislation. We assumed the DSH 

reductions would not apply to the portion of DSH used to fund 1115 Waiver expansions. We 

assumed that the percentage reduction in DSH is in proportion to the percentage of the 

population without insurance. We also assumed that the DSH reductions are reduced by 50 

percent for low-DSH states and that the amounts are then adjusted to the amount of the DSH 

reduction required under the Act. These estimates should be treated as illustrative only because 

the algorithm developed by the Secretary is likely to differ from our assumed specifications. 

We present our illustrative estimates of these DSH reductions by state in Figure 6 above. DSH 

payments would be reduced by about $1.2 billion in California, $1.8 billion in New York, and 

$1.2 billion in Pennsylvania. However, six states would see a reduction in DSH of less than 

$10.0 million over the 2014 through 2019 period, primarily because they currently receive little 

DSH funding. 

5. Increased Match for Childless Adults in Expansion States 

As discussed above, the federal matching percentage is increased for states that already cover 

all adults to at least 100 percent of the FPL under an 1115 Waiver. These are called "expansion 

states" and include: Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maine, New York, and 

Vermont. The Act would gradually increase the federal matching percentage for non-custodial 

adults from the current state matching percentage (typically 50 percent) to 90 percent between 

2014 and 2019. Thus, by 2020, the federal matching percentage will be 90 percent for all noncustodial adults in all states, including those now covering some portion of this group. 

Although consistently defined data for these populations are difficult to obtain, we developed 

estimates of the amount of spending attributed to these groups from published studies of 

coverage for childless adults. We estimate that this provision will reduce state spending for 

Medicaid by $18.1 billion over the 2014 through 2019 period (Figure 6 above). State savings from 

this provision will be $13.4 billion in New York, $3.0 billion in Arizona, and $941 million in 

Massachusetts.11 

11 The Joint Legislative Budget Committee GLBC) of the Arizona state legislature has estimated that the 

change in FMAP for childless adults will reduce state spending by $3.6 billion over this same period, 

compared with our estimate of $3.0 billion. Sec: Analysis of the Cost of Federal Health Care 

Legislation," JLBC report, March 30, 2010. 

18 

523136 
218 


71722.146

Methods: Estimating Impact of Increased Federal Match for Childless Adults 

Our estimates of the impact of increasing the federal matching rate for childless adults in based upon 

enrollment data and spending figures from several sources. Because enrollment and cost data generally 

are not reported separately for non-custodial adults, we relied on prior studies of the impact of covering 

childless adults under Medicaid. For this reason, the actual figures may differ from those presented here. 

State Childless Adults Average Cost in Total Cost (millions) 2010 Arizona a,bf 212,941 $7,361 $1,560 

Delaware c,dl 21,307 $5,240 $111 

HawaH d,el 11,550 $4,792 $54 

Massachusetts d.f! 68,200 $4,750 $324 Maine b,c/ 13,594 $4,872 $66 New York a,b,gl 782,638 $5,904 $4,621 

Vermont hi 18,142 $4,016 $73 

a/ "Expanding Medicaid to Low-income Childless Adults under Health Reform: Key Lessons from State Experiences," 

Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, July 2010. 

bl "(overing Low-income Childless Adults in Medicaid: Experiences from Selected States," Center for Health Care 

Strategies, Inc. August 2010. 

c/ "Medicaid Enrollment in 50 States," The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, September 2009. 

d/ Per-capita costs for adults adjusted to 2010, Kaiser Commission, State Health Facts. 

e/ Lewin Group estimate using the Current Population Survey data for data Hawaii in 2008-2010. 

fl MassHealth Essential Program, Governors Budget FY2011, 

http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy11h1/brec_11/act_11/ho40001405.htm; and 

http://www . m assmedicaid .org/-I medial MMPII Files/2009 _04_30%20masshealth%20en rollment%20by%20plan%20type 

.pdf 

gl "Enrolling Childless Adults in Medicaid: Lessons from the New York Experience and opportunities in Health Reform," 

Medicaid Institute at United Hospital Fund, October 2010. 

hI Overview of Health Care Programs, "Medicaid Budget Document, state fiscal year 2010", Office of Vermont Health 

Access. Lewin Group allocation of enrollees to childless adults category using CPS data for Vermont. 

D. Net Impact of Reform on State Spending 

As discussed above, state Medicaid spending will increase by $17.4 billion over the 2014 

through 2019 period under the ACA, which is an average increase of about 1.1 percent over that 

period. However, the impact of heal th reform on Medicaid and CHIP spending varies from an 

increase of 7.8 percent in Alabama, which has the nation's second lowest eligibility level for 

parents (24 percent of FPL), to actual savings of 10.7 percent in Arizona (Figure 7). 

In general, states that have covered parents and childless adults to higher income levels (e.g., 

100 percent of the FPL) tend to do better than states that currently have only very limited 

eligibility for non-aged adults. Also, states with large Medicaid managed care programs will 

tend to see substantial increases in rebates under the managed care drug rebate provisions of 

the Act, such as Arizona, California, and Pennsylvania. 

Medicaid spending would actually be reduced under the Act in six states including Arizona, 

Delaware, Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, and Vermont. All six of these states already cover 

a substantial portion of adults below 133 percent of the FPL. In particular, Arizona's program 

(under MOE coverage levels) covers both parents and adults to 200 percent of the FPL and, 

therefore, benefits from the increased matching rate for this group under the Act. Arizona also 

n.~oup· 19 

523136 
219 


71722.147

sees substantial savings from the managed care rebates because most of the Arizona Medicaid 

population is covered under managed care. 

The Act includes another provision that could result in savings to states. Under the Act, states 

with eligibility levels above 133 percent of the FPL for parents and! or childless adults are 

permitted to reduce their income eligibility levels to the minimum level of 133 percent of the 

FPL. This could affect 417,600 people in twelve states (Figure 7). State spending for Medicaid 

would be red uced by $3.8 billion over the 2014 through 2019 period if all states exercised this 

option. 

A summary of the changes in Medicaid spending for states and the federal government by state 

is presented in Attachment A. 

E. Understanding Reform at the State Level 

The estimates presented here are dependent upon key assumptions concerning the strength of 

the economy and the ways in which employers, consumers, insurers, and providers respond to 

elements of the Act. We relied upon economic projections developed by the Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO) at the national level. These assumptions predict a decline in Medicaid 

enrollment after 2010 with enrollment growth returning to historical growth rates after 2014. 

We also used CBO assumptions on per-capita benefits cost growth of about 3 percent. However, 

the recession and the recovery are likely to differ across states with different cost implications 

for state governments. 

Our estimates are also sensitive to assumptions about how the program will be implemented 

and the ways in which employers, health plans, and consumers respond to the Act. In general, 

we rely upon economic studies of historical enrollment for eligible people and we assume little 

net change in the number of people with employer coverage. All of these assumptions are 

somewhat speculative and may differ from actual behavior.I2 lt will be important to show the 

range of impacts the Act will have under alternative assumptions. These include: 

Participation rate for newly eligible people; 

Take-up among currently eligible but not enrolled; 

Enrollment and spending under alternative assumptions on the number of employers 

offering! discontinuing coverage; 

The impact of alternative economic assumptions; and 

The rules ultimately adopted for setting the reductions in DSH funding by state. 

12 For a discussion of methods used to model the Act see: "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA): 

Long Term Costs for Governments, Employers, Families and Providers," The Lewin Group, June 8, 2010; 

http://www.lewin.com/content/ publications/ LewinGroupAnalysisPatientProtecnonandAfforda blcCareAct201 O. pdf 

17<~oup' 

523136 

20 
220 


71722.148

Figure 7: Potential Savings From State Option to Discontinue Medicaid Coverage for Adults over 133 

Percent of the Federal Poverty Level: 2014-2019 ,I 

Required Changes in Currently State Savings Net Change in 

Spending for States Covered From Spending 

Under the ACA: 2014- Adults over Eliminating Assuming 

2019 bl 

133% of Coverage for Coverage for 

Percent FPL in 2014 Adults over this Group is 

Amount Change in (thousands) 133% of FPL: Eliminated: 

(millions) State oJ 2014-2019 2014-2019 

Spending (millions) dl (millions) 

Alabama $1,104 7.8% 0.0 $0 $1,104 

Alaska $73 1.6% 0.0 $0 $73 

Arizona -$2,974 -10.7% 0.0 $0 -$2,974 

Arkansas $379 3.7% 0.0 $0 $379 

California $4,839 2.2% 0.0 $0 $4,839 

Colorado $719 4.0% 0.0 $0 $719 

Connecticut $707 2.9% -20.8 -$211 $497 

Delaware -$276 -4.7% 0.0 $0 -$276 

District of Columbia $126 2.7% -4.7 -$37 $89 

Florida $1,900 2.6% 0.0 $0 $1,900 

Georgia $963 3.3% 0.0 $0 $963 

Hawaii -$142 -2.4% 0.0 $0 -$142 

Idaho $142 3.4% 0.0 $0 $142 

Illinois $1,838 2.8% -73.3 -$684 $1,154 

Indiana $696 3.1% -7.0 -$74 $622 

Iowa $287 2.5% -0.4 -$6 $281 

Kansas $207 2.1% 0.0 $0 $207 

Kentucky $604 4.0% 0.0 $0 $604 

Louisiana $1,457 6.7% 0.0 $0 $1,457 

Maine $161 1.9% -12.8 ·$125 $36 

Maryland $223 0.7% 0.0 $0 $223 

Massachusetts -$2,068 -3.4% 0.0 $0 -$2,068 

Michigan $1,172 3.0% 0.0 $0 $1,172 

Minnesota $140 0.4% -37.6 -$373 -$233 

Mississippi $638 6.0% 0.0 $0 $638 

Missouri $1,133 4.2% 0.0 $0 $1,133 

Montana $101 3.6% 0.0 $0 $101 

Nebraska $189 2.7% 0.0 $0 $189 

Nevada $306 4.2% 0.0 $0 $306 

New Hampshire $377 5.6% 0.0 $0 $377 

New Jersey $1,275 2.3% -46.4 -$403 $872 

New Mexico $45 0.4% 0.0 $0 $45 

New York -$11,226 -5.3% -167.1 -$1,384 -$12,610 

North Carolina $1,382 3.5% 0.0 $0 $1,382 

North Dakota $55 2.5% 0.0 $0 $55 

Ohio $1,599 3.1% 0.0 $0 $1,599 

Oklahoma $338 2.4% 0.0 $0 $338 

Oregon $403 3.1% 0.0 $0 $403 

Pennsylvania $464 0.6% 0.0 $0 $464 

21 

523136 
221 


71722.149

Figure 7: Potential Savings From State Option to Discontinue Medicaid Coverage for Adults over 133 

Percent of the Federal Poverty Level: 2014-2019 ,I (continued) 

Required Changes in Currently State Savings Net Change in 

Spending for States Under Covered From Spending 

the ACA: 2014-2019 bI Adults over Eliminating Assuming 

133% of Coverage for Coverage for 

Percent FPL in 2014 Adults over this Group is 

Amount Change in (thousands) 133% of FPL: Eliminated: 

(millions) State " 2014-2019 2014-2019 

Spending (millions) dl (millions) 

Rhode Island $113 1.1% -8.9 -$94 $19 

South Carolina $995 7.0% 0.0 $0 $995 

South Dakota $68 2.5% 0.0 $0 $68 

Tennessee $969 3.7% 0.0 $0 $969 

Texas $4,022 4.0% 0.0 $0 $4,022 

Utah $209 4.3% 0.0 $0 $209 

Vermont -$184 -4_3% -5.3 -$79 -$263 

Virginia $461 1.5% 0.0 $0 $461 

Washington $679 2.0% 0.0 $0 $679 

West Virginia $360 5.6% 0_0 $0 $360 

Wisconsin $286 1.3% -33.2 -$307 -$21 

Wyoming $61 2.2% 0_0 $0 $61 

Total $17,395 1.1% -417.6 -$3,777 $13,618 

al Beginning in 2014, states that cover adults above 133 percent of the FPL have the option of 

discontinuing this coverage, leaving these individuals eligible for coverage in the exchange, where 

premium subsidies are available. 

bl Lewin Group estimates using the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM). 

cl Estimated from the CPS survey data on incomes for people reporting Medicaid coverage by state. 

Estimates are based upon a month-by-month simulation of eligibility using the state's income eligibility 

rules, which enables us to identify beneficiaries with incomes between 133 percent of the FPL and the 

state's upper income eligibility level. 

dl Estimated savings are based upon MEPS data on spending for people with similar characteristics. 

Source: Lewin Group estimates using the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM)_ 

This analysis covers only the Medicaid impacts of health reform and does not provide state 

level analyses of other elements of the Act that will have significant impacts on State and Local 

government costs under the bill. These effects on state government and the state health care 

system include: 

As employers, state and local governments that do not cover all of their full-time 

employees are required to pay a significant new penalty; 

Changes in employer coverage and spending will affect state tax revenues, in addition to 

direct effects on the health system; 

Uncompensated care could be reduced by up to two-thirds as 30 million or more people 

become insured nationwide; 

Public hospitals and clinics would see increased revenues from newly insured patients 

that will now be covered by Medicaid or privately insured patients; 

523136 

22 
222 


71722.150

Payer mix will change significantly for all types of providers now serving the uninsured; 

and 

Expected increases in health services utilization for newly insured people raise questions 

about the adequacy of physician supply in many areas. 

The Lewin Group data and models of the heath care system provide a platform for simulating 

these effects at both the state and county levels. In particular, the models can be used to 

estimate the effects of reform under various assumptions and alternative economic scenarios 

that are specific to individual state health systems and economies. 

In addition to these services, we can evaluate options for reducing the cost of state Mecticaid 

and CHIP programs within the maintenance of effort requirements of the Act. For example, 

states have the option of using alternative "benchmark" benefits packages rather than the 

Medicaid benefit. Also, states that now have adult income eligibility levels above 133 percent of 

the FPL have the option of reducing eligibility to 133 percent of the FPL. We have also assisted 

several states in identifying ways of minimizing costs and maximizing federal matching funds. 

23 

523136 

71722.151

Attachment A: Changes in Spending For Medicaid and CHIP under the ACA tor States and the federal Government (millions) -

Changes in State Spending under ACA Changes in Federal Spending under ACA Total Spending under A

Without Change in Total Without Change in Spending Without Change in 

Health Spending Health under the Health 

Reform Spending under ACA Reform Spending ACA Reform Spending u

Alabama $14,245 $1,104 $15,349 $30,573 $10,191 $40,764 $44,818 $11,295 Alaska $4,726 $73 $4,799 $5,044 $1,036 $6,080 $9,770 $1,110 Arizona $27,901 -$2,974 $24,928 $53,873 $2,850 $56,723 $81,774 -$124 Arkansas $10,137 $379 $10,517 $27,347 $7,592 $34,938 $37,484 $7,971 

California $222,772 $4,839 $227,611 $226,648 $38,974 $265,622 $449,420 $43,813 Colorado $17,855 $719 $18,574 $18,105 $6,145 $24,251 $35,960 $6,864 Connecticut $23,991 $707 $24,698 $24,056 $2,602 $26,658 $48,046 $3,309 

Delaware $5,867 -$276 $5,591 $5,950 $420 $6,370 $11,817 $144 District of Columbia $4,595 $126 $4,721 $10,748 $493 $11,241 $15,343 $619 

Florida $72,587 $1,900 $74,487 $89,434 $30,611 $120,045 $162,022 $32,510 

Georgia $28,920 $963 $29,884 $54,552 $15,884 $70,437 $83,473 $16,848 

Hawaii $5,998 -$142 $5,856 $7,153 $1,134 $8,287 $13,150 $992 

Idaho $4,140 $142 $4,282 $9,475 $2,820 $12,295 $13,615 $2,962 Illinois $64,997 $1,838 $66,835 $66,332 $13,768 $80,099 $131,329 $15,605 Indiana $22,819 $696 $23,515 $44,441 $8,834 $53,275 $67,260 $9,531 Iowa $11,395 $287 $11,682 $19,973 $4,269 $24,242 $31,368 $4,556 

Kansas $9,950 $207 $10,157 $15,285 $3,733 $19,018 $25,234 $3,940 

Kentucky $15,242 $604 $15,846 $37,480 $8,951 $46,431 $52,723 $9,555 Louisiana $21,861 $1,457 $23,317 $45,908 $11,601 $57,510 $67,769 $13,058 

Maine $8,549 $161 $8,710 $15,951 $964 $16,915 $24,499 $1,125 

Maryland $32,246 $223 $32,469 $32,720 $5,717 $38,437 $64,966 $5,940 Massachusetts $60,615 -$2,068 $58,547 $61,405 -$44 $61,361 $122,021 -$2,112 Michigan $39,625 $1,172 $40,797 $68,584 $15,850 $84,434 $108,209 $17,022 

Minnesota $37,481 $140 $37,621 $37,698 $4,374 $42,072 $75,179 $4,514 Mississippi $10,555 $638 $11,194 $33,136 $9,410 $42,546 $43,691 $10,048 Missouri $27,012 $1,133 $28,145 $49,296 $10,969 $60,264 $76,308 $12,102 Montana $2,857 $101 $2,958 $5,972 $2,067 $8,039 $8,828 $2,169 

Nebraska $6,950 $189 $7,139 $10,759 $2,687 $13,446 $17,710 $2,876 Nevada $7,289 $306 $7,595 $7,426 $3,515 $10,941 $14,715 $3,820 New Hampshire $6,681 $377 $7,058 $6,708 $1,014 $7,722 $13,389 $1,391 New Jersey $54,389 $1,275 $55,664 .. $55)369 $5,146 $60,515 $109,758 $6,421 

523136 

71722.152

Attachment A: Changes in Spending For Medicaid and CHIP under the ACA for States and the Federal Government (millions) ,I (con

Changes in State Spending under ACA Changes in Federal Spending under ACA Total Spending under A

Without Change in Total Without Change in Spending Without Change in 

Health Spending Health under the Health S

Reform Spending under ACA Reform Spending ACA Reform Spending u

New Mexico $10,031 $45 $10,075 $25,243 $2,747 $27,989 $35,273 $2,792 New York $210,298 -$11,226 $199,072 $211,289 $12,396 $223,685 $421,587 $1,171 

North Carolina $39,336 $1,382 $40,719 $74,100 $17,724 $91,824 $113,437 $19,106 

North Dakota $2,203 $55 $2,257 $3,782 $824 $4,606 $5,984 $879 

Ohio $52,150 $1,599 $53,749 $91,044 $18,988 $110,032 $143,194 $20,587 

Oklahoma $14,083 $338 $14,421 $25,773 $6,760 $32,533 $39,85",' $7,098 

Oregon Sf:i,218 $403 $13,621 $22,438 $6,667 $29,105 $35,656 $7,070 

Pennsylvania $79,558 $464 $80,022 $97,114 $13,027 $110,141 $176,673 $13,491 

Rhode Island $9,943 $113 $10,056 $11,225 $606 $11,831 $21,168 $719 

South c-aroTina $14,169 $995 $15,165 $33,713 $9,066 $42,779 $47,882 $10,062 

South Dakota $2,718 $68 $2,786 $4,612 $1,149 $5,761 $7,330 $1,217 

Tennessee $26,475 $969 $27,444 $50,630 $10,379 $61,008 $77,105 $11,347 

Texas $100,649 $4,022 $104,671 $145,328 $38,691 $184,018 $245,977 $42,712 

Utah $4,854 $209 $5,062 $12,404 $3,651 $16,055 $17,258 $3,860 

Vermont $4,236 -$184 $4,052 $6,040 $27 $6,067 $10,276 -$157 

Virginia $30,183 $461 $30,644 $30,581 $10,132 $40,713 $60,765 $10,593 

Washington $33,121 $679 $33,800 $33,365 $6,788 $40,153 $66,485 $7,467 

West Virginia $6,404 $360 $6,765 $18,348 $5,262 $23,610 $24,753 $5,623 

--

Wisconsin $21,572 $286 $21,858 $32,854 $4,380 $37,233 $54,426 $4,665 

Wyoming $2,708 $61 $2,769 $2,734 $1,049 $3,784 $5,442 $1,110 

Total US 1 $17,3951 $1,579,555 1 $2,110,015 1 $403,891 1 $2,513,906 1 $3,672,175 1 $421,286} $4

af Includes changes in spending due to expansions in eligibility, member movement due to new employer coverage, changes in drug reb

increased federal matching percentage for expansion states, and changes In federal Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments. 

Source: Lewin Group estimates using the Health Benefits Simulation Model (HBSM). 

523136 
225 


71722.153

David Cutler ~ 

Nceraj Sood 
226 


71722.154

David Cutler 

Neeraj Sood 

January 2010 

J 

Leonard Do Schaeffer 

Health 

r 
227 


71722.155

Introduction and summary 

O[1C in ten Americans remains out of work today as the two-year-long Great Recession 

gives way at last to a slow economic recovery. Dealing with persistent unemployment is 

one of the top priorities of President Barack Obama and the leaders of Congress. One 

important way to create jobs IS to slow the growth of medical spending. lfhealth carl' cost 

increases slow down, then bUSinesses will find it more profitable to expand employment, 

and workers will more readily move into those new jobs. 

This paper will demonstrate the potential impact of health care reform on employment 

growth in the new decade, examining two recent studies and then combing their estimates of potential employment growth. The first study, by health economists Neeraj 

Sood at the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics and School of 

Pharmacy at the University of Southern California, and Arkadipta Ghosh and Jose Escarce 

at Mathematic,) and University of California Los Angeles, shows the significant negative impact of rismg health care costs on employment as onns struggle with health costs 

that they cannot pass along fully to workers or consumers,' 'Ihe second study, by health 

economists David Cutler of Harvard University and Karen Davis and KiistofStremikis of 

the Commonwealth Fund, estimates that health care reform WIll slow the growth ofhealth 

care costs and health insurance premiums.] 

In the analysis that follows, we combine these two studies to show that health care reform 

could increase the number ofjohs in the United States by about 250,000 to 400,000 per 

year over the coming decade. 

1 Ccnterforf\merieJn Progrl'" , fiw)ch,}{'ffNCC'ntr(! 
228 


71722.156

The impact of health care costs 

on employment 

Rising health care costs alTect employment in two basic ways. On the employerside, 

employer-paid health premiums are a cost of business, just as wages and salaries are. 

Reducing the growth of health insurance premiums would therefore enable employers 

to hire more workers, accordmgto economic theory, holdmgwages and other benefits 

constant. On the worker side, most workers .lre willing to give up wage and salary payments 

III order to receive employer-paid health insurance. When health insurance premiums rise, 

therefore, workers who value health insurance as part of the job are often willing to accept 

lower wages In exchange for the higher benefits.' Conversely, when costs fall, a large part of 

the impact will be on higher wage and salary payments. A major effect of health care reform 

that lowers employer premium growth wi!! therefore be to raise middle-class wages. 

But the wage offset is not donar-for-dollarfor all workers. Firms have little ability to reduce 

wages for workers at or ncar the minimum wage or for workers with fixed employment contracts. Rising health Insurance premiums will thus lead to more job losses among these types 

of workers while falling premiums wi!! increase employment. Simi1.trly, not all workers value 

employer-provided heJ.lth msurance at Its cost~either because their overall income is low or 

becatlsethey have health insm.mce from another source (perhaps a spouse). For these workers, the lower wages that rising health insurance premiums necessitate induce them to leave 

the labor force or move into parHlme jobs (wIth no he"lth benefits). Reducing the growth 

of health insurance premiums would allow employers with full-time positions to pay higher 

wages and allow such workers to return to jobs they would prefer. 

A recent stuJy, "Employer-Sponsored Insurance, Health Care Cost Growth, and the 

EconomIC Performance of U.S. Industries," by University of Southern CaHfornia economist Neera) Sood and his col!eagues Arkadipta Ghosh and Jose Escarce, estimates how 

the growth of health care costs that exceed the growth m gross domestIC Frocluct~caned 

"excess cmt growth" in economic parLJ.nce~alTects three important economic outcomes 

in U.S. industries: 

• Employment. 

• Gross output (the total value of sales in the industry). 

• Value added to gross domestic product (sales net offaetor inputs). 

They analyze these relations using data from 38 industries over the 19-year 

period-· 1987·2005. 

2 ("liter for Amf'ricdn Progre~~ • The Schaeffer Center I ' 
229 


71722.157

The study posited that the effect of excess cost growth on economic outcomes depends 

on the percentage of workers with employer-provided insurance. 'I he growth in health 

insurance premlUms should have a greater effect on employment in industries that have 

a larger percentage of workers with employer-provided insurance because the increase in 

Idbor costs is greater in those industries. The study looked at this by relating employment 

in the industry to the share of workers with employer-provided insurance and that share 

mteracted with medical spending as a percentage of GDP. To control for other factors 

influencing employment, the study controlled for unionization, labor productiVity, ,1Ild 

sector-specific trends in employment. 

The study by Sood and his colleagues demonstrated a dear negative relation between the 

share of workers with employer-provided health insurance and industry growth in the 

United States. Over the penod 1987 to 2005, for C'xample, the workforce in the amuse· 

ment and recreation industry·-where about 29 percent of workers have insurance through 

their jobs--b'Tew by about 2.1 percent. In contrast, in the hotel industry~where 54 percent of workers have employer-provided insurance~the workforce grew about 1 percent. 

And in the paper industry-where abollt 8S percent of workers have insurance-the 

workforce shrank by 1.9 percent. 

The results with the additional controls clearly show that excess growth m health insurance premillms has adverse effects on employment, output and value added to GDP, and 

that the effects are greater io industries where high percentages of workers have employerprovided msurance. The study by Sood and his colleagues finds that every 10 percent 

reduction in excess health care cost growth.-,t decre,lse i!1 cost growth from 2.2 percentage points above GDP to 1.98 percentage points-leads to about 120,000 more jobs. 

To further rule out the possibility that these economic effects rctlected some industrywide (,Ictor rather than the tnlt' effect of rising health insurance costs, the study compared 

u.s. industries with their Canadian counterparts. Since CanacLt has publicly-financed 

universal health care, employment growth trends in its industries arc oot influenced by 

health insurance costs. Conversely, industry-level changes such as prodllct innovation or 

fabor outsourcing would alfect Canadian and US. employers in the same wa}'-

In contrast to the results in the United States, there is no significant relationship beh-vcen 

industries wlth more emplo),er·provided health insurance in the United States and employment changes in Canadian indu:;tries. clhe lack of a relationship confirms the evidence that 

health care cost and premium increases have an adverse effect on employment growth. 

When employment declines in one indllstry, some workers move out of the workforce 

entirely, while others take jobs In other industries where health insurance is less prevalent. The analysis in the first study combines both of these effects, but for the purposes of 

estimating overall job growth associated with health care reform we need to separate out 

3 CC'ntcr for Amenuln Progress· TIl(' SchCiefkr CentC'r I 
230 


71722.158

the t ...... o. Gre,lter entry of workers into the labor force as a whole would affect total employment, while movement of workers from one industry to another would not (though it 

would have other benefits). 

To estimate the labor force effect of changes in health care costs, we adjusted the estimates 

from the study done by Sood and his co-authors using results from displaced workers. 

lhe data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2002 Displaced Worker Supplement of 

the Current Population Survey show that dmong displaced workers who cannot find 

emplnyment in the same mJustry, about 26 percent leave the labor force and the remaining 74 percent obtain employment in other industries or arc unemployed but actively 

seeking work: We thus mUltiplied the employment response to health care pn~miums by 

26 percent to obtain the Jabor force impact of rising health CMe premiums. The results of 

this analysis will be combined with the re.'>ults of the second study examined in the next 

section to calculate the potential effects of health care reform on employment. 

4 (enter for AmeTiCdn PfO(W'SS • Thp Scilaeffrr Centrr I 
231 


71722.159

The impact of health care reform 

on health insurance premiums 

National health cafC reform now being considered in Congress win help modernize American 

health care and wiIJ affect employer-provided health insurance premiums in sc\'cra! W.l)'S. To 

gauge the consequences, we employ the estimates from David Cutler of Harvard Umversity 

and Karen Davis and Kristof Stremikis of the Commonwealth Fund in the second study 

c~amined in this pJper, "Health System Impacts of Health Reform Proposals."' 

An initial impact of reform is savings associated with lower administrative expenses in 

insurance, especialty for sma!!- and medium-sized firms. Administrative costs range from 

5 percent for the largest firms to 30 percent or more for small firms. The higher costs 

for these businesses are associated with the marketing, underwriting, and brokers' fees 

charged by health insurance companies. Creatiog health insurance exchanges is forecast 

to lead to significant reductlOns in these aclmmistrative expenses. Selective marketing 

and individual underwriting wilt not be permitted in exchanges, and brokers' fees should 

decline WIth greater competition. Cutler and his co-authors estlmate that insurance 

exchanges should lower average employer-paid premiums by olbout 2 percent. 

'lhe second impact of reform is to change the Incentives in current payment systems, and 

thus encourage higher quality, ltlwer cost care. Estimates sh{)wthat large savings are possible in a number nf areas of medicine, among them: 

• Reducing the number ,md cost of high-cost illnesses through better coordination of care 

(for example, fewer people needing to be re-hospitalIzed after an initial hospitalization). 

• Lowering umt prices ofhea!th care services that are more expensive: in the United States 

than in otht'f developed countries (for example! op~fating rooms and scanners that are 

run at less than full capacIty). 

• Streamlining excessive administratlve costs that neither improve quality nor 

patient satisfaction. 

Aspects of the health reform legislation now before Congress that would promote more 

efficient care include bundling payments for different health care proViders to encourage practice of more coordinated care, i[lcreJ.sed use of pay-for-performance systems for 

providers rather than the pay-per-visit system used by most insurers, and greater funding 

5 (enter for American f1rogress • lh{' Schi1rffer Crnt{'r I 
232 


71722.160

to support health care transitions, such as between hospitals and outpatIent care, and for 

so-called medical homes, a primary care model that emphasizes coordinated care for the 

patient.1hese reforms would initially be implemented within the Medicare program, but 

dre expeded to extend to privately insured p,ltients as reforms t,l.ke hold, as has happened 

in the past." 

Cutler and his co-author estimate cost reductions from these initiatives of about 0.75 

percentage points annually a.fter d phase-in penod, or 6 percent by 2019. Other work suggests savings as hIgh as 1.S percentage points annually are feasible.~ 1hese cost reductions 

will enable employers who gain from these increased efficiencies to hire more workers and 

enable employees to seek higher wages as rising health care costs slow down. 

Other aspects of reform will affect premioms by influencing the generosity of benefits. 

Some small firms will pay more for insurance because the quality of the coverage they offer 

will Increase. Most firms, however, oEfer relatively generous benefits and thus would not 

be greatly affected. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that health care reform will 

increase premiums at small firms by zero to 3 percenLH 

nGURE 1 

The consequences of health care reform 

on premium growth 

1he reform legIslation also includes an excise tax on employer-sponsored health plans offenng more generous benefits, so-caUed «Cadillac" 

plans. CBO estimates that this excise tax will reduce premiums for small 

and large employers by 9 pern:ont to 12 perCe!lt. Overall, these changes 

in benefit generosity will reduce premiums for employers. In this 

report, however, we focus on the modernization aspects of the reform 

and do not include the employment effects of reform that ..,tem from 

ch,mgcs in benefit generosity. 

m-----------

Figure I ~hows the potential efTects of reform on premium growth. ,Ve 

assome that health care reforms do not affect premiumsunt112012 and 

that health insor,mce exchanges are created in 2013. In figure 1 we consider two alternatives: one where health system moderni1.ation redoces 

premiums by 0.75 percentage points annually, and, alternatively! oo.e 

where modernization reduces premiums by 1.S percent.lge points ,mnually. In the first scenario, premiums in 2019 .Ire lower by 8.4 percent. In 

the second scenario, premiums are lower by 123 pefcent. rfCongress 

fJ.ils to P,ISS health cafe reform and the status quo remains, premIUms 

would increase br71 percent-or ne<lrly$IO,OOO.--by the end of20l9. 

6 Ceoter for Amf'flCilO Pr()9rr~~ • The Sch<leff('f CC'nter I 

SlO~ 

$15 ==--- - $10------

$5------ MOle rapid chaoge 
233 


71722.161

Impact of health care reform 

on number of jobs 

The premium changes estimated by Cutler and his co~authors can be used to predict 

employment changes using the results in the first study by Soad and his colleagues. We 

focus on private sector wage and salary jobs !fl this analysis. We exclude public-sector 

jobs from the analysis as public employers' responsc to rising health cafe costs might 

differ from that of private employers. 

FlGUR.E2 Figure 2 shows the impact of slOWing premium 

growth on employment in 2016 in different industries. We estimate more than 200,000 new jobs ill 

manufacturing and nearly 900,000 jobs in services. 

The consequences of declining health insurance premiums 

Two additional aspects of refonn will affect employ~ 

ment. First, employment in the health care industry 

wi!! be affected by the amount spent on medicine, 

Reductions in administrative expenses will r",duce 

the need for cleric,l! workers, and better health carl' 

delivery conld shift workers from inpatient to more 

appropriate outpatient settings, We assume that the 

effe-ct ofhe,llth care spending on the need for health 

c,lre workers is proportional to totaJ dollars spent, 

that is, a 1 percent dedme in health care costs or 

premiums results in a I percent decline in employ~ 

ment il1 the health C.lre jndllstry.~ The total change 

in health spending and premiums we model is from 

the seconJ study by Cutler and his co-authors, They 

estimate that overall medical costs will decline by 

dbotlt 4 percent and premiums will decline by 8,4 

percent in 2019, 

In addition, some firms will be affected by the 

"pay-or-play" reqllirements for ,employers, These 

requirements mandate that firms with SO or more 

employees that do not offer insurance coverageand in the case of the Senate bill have people who 

7 (pnter for Amorican Progress. ThE' Sch;wffer ("entN I 

Industry 

Agrkulture,mining,andconslruct'JOn 

AgriClllt\Jlc, forestry, fishing, and hunting 

Mining 

(onstru(tloI1 

Manufacturing 

Trade 

WhoJesalelrade 

Retailtrad.,-'~~~~~_ 

Percent of workers with (h~ngein 

employer-sponsored employment, 

insurance' 20161 

20% 6,026 

10.738 

37% 76,339 

65% 202,109 

57% 87,750 

39% 1$4,557 

Transportation~ndcommunic=~ti=,",-~~~~~ __ ~~~_ 

TransportatfOn and warehousmg 55% 66,689 

UI,litic, 80% 10,219 

Services 

-~ .. --~~~~--

info'mation 63% 48,606 

finanoalactivities 66% 141,480 

Professional and bu~ine$s services 44% 231,262 

Educattonal,ervic€s 55,808 

Lelsuredndhospitailly 2.5% 89,638 

48% 304,.537 
234 


71722.162

receive a subsidy in the exchange--.. pdY tines rangmg from $750 to 

$3,000 per worker. \Ve estimate that these requirements wHl reduce the 

number of jobs by about 80,OOO.wYet most of this reduction in employment would be offset by an increase in spending associated with proViding coverage to the 30 plus million currently uninsured Americans who 

would become insured by the legislation. 

Figure 3 shows the forecast of total job creation under two scenariosless rapid change versus more rapid change in insurance premiums. 

Relative to baseline employment forecasts from the Employment 

Projections Program at the u.s. Department of Labor, we estimate 

that moderate medical savings from health care modernization as 

enVIsioned under the legislation now before Congress would lead to an 

average of250,000 additional jobs created annually, Under the larger 

assumption about savings dne to health care reform, 400,000 new jobs 

J. year wOLlld be created on avenge. 

FIGURE3 

Health (are reform results in job creation 

f -l~"lapidthange, '0600 250,OOOjob,onaverage----

1 

We show the employment increase continuing over a decade, although changcs in the out 

years are more speculative. At some point, higher j"bor dcm,md exhausts labor supply, and 

wages will adjust-even for low-wage workers and workers who do notva!ue he'llth imt1l'-

"ncc on the job. 'Ihe point at which this will set!Jl is not easy to predict, however. 

8 Center for Am".'rican Progress· Tbe Schadfrr C(>!w:r I 
235 


71722.163

Conclusion 

We estimate that health carc reform that reduces premium growth will add between 

250,000 and 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade. 

Our estimates of net job creation compare favorably with other estimates by other ceono" 

mists, whIch are generdlly based on less complete data. KatherirH.' Baicker and Amitabh 

Chandra of Harvard University, for example, llse data on malpractice premIUms across 

areas to estimate the Impact of risIng health insurance premiums on employment.ll They 

estimate that a 10 percent reduction in premiums would increase employment by 1.6 

percentage points, very similar to the estimJ.te by Neeraj Soad, Arkadipta Ghosh, and Jose 

Escarce that we hig.hlight. 

In earlier work by one of the authors of this report, Cutler, along with Brad DeLong of 

University of California, I3erke!ey ,md Ann Marie Marciarille of McGeorge School of 

Law, the authors estimate that cost savmgs of the type considered here would increase 

employment among low-wage workers by 90,OOO.l~ Additional employment effects for 

workers above the lowest wages would add to the total. Finally, President Obama's Council 

of Economic Advisors recently estimated that health care reform would create 320,000 

addItional jobs for some. period oftime.l:< 'lhus, a number of studies with very different 

methodologies reach a similar conclusion about the Jabor market implications of major 

health care reform. 

Clearly, health care reform that reduces premium growth is economic policy as well as 

health policy. The reform goals of a he:.1lthier America are we!! understood. In this paper, 

however, we demonstrate a less emphaSIzed point about the health care reform legIslation 

currently before Congress-if successful, its provisions Coln lower the costs of bus mess and 

increase both the number of jobs by 250,000 to 400,000 annually over the next decade 

and increa,!,e wage growth. 

Health care reform that indudes even more robust measures to contain health care costs 

could further enh,mce job creation. In an economy that has lost 5 million jobs in the past year 

and where wages have stagnolted for many years, this IS a strong reason to pass health c,m~ 

reform that contains growth in health care costs and modernizes the u.s. health care system. 

9 Cent~r for ArneriCilo Progrrss . Thr SdlileffC'r C'.'nter I 
236 


71722.164

About the authors 

David Cutler is Otto Eckstein Professor of Applied Economics at Harvard University and 

Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. 

Neeraj Sood is Associate Professor at the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy 

and Economics and School of Pharmacy at the University of Southern California. 

/\cknowledgemcnts 

'Tbe authors are grateful to Amitabh Chandra,]l1dy Feder and Dana McMurtry for 

their comments. 

10 Ccntcr for American Progrp~<; . Till' Schaeffer Centpr ! 
237 


71722.165

5 In ,dd'H<>ntothe f?<to<' wedi\(U".othor 3'1''1(11 ot r~t"rm wlllmP"ence 

<)"Vl1rw"~nt {]f ""!-Gf-pncket 'pondmg We <J~ not ,on"de, lh~\e ("no" 

11 Ct'ntrrfor Anwntan Progr;»s • TII(' )chclPfferCentN I 

'2 Dav.d C"tl~,. 8"d D&lnng, anu Aon Mar", M"cianlie. -Why ahoma', ',",lln PI.n 

,,!l<?Wr,'W11! SI(~"1 JWfllIll, ~pl~mber 16. nos.p A2S 
238 


71722.166

About the Center for American Progress 

The Center for American Progreso; is a nonpartisan research and 

educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and 

free ArneriG] that ensures opportunity for al!. We believe that 

Americans are bound together by a common tommitment to 

these values and we aspire to ensure that our national pohcies 

reneet these values. We work to find progressive and pragmatic 

solutions to signincant domestic and international problems 

and develop policy propoSills that foster a government that i) 

"of the peoplE', by the people, and for the people." 

Center 

~ 

for American Progress 

- Center for American Progress 

1333 H Street, NW, lOth Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

Tel:202.682.1611 • Fax:202.682.1867 

www.americanprogress.org 

About the Schaeffer Center 

The Schaeffrr Cent('( is distinguished by i1 research staff, 

strategically recruited for its research and policy expE'fti~e. 

The Schaeffer Center useS a noveL interdisciplinary approach 

to advance economiC, hC(llth services and policy research, 

and to train a new generation of global health policy leaders. 

Currently. the Schaeffer (enter is conducting research and 

policy analysis to support cvidencc·ba~ed health (Me reform. 

Studies underway focus on five salient h('alth policy issue,>: 

1. RedUCing unnecessary spE'nding. 

2. ImproVing Insurance dpsign 

3. Understanding how public policy affects medical innovation. 

4. IdentIfying the macroeconomic consequences of u.s. health 

car('cmts. 

5. Improving comparative effectiveness and outcomes research. 

Leonard D. Schaeffer 

Center for Health Policy 

and Economics 

The Schaeffer Center 

Anna Cearley, USC Media Relations 

cearley(<l~lIsc.edu 

Tel: 213.740.7895 

http://healthpolicy.usc.edu 

............. ............. ........ ....................... ...................... . ............. . 
239 


71722.167

•••• 

•••••••••••• SMAll BUSINESS 

MAJORITY 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

ON THE 

TRUE COST OF PPACA: EFFECTS ON THE BUDGET AND JOBS 

MARCH 30, 2011 

JOHN ARENSMEYER 

FOUNDER & CEO 

SMALL BUSINESS MAJORIlY 

This testimony is submitted in support of the small business perspective on the Patient 

Protection and Mfordable Care Act and its impact on America's 28 million small 

businesses and the economy as a whole. 

Small Business Majority is a nonprofit, nonpartisan small bnsiness advocacy 

organization founded and run by small business owners and focnsed on solving the 

biggest problems facing small bnsinesses today. We represent the 28 million Americans 

who are self-employed or own businesses of np to 100 employees. Our organization uses 

scientific opinion and economic research to understand and represent the interests of 

small businesses. 

We are testij)~ng in support of the Mfordable Care Act, which will help reduce the cost of 

insurance and medical care while making coverage affordable, fair and accessible. Our 

research shows that reforming our broken healthcare system has been and still is one of 

small business owners' top concerns, and that the majority of small employers believe 

reform is needed to fix the U.S. economy. It also shows that small businesses support key 

provisions in the law, specifically ones that help them better afford insurance, such as tax 

credits and insurance exchanges, and those that contain costs. Controlling skyrocketing 

costs is esseutial to ensuring small businesses' ability to obtain high-quality, affordable 

healthcare for themselves, their families and tbeir employees. Our research also shows 

that absent reform, these costs would continue to escalate, undermining small 

businesses' success and our economic recovery. The new law goes a long way toward 

fixing our broken system and stemming these spiraling costs, while helping to create jobs 

and stimulate the economy. 

Our research, which is discussed in more detail below, shows the impact this legislation 

will have on small bnsinesses and reveals that small businesses support many provisions 

in the law, especially those that benefit tbem immediately, such as the small business tax 

credits. In ,July 2010, Small Business Majority partnered with Families USA to determine 

the number of small bnsinesses eligible for a tax credit on their 2010 tax returns, one of 

the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act. 

© 20U Small Business Majority' (866) 597-7431 • 4000 Bridgeway, Suite 101 • Sausalito, CA 94965 
240 


71722.168

We found that more than 4 million small businesses would be eligible to receive a 

tax credit for the purchase of employee health insurance in 20lO. 1 

We also recently commissioned a national survey of 619 small business owners to 

determine their views on the tax credits and insurance exchanges, another crucial 

provision of the Affordable Care Act for small businesses. The survey, which was released 

on Jan. 4,2011, found that: 

Both the tax credits and the exchanges, once they take effect, make small 

business owners more likely to provide healthcare coverage to their employees; 

One-third of employers who don't offer insurance said they would be more likely 

to do so because of both the small business tax credits and the insurance 

exchanges; 

31% of respondents who currently offer insurance said the tax credits and the 

exchanges will make them more likely to continue providing coverage. 2 

However, the poll also found that the vast majority of small business owners don't know 

the tax credits or exchanges exist to help them afford coverage. 

As the debate around healthcare reform continues, it's important to understand the 

consequences a return to the status quo would have on small businesses and our fragile 

economy. 

Without reform, small businesses would pay nearly $24 trillion in healthcare 

costs by 2018, and $52.1 billion in small business profits and 178,000 small 

business jobs would be lost as a result of high premiums.:l They would also lose 

$4 billion per year in healthcare tax credits and many small business protections, 

including a ban on denying coverage for preexisting conditions. This provision 

will provide much-needed help to many Americans, including the legions of selfemployed individuals-many who currently can't get coverage because of this 

reason; 

Without reform, small businesses would be robbed of their ability to pool their 

buying power through state insurance exchanges, and the various cost controls 

the ACA puts in place would also be lost; 

A return to the status quo would mean an end to the tough enforcement 

measures in the law, which are saving billions in Medicare waste, fraud and 

abuse. This would result in higher taxes for employers and employees to fund 

Medicare, and higher taxes mean fewer jobs. 

Small businesses create 70% of new jobs in our country. Spending less on health 

insurance will help them generate larger profits, which will help speed our journey down 

the road to economic recovery. 

I Families USA and Small Business Majority, A Helping Hand for Small Businesses: Health Insurance Tax 

Credits. July, 20 I 0, http://smallbusinessmajority .org/small-business-rescareh/tax-eredit-study .php. 

2 Small Business Majority, Opinion Survey: Small Business Owners' Views on Key Provisions of the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Jan. 4, 2011, http://smallbusinessmajority.org/small-businessreseareh/small-business-healtheare-survey.php. 

, Small Business Majority, The Economic Impact of Healtheare Reform on Small Businesses, July 2009, 

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-busincss-researeh!economie-researeh.php. 

© 2011 Small Business Majority 2 www.smallbusinessmajority.org 
241 


71722.169

My testimony highlights the issues of greatest importance to small businesses in the 

Affordable Care Act. It explains what we have learned from our scientific research about 

both the opinions of small employers and the economic impact of reform on small 

businesses, including the consequences repealing the Act would have on them and the 

economy overall. The key issues are: 

Why healthcare costs are killing small businesses and sapping our economic 

vitality; 

What a return to the status quo would mean for small businesses and the 

economy; 

How the ACA is already helping small businesses afford insurance and provide 

their employees with coverage; 

Small businesses' NO.1 priority: Controlling the skyrocketing cost of health 

insurance and how the ACA tackles this problem; 

Why sharing the responsibility will strengthen our small businesses, their 

employees and the economy. 

Hcalthcarc Costs are Killing Small Business and Sapping Our Economic 

Vitality 

National surveys of small business owners consistently show that the cost of health 

insurance is their biggest overall problem. In fact, the crushing costs of healthcare 

outranked fuel and energy costs and the weak economy for 78% of small business people 

polled by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 2008.4 

Small businesses are at a disadvantage in the marketplace largely because our small 

numbers make rates higher. According to research supported by the Commonwealth 

Fund, on average we pay 18% more than big businesses for coverage.s Small businesses, 

including the self-employed, need a level playing field to succeed and continue as the job 

generators for the U.S. economy. 

We hear stories every day from small business owners who can't get coverage because 

they've been sick in the past or the health plans they are offered are outrageously priced. 

Louise Hardaway, a would-be entrepreneur in the pharmaceutical products industry in 

Nashville, had to give up on starting her own business after just a few months because 

she couldn't get decent coverage-one company quoted her a $13,000 monthly premium. 

Many other businesses maintain coverage for employees, but the cost is taking a bigger 

and bigger chunk out oftheir operating budgets. It's common to hear about double-digit 

premium increases each year, eating into profits and sometimes forcing staff reductions. 

Small business owner Walt Rowen, owner of Susquehanna Glass Co. in Columbia, PA, 

was quoted a 160% premium increase from his carrier last year, forcing him to find a 

new plan. These rising bills frequently force business owners to hack away at the 

insurance benefit to the point where it's little more than catastrophic coverage. That 

4 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Study shows small business owners support health reform, 2008, 

http://www .rwjf.orgjcoYerageiproduet .jsp?id~ 36558. 

5 J Gabel et ai, Generosity and Adjusted Premiums in Job-Based Insurance: Hawaii is Up, Wyoming is 

Down, Health Affairs, May/June 2006, http://contenLhealthaffairs.org/content/25/3/832.full. 

© 2011 Small Business Majority 3 www.smallbusinessmajority.org 
242 


71722.170

leaves employees with huge out-of-pocket expenses or a share of the premium they can't 

afford, forcing them to drop coverage. That concerns Larry Pierson, owner of a mailorder bakery in Santa Cruz, California, who says "the tremendous downside to being 

uninsured can be instant poverty and bankruptcy, and that's not something my 

employees deserve." 

Small business owners want to offer health coverage, and our surveys show that most of 

them feel they have a responsibility to do so. Small Business Majority conducted surveys 

of small business owners in 17 states between December 2008 and August 2009.6 Our 

key findings included: 

An average of 67% of respondents said reforming healthcare was urgently needed 

to fix the U.S. economy; 

An average of 86% of small business owners who don't offer health coverage to 

their employees said they can't afford to provide it, and an average of 72% of 

those who do offer it said they are struggling to afford it. 

It should be noted that respondents to these surveys included an average of 15% more 

Republicans (39%) than Democrats (24%), while 27% identified as independent. 

The exorbitant cost of insurance means that many small businesses are forced to drop 

coverage altogether. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 54% of businesses with 

fewer than 10 employees don't offer insurance.? 

This makes small business employees a significant portion of the uninsured population. 

Of the 45 million Americans without health insurance in 2007, nearly 23 million were 

small business owners, employees or their dependents, according to Employee Benefit 

Research Institute estimates.8 And nearly one-third of the uninsured -13 million 

people-are employees of firms with less than 100 workers.9 

With staffs of 5, 10 or even 20 people, small businesses are tight-knit organizations. 

Owners know their employees well and depend on each employee for their businesses' 

success. They don't want to see their valuable employees wiped out financially by a 

health problem, or ignore illnesses because they can't afford to go to the doctor. 

The Affordable Care Act addresses all these issues and more. Without reform, we will 

impede our overall economic growth. Small businesses with fewer than 100 employees 

employ 42% of American workers. 10 Traditionally, small businesses lead the way out of 

recessions. Continuing to address the healthcare crisis by implementing the Affordable 

Care Act is essential to our vitality as a nation. A repeal of this landmark legislation 

6 Small Business Majority, State Surveys Highlight Small Business Support for Healthcare Reform, August 

2009. http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/opinion-rcsearch.php. 

7 Kaiser Family Foundation/HRET. Employer Health Benefits Almual Survey. 2008. 

http://ehbs.kff.org!2008.html. 

, Employee Benefit Research Institute. Sources of Health Insurance and Characteristics of the Uninsured: 

Analysis of the March 2008 Current Population, 

http://www.ebri.org/publicationsJib/index.cfm'?fa=ibOisp&content_id=3975. 

9 Center for American Progress, What Will Happen to Small Business if Health Care Is Repealed, July 23, 

20 I 0, http://www.americanprogress.orglissues/2010107/small_bizJeform.html. 

10 U.S. Bureau of Census, 2006 County Business Patterns 

@ 2011 Small Business Majority 4 www.smallbusinessmajority.org 
243 


71722.171

would send our primary job creators back into in a broken system that threatens their 

competitiveness, discourages entrepreneurism and jeopardizes our economic recovery. 

What a Return to the Status Quo Would Mean for Small Businesses and the 

Economy 

The shock of returning to the status quo would reverberate throughout the U.S. 

economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects repealing the law 

would add $230 billion over the next 10 years to the federal budget deficit, and more 

than $1 trillion in the decade to follow. The national debt is already at its limit, and 

expanding the deficit would only cause additional lack of confidence in our nation's 

ability to recover from the recession. 

When you examine what repeal would mean financially for America's 28 million small 

businesses, the picture is even bleaker. In .June 2009, Small Business Majority 

commissioned noted economist and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor 

,Jonathan Gruber to apply his healthcare economics microsimulation model to the small 

business sector. He focused on businesses with 100 or fewer employees.ll Our research 

showed that without reform: 

Small businesses would pay nearly $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years in 

healthcare costs for their workers; 

A staggering 178,000 small business jobs, $834 billion in small business wages, 

and $52.1 in profits would be lost due to these healthcare costs; 

Nearly 1.6 million small business workers would continue to suffer from "job 

lock," where they are locked in their jobs because they can't find a job with 

comparable benefits. This represents nearly one in 16 people currently insured by 

their employers. 

In a recent article he wrote for the Center for American Progress, Gruber again 

addressed the issue of job lock.'2 He noted that "sueh a system significantly distorts our 

labor markets by forcing individuals to stay in jobs that offer health insurance rather 

than to move to newer and more productive positions where coverage is not available. 

Millions of U.S. workers are not moving to better jobs or starting new businesses because 

there is nowhere to turn for insurance coverage should they leave their jobs." 

The Affordable Care Act remedies this problem and levels the playing field to support 

entrepreneurs willing to take a risk and start a new enterprise. Insurance reforms 

provided in the new law protect these entrepreneurs, and the insurance exchanges 

established by the law allow the self-employed and small businesses to pool together for 

lower premium rates. 

The Center for American Progress has also weighed in on what small businesses would 

lose ifthe Affordable Care Act were repealed. The percentage of small businesses offering 

" Small Business Majority, The Economic Impact of Health care Reform on Small Businesses, July 2009. 

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-researeh/eeonomie-research.php. 

12 J Gruber. Be Careful What You Wish For. Repeal of the Affordable Carc Aet Would Be Hannful to 

Society and Costly tt)r Our Country, American Progress, Jan 2010, 

http://www .amcricanprogrcss.orgiissucs/20 IliO 1 laca Jcpeal.html. 

(i;) 2011 Small Business Majority 5 www.smallbusinessmajority.org 
244 


71722.172

coverage has decreased from 68% in 2000 to 59% in 2007; repeal would ensure that this 

downward spiral would continue. Since 40% of small employers spend more than 10% of 

their payroll on hcalthcare costs, repeal would cause those already providing insurance 

to do so at the expense of increased wages. This would result in less profits, business 

investment and job creation. Additionally, repeal would mean small businesses would 

continue to pay on average 18% more for health insurance than large firms. And they 

won't get the financial relief tax credits and insurance exchanges will provide.'3 

Healthcare reform will also reduce the "hidden tax" associated with health insurance. 

Repeal would keep this tax in place. The uninsured often delay treating their health 

problems until they become severe, and public and charity programs pick up a share. 

However, a portion remains unpaid. To cover the cost of this uncompensated care, 

health providers charge higher rates when the insured receive care, and these increases 

get shifted to consumers and small businesses in the form of higher premiums. This 

creates a "hidden health tax" that inflates the cost of premiums.I4 

Instead of helping us move forward, a repeal of the health care law would send us back to 

the status quo and ensure that small businesses will be unable to play their historical role 

as the country's primary job creators. In fact, Harvard professor David Cutler projects 

repeal would destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade, increase 

medical spending by $125 billion by the end of this decade and add nearly $2,000 

annually to family insurance premiums.I5 His summary of what repeal would do to the 

country is as dismal as it is succinct: "It would hurt family incomes, jobs, and economic 

growth." 

The Affordable Care Aet Is Already Helping Small Businesses Afford 

Insurance and Provide Their Employees with Coverage 

Our research shows that small business owners are more likely to provide insurance to 

their employees because of the tax credits and exchanges provided through the new 

healthcare law. As I mentioned in my introduction, our most recent research includes a 

national survey of 619 small business owners that was conducted from November 17-22, 

2010.,6 We wanted to gauge how entrepreneurs view two critical components of the 

Affordable Care Act: the small business tax credits-a provision allowing businesses with 

fewer than 25 employees that have average annual wages under $50,000 to get a tax 

credit of up to 35% of their health insurance costs beginning in tax year 201O-and 

health insurance exchanges-online marketplaces where small businesses and 

individuals can band together to purchase insurance starting in 2014. The survey's key 

findings include: 

IJ Center for American Progress, What Will Happen to Small Business if Health Care is Repealed, 2010, 

http://www.a01erieanprogress.orglissues/2010107/s01all_biz_rcform.html. 

14 Kathleen Stoll and Kim Bailey, Hidden Health Tax: Americans Pay a Premium (Washington: Families 

USA, May 2009). 

" 0 Cutler, Repealing Health Care is a Job Killer, Center for American Progress, 20 I O. 

http://www.americanprogrcss.orglissues/201I/OI/jobs_health_repeal.html 

10 Small Business Majority, Opinion Survey: Small Business Owners' Views on Key Provisions of the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Jan. 4, 2011, http://smallbusincssmajority.org/small-businessresearch/small -business-health care-survey. php .. 

@ 2011 Small Business Majority 6 www.smallbusinessrnajority.org 
245 


71722.173

One-third (33%) of employers who don't offer health insurance said they would 

be more likely to do so because of the small business tax credits; 

31% of respondents-including 40% of businesses with 3-9 employees-who 

currently offer insurance said the tax credits will make them more likely to 

continue providing insurance; 

One-third (33%) of respondents who currently do not offer insurance said the 

exchange would make them more likely to do so; 

The same is true for those who already offer insurance, with 31% responding that 

tbe exchange would make them more likely to do so; 

However, most respondents are not familiar with the exchange or the tax credits; 

only 31% of respondents are familiar with the exchange and 43% are familiar with 

the tax credits. 

We believe that once the public, and small business owners in particular, become more 

familiar with the new law, they will understand the financial benefits and cost savings it 

provides. In fact, a Kaiser Family Foundation study conducted in January 2010 found 

that although the public was divided overall about reform, they became more supportive 

when told about key provisions. After hearing that tax credits would be available to help 

small businesses provide coverage to employees, 73% said it made them more 

supportive, and 63% felt that way after learning that people could no longer be denied 

coverage because of preexisting conditions.'? 

The huge number of small businesses eligible for a credit on their 2010 tax returns shows 

how wide-ranging the benefits of the ACA are: Small Business Majority and Families 

USA's study on the number of small businesses eligible for a tax credit on their 2010 tax 

returns shows that more than 4 million small businesses are eligible.'s That equates to 

83.7% of all small businesses in the country. Perhaps even more encouraging is that 

more than 90% of small businesses in 11 states are eligible to receive the tax credits, with 

nearly 1.2 million small businesses nationally eligible to receive the maximum credit. 

A recent RAND Health study also examined the impact of the Affordable Care Act on 

health insurance coverage for workers at small companies. It found that once the new 

law takes full effect, the percentage of employers that offer insurance will increase from 

57% to 80% for firms with fewer than 50 employees, and from 90% to 98% for firms with 

51 to 100 employeesY) Additionally, a study released ,Jan. 24, 2011 by the Urban 

Institute (funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) also shows the positive 

benefits of the ACA on America's employers. The study debunks claims that the ACA 

would erode employer-sponsored coverage by providing incentives for employers to stop 

offering coverage, or that businesses would face increased costs as a result of reform. To 

the contrary, the study found that overall employer-sponsored coverage under the ACA 

would not differ significantly from what coverage would be without reform, but that in 

" Kaiser Family Foundation. Americans Are Divided About Health RefOlm Proposals Overall. But the 

Public. Including Critics. Becomes More Supportive When Told About Key Provisions. Jan. 22.2010. 

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/kaiserpollsO 1221 Onr.cfm. 

18 Families USA and Small Business Majority. A Helping Hand for Small Businesses: Health Insurance 

Tax Credits. July. 20 I 0, http://smallbusincssmajority.org/small-business-rcsearchltax-credit-study.php. 

19 RAND Corporation. "Ilow Will the Affordable Care Act Arrect Employee Health Coverage at Small 

Businesses"" 20 I O. http://www .rand.org/pubsiresearchbrieCs/RB9557Iindex l.hlm1. 

© 2011 Small Business Majority 7 www.smallbusinessmajorily.org 
246 


71722.174

fact employer-sponsored insurance premiums will fall noticeably, by nearly 8%, and total 

spending on healthcare by small businesses will also decrease by nearly 9% because of 

health care exchanges and other provisions of the new law. 2o 

Analysis after analysis shows that the new health care law holds significant promise 

toward empowering small businesses to provide their employees with health insurance, 

and to be able to do so without breaking the bank. Instead of repealing the small 

business health care tax credit, Congress should be examining how to expand it in order 

to provide more support to small business. 

Small Businesses' NO.1 Priority: Controlling the Skyrocketing Cost of Health 

Insurance, and How the Affordable Care Act Tackles this Problem 

Small business owners are deeply concerned about the exponentially rising cost of health 

insurance. As Harvard University economics professor David M. Cutler notes, while 

family health insurance premiums have increased 80% in the past decade after adjusting 

for inflation, median income has fallen by 5%.21 When people have less disposable 

income to spend at local small businesses, small business owners feel the squeeze. 

We know from our opinion surveys that small business owners want reform to lower 

these skyrocketing costs and believe it will be good for the economy overall. 22 The 

Affordable Care Act includes many provisions to contain costs. These measures will be 

felt throughout the entire healthcare system, lowering premium costs to small business 

owners and consumers alike. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the new law will 

lower federal deficits by more than $143 billion over the next 10 years, and by more than 

$1 trillion in ilie following decade. While there is still more that can be done to contain 

costs within the system, the new law is a great start. It moves our healthcare system 

toward greater financial stability and provides improved access to affordable, quality 

care for small business owners and their employees. 

Along with small business tax credits and insurance exchanges, the ACA controls costs 

by reining in administrative costs for small businesses. As previously noted, small 

businesses pay 18% more on average than large businesses for comparable health 

policies. This is largely due to high administrative costs, which can be up to 30% of 

premiums. The law includes administrative simplification programs, helping to put the 

country on a path to lower-cost, standardized administrative transactions, processes and 

forms. Additionally, it establishes insurer efficiency standards that require 80% of 

premium dollars be spent on care, not administrative overhead and executive 

compensation, for small group and individual plans. For large groups plans, the standard 

will be 85%. All of these measures will lower the time doctors have to spend on 

paperwork. 

20 Urban Institute, "Employer-Sponsored Insurance Under Health Reform: Reports of Its Demise Arc 

Premature," Jan. 24, 201 0, http://www.rwjf.org/coverage/product.jsp?id=71749&eid=XEM _749842. 

21 0 Cutler, Repealing Health Care Is a Job Killer, Cenler for American Progress, 2010. 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/jobs_health_repeal.htm!. 

Small Business Majority, State Surveys Highlight Small Business SUpp0l1 for Healthcare Reform, 2009, 

http://smallbusincssmajority.org/small-business-research/opinion-research.php. 

(C) 2011 Small Business Majority 8 www.smallbusinessmajority.org 
247 


71722.175

The ACA also includes numerous reforms in Medicare that will reward value of care, not 

the volume of care. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to 

adopt value-based purchasing and payment methods for Medicare reimbursements for 

both physicians and hospitals, and move away from the fee-for-service system that is so 

costly and inefficient. What's more, cost containment measures made to Medicare will 

have a ripple effect to other areas of the system, further reducing costs. Harvard 

professor David Cutler points out the steps the Affordable Care Act takes to cut these 

costs: 

Payment innovations including greater reimbursement for preventive care 

services and patient-centered primary care; bundled payments for hospital, 

physician, and other services provided for a single episode of care; shared savings 

approaches or capitation payments that reward accountable provider groups that 

assume responsibility for the continuum of a patient's care; and pay-forperformance incentives for Medicare providers; 

An Independent Payment Advisory Board with the authority to make 

recommendations that reduce cost growth and improve quality in both the 

Medicare program and the health system as a whole; 

A new Innovation Center within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 

or CMS, charged with streamlining the testing of demonstration and pilot 

projects in Medicare and rapidly expanding successful models across the 

program; 

Profiling medical care providers on the basis of cost and quality and making that 

data available to consumers and insurance plans, and providing relatively lowquality, high-cost providers with financial incentives to improve their care; 

Increased funding for comparative effectiveness research; 

Increased emphasis on wellness and prevention.23 

Rather than focusing on repeal, lawmakers should focus on improving healthcare 

reform, especially when it comes to cost containment. While the new law is a good start 

toward fixing our system and strengthening our economy, we should be bolstering it 

even more by including additional cost containment provisions. This will bring health 

inflation down and help businesses create more jobs. 

Sharing the Responsibility: Strengthening Our Small Businesses, Their 

Employees and the Economy 

The Affordable Care Act requires that all residents purchase insurance-a requirement 

that, while not uniformly popular, is necessary in order for reform to be successful. It will 

ensure a broad distribution of health risks in the market and help bring down costs. 

While this requirement has spawned contentious debates, we found that many small 

businesses are willing to help share the responsibility of providing insurance if it means 

lower costs overall and better quality insurance. Opinion polling we conducted shows 

that: 

OJ David Cutier. Rcpealing Health Care Is a Job Killer, Center For American Progress, Jan. 7, 2011, 

http://www.amcricanprogress.orgiissues/2011/01/jobs_healthJcpea!.htm!. 

(c'J 2011 Small Business Majority 9 www.smallbusincssmajority.org 
248 


71722.176

Small businesses are willing to share the responsibility for making health 

insurance affordable along with insurers, healthcare providers, individuals and 

government, according to an average of 66% of respondents. By state, those 

agreeing with the concept of shared responsibility ranged from 59% to 72%.24 

We've also found that because so many small businesses are bombarded with 

misinformation, it has made it increasingly difficult for them to determine what the law 

actually requires of them. Most small business owners are surprised to learn that they . 

won't be required to provide insurance. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees, which 

accounts for 96% of small businesses,'5 are exempt from all requirements in the law. 

Businesses with 51 employees or more will be required to provide insurance, however 

96.5% of these businesses already cover their workers.26 

The provision that all Americans purchase insurance was included in the law because 

businesses and the American people made it clear that they wanted to continue an 

employer-based health insurance system, not a government healthcare system, such as 

Medicare for all or Canadian-style healthcare insurance. Because 96% of employers with 

51 or more employees are providing health insurance as well as paying federal taxes, it 

would not be fair to let 4% of employers have a free ride at the expense of the 96% of 

employers currently offering insurance, and at the same time have their employees 

covered by taxpayer funds to provide health insurance. Additionally, without the freerider provision large employers would have an incentive to stop providing health 

insurance and let taxpayers provide coverage for their employees. 

Small businesses today offer health benefits to attract and retain good employees and to 

be competitive with large businesses. This will continue under reform, except that now 

these small businesses will have the benefit of buying health insurance through the state 

insurance exchange-creating market leverage like that of big companies, while driving 

down and stabilizing costs for their employees. 

Conclusion 

Healthcare reform is not an ideological issue; it's an economic one. Small business 

owners know this, which is why they overwhelmingly support reforming our broken 

system and containing the skyrocketing cost of insurance. 

Without healthcare reform, small businesses will once again be mired in a system that 

drains their coffers and stunts their growth-disabling them from playing their vitally 

important role as the nation's jobs creators. Harvard professor David Cutler is right 

when he concludes that repeal is "bad economic policy. The effort to repeal health reform 

will make our current problems worse."27 We hope Congress will spend its time focusing 

" Small Business Majority, State Surveys Highlight Small Business Support for Healtheare 

Reform, August 2009, http://smallbusinessmajority.org!small-business-researeh/opinion-research.php. 

" U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. based on data provided by the U.S. Census 

Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses. 2006. 

"Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, Insurance Component. Table LA.2, 2008, available online at 

http://www .mcps.ahrq .govl mepswebl data _ statsl s umm _tab lcs/insr/nationall series _1/2008/tia2. pdf. 

27 D Cutler, Repealing Health Care is a Job Killer, Center for American Progress. 2010. 

http://www.amerieanprogrcss.org/issues!20J I/O I/jobs _health _repcal.html 

© 2011 Small Business Majority 10 www.smallbusinessmajority.org 
249 


71722.177

on ways to make implementation of the Affordable Care Act as smooth as possible, and 

instead of trying to dismantle it, fix the parts that need improvement. Our small 

businesses and our economic recovery depend on it. 

© 2011 Small Business Majority 11 www.smallbusincssmajority.org 
250 


71722.178

rRED UPTON, MICH1GAN 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

HENRY ,\, WAXMAN, CALIrOFi~iA 

RANKING MEM8fR 

(lCongrrgg of tur Wntteb $tatcg 

"ou~e of l\rpte5entatl1mi 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHI~GTON, DC 20515-6115 

MdjO,,'\-

Mir.onty 

RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(a) Rules of the Committee. The Rules ofthe House are the rules of the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce (the "Committee") and its subcommittees so far as is applicable. 

(b) Rules of the Subcommittees. Each subcommittee of the Committee is part of the Committee 

and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so far as is 

applicable. Written rules adopted by the Committee, not inconsistent with the Rules of the 

House, shall be binding on each subcommittee of the Committee. 

RULE 2. MEETINGS 

(a) Regular Meeting Days. The Committee shall meet on the fourth Tuesday of each month at 10 

a.m., for the eonsideration of bills, resolutions, and other business, if the House is in session on 

that day. Iflbe House is not in session on that day and the Committee has not met during such 

month, the Commillee shall meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the House is again 

in session. The chairman of the Committee may, at his discretion, cancel, delay, or defer any 

meeting required under this section, after consultation with the ranking minority member. 

(b) Additional Meetings. The chairman may call and convene, as he considers necessary, 

additional meetings of the Commillee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending 

before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet 

for such purposes pursuant to that call of the chairman. 

(c) Notice. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any meeting of the Committee scheduled 

on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday when the House will be in session shall be announced at 

least 36 hours (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in 

session on such days) in advance of the commencement ofsueh meeting. The date, time, place, 

and subject matter of other meetings when the HOllse is in session shall be announccd to allow 
251 


71722.179

Members to have at least three days notice (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays 

except when the House is in session on such days) of such meeting, The date, time, place, and 

subject matter of all other meetings shall be announced at least 72 hours in advance of the 

commencement of such mecting. 

(d) Agenda. The agenda for each Comm ittee meeting, setting out all items of business to be 

considered, shall be provided to each member of the Committee at least 36 hours in advance of 

such meeting. 

(e) Availability of Texts. No bill, recommendation, or other matter shall be considered by the 

Committee unless the text of the matter, together with an explanation, has been available to 

members of the Committee for three days (or 24 hours in the case of a substitute for introduced 

legislation). Such explanation shall include a summary of the major provisions of the legislation, 

an explanation of the relationship of the matter to present law, and a summary of the need for the 

legislation. 

(t) Waiver. The requirements of subsections (c), (d), and (e) may be waived by a majority of 

those present and voting (a majority being present) of the Committee or by the chairman with the 

concurrence of the ranking member, as the case may be. 

RULE 3. HEARlNGS 

(a) Notice. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any hearing of the Committee shall be 

announced at least one week in advance of the commencement of such hearing, unless a 

determination is made in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House 

that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner. 

(b) Memorandum. Each member of the Committee shall be provided, except in the case of 

unusual circumstances, with a memorandum at least 48 hours before each hearing explaining (I) 

the purpose of the hearing and (2) the names of any witnesses. 

(c) Witnesses. (I) Each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file with the clerk of 

the Committee, at least two working days in advance of his or her appearance, sufficient copies, 

as determined by the chairman of the Committee ofa written statement of his or her proposed 

testimony to provide to members and staff of the Committee, the news media, and the general 

public. Each witness shall, to the greatest extent practicable, also provide a copy of such written 

testimony in an electronic format prescribed by the chairman. Each witness shall limit his or her 

oral presentation to a brief summary of the argument. The chairman of the Committee or the 

presiding member may waive the requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof. 

(2) To the greatest extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness appearing in a 

nongovernmental capacity shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and 

source (by agency and program) of any federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or 

subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal 

years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness. 
252 


71722.180

(d) Questioning. (1) The right to interrogate the witnesses before the Committee shall alternate 

between majority and minority members. Each member shall be limited to 5 minutes in the 

interrogation of witnesses until such time as each member who so desires has had an opportunity 

to question witnesses. No member shall be recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to 

interrogate a witness until each member of the Committee present has been recognized once for 

that purpose. The chairman shall recognize in order of appearance members who were not 

present when the meeting was called to order after all members who were present when the 

meeting was called to order have been recognized in the order of seniority on the Committee. 

(2) The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the Committee by 

motion, may permit an equal number of majority and minority members to question a witness for 

a specified, total period that is equal for each side and not longer than thirty minutes for each 

side. The chairman with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the Committee by 

motion, may also permit committee staff of the majority and minority to question a witness for a 

specified, total period that is equal for each side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side. 

(3) Each member may submit to the chairman of the Committee additional questions for the 

record, to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. Each member shall provide a copy 

of the questions in an electronic format to the clerk of the Committee no later than ten business 

days following a hearing. The chairman shall transmit all questions received from members of 

the Committee to the appropriate witness and include the transmittal letter and the responses 

from the witnesses in the hearing record. 

RULE 4. VICE CHAIRMEN; PRESIDING MEMBER 

The chairman shall designate a member of the majority party to serve as vice chairman of the 

Committee, and shall designate a majority member of each subcommittee to serve as vice 

chairman of each subcommittee, other than the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. The 

vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, shall preside at any 

meeting or hearing during the temporary absence of the chairman. If the chairman and vice 

chairman of the Committee or subcommittee are not present at any meeting or hearing, the 

ranking member of the majority party who is present shall preside at the meeting or hearing. 

RULE 5. OPEN PROCEEDINGS 

Except as provided by the Rules ofthe House, each meeting and hearing of the Committee for 

the transaction of business, including the markup oflegislation, and each hearing, shall be open 

to the public, including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, consistent with the 

provisions of Rule XI ofthe Rules ofthe House. 

RULE 6. QUORUM 

Testimony may be taken and evidence received at any hearing at which there are present not 

fewer than two members of the Committee in question. A majority of the members of the 

Committee shall constitute a quorum for those actions for which the House Rules require a 

majority quorum. For the purposes oftaking any other action, one-third ofthe members of the 
253 


71722.181

Committee shall constitute a quorum. 

RULE 7. OFFICIAL COMMITTEE RECORDS 

(a)(l) Journal. The proceedings ofthe Committee shall be recorded in ajournal which shall, 

among other things, show those present at each meeting, and include a record of the vote on any 

question on which a record vote is demanded and a description ofthe amendment, motion, order, 

or other proposition voted. A copy ofthe journal shall be furnished to the ranking minority 

member. 

(2) Reeord Votes. A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of the members present or, in the 

apparent absence of a quorum, by anyone member. No demand for a record vote shall be made 

or obtained except for the purpose of procuring a reeord vote or in the apparent absence ofa 

quorum. The result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee shall be made publicly 

available in electronic form on the Committee's website and in the Committee office for 

inspection by the public, as provided in Rule Xl, clause 2(e) of the Rules of the House, within 24 

hours. Such result shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other 

proposition, the name of each member voting for and each member voting against such 

amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members of the committee 

present but not voting. The chairman, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, 

may from time to time postpone record votes ordered on amendments to be held at a time certain 

during the consideration of legislation. 

(b) Archived Records. The records ofthe Committee at the National Archives and Records 

Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with Rule VII ofthe Rules 

of the House. The chairman shall notify the ranking minority member of any decision, pursuant 

to clause 3 (b)(3) or clause 4 (b) of the Rule, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the 

matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any 

member of the Committee. The chairman shall consult with the ranking minority member on any 

communication from the Archivist of the United States or the Clerk of the House concerning the 

disposition of nonCUITent records pursuant to clause 3(b) of the Rule. 

RULE 8. SUBCOMMITTEES 

(a) Establishment. There shall be such standing subcommittees with such jurisdiction and size as 

determined by the majority party caucus of the Committee. The jurisdiction, number, and size of 

the subcommittees shall be determined by the majority party caucus prior to the start of the 

process for establishing subcommittee chairmanships and assignments. 

(b) Powers and Duties. Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive 

testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the Committee on all matters referred to it. 

Subcommittee chairmen shall set hearing and meeting dates only with the approval of the 

chairman of the Committee with a view toward assuring the availability of meeting rooms and 

avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings 

whenever possible. 
254 


71722.182

(c) Ratio of Subcommittees. The majority caucus of the Committee shall determine an 

appropriate ratio of majority to minority party members for each subcommittee and the chairman 

shall negotiate that ratio with the minority party, provided that the ratio of party members on 

each subcommittee shall be no less favorable to the majority than that of the full Committee, nor 

shall such ratio provide for a majority of less than two majority members. 

(d) Selection of Subcommittee Members. Prior to any organizational meeting held by the 

Committee, the majority and minority caucuses shall select their respective members of the 

standing subcommittees. 

(e) Ex Officio Members. The chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee shall be 

ex officio members with voting privileges of each subcommittee of which they are not assigned 

as members and may be counted for purposes of establishing a quorum in such subcommittees. 

The minority chairman emeritus shall be an ex officio member without voting privileges of each 

subcommittee of which the minority chairman emeritus is not assigned as a member and shall 

not be counted for purposes of establishing a quorum on any such subcommittee. 

RULE 9. OPENING STA TEMENTS 

(a) Written Statements. All written opening statements at hearings and business meetings 

conducted by the committee shall be made part of the permanent record. 

(b) Length. (1) At full committee hearings, the chailman and ranking minority member shall be 

limited to 5 minutes each for an opening statement, and may designate another member to give 

an opening statement of not more than 5 minutes. At subcommittee hearings, the subcommittee 

chairman and ranking minority member of the subcommittee shall be limited to 5 minutes each 

for an opening statement. In addition, the full committee chairman and ranking minority 

member shall each be allocated 5 minutes for an opening statement for themselves or their 

designees. 

(2) At any business meeting of the Committee, statements shall be limited to 5 minutes each for 

the chairman and ranking minority member (or their respective designee) of the Committee or 

subcommittee, as applicable, and 3 minutes each for all other members. The chairman may 

further limit opening statements for Members (including, at the discretion of the Chairman, the 

chairman and ranking minority member) to one minute. 

RULE 10. REFERENCE OF LEGISLATION AND OTHER MA TTERS 

All legislation and other matters referred to the Committee shall be referred to the subcommittee 

of appropriate jurisdiction within two weeks of the date of receipt by the Committee unless 

action is taken by the full Committee within those two weeks, or by majority vote of the 

members of the Committee, consideration is to be by the full Committee. In the case of 

legislation or other matter within the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee, the chairman 

of the Committee may, in his discretion, refer the matter simultaneously to two or more 

subcommittees for concurrent consideration, or may designate a subcommittee of primary 

jurisdiction and also refer the matter to one or more additional suhcommittees for consideration 

in sequence (subject to appropriate time limitations), either on its initial referral or after the 
255 


71722.183

matter has been reported by the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction. Such authority shall 

include the authority to refer such legislation or matter to an ad hoc subcommittee appointed by 

the chairman, with the approval of the Committee, from the members of the subcommittees 

having legislative or oversight jurisdiction. 

RULE 11. MANAGING LEGISLA nON ON THE HOUSE FLOOR 

The chairman, in his discretion, shall designate which member shall manage legislation reported 

by the Committee to the House. 

RULE 12. COMMITTEE PROFESSIONAL AND CLERICAL STAFF APPOINTMENTS 

(a) Delegation of Staff. Whenever the chainnan of the Committee determines that any 

professional staff member appointed pursuant to the provisions of clause 9 of Rule X of the 

House of Representatives, who is assigned to such chairman and not to the ranking minority 

member, by reason of such professional staff member's expertise or qualifications will be of 

assistance to one or more subcommittees in carrying out their assigned responsibilities, he may 

delegate such member to such subcommittees for such purpose. A delegation ofa member of the 

professional staff pursuant to this subsection shall be made after consultation with subcommittee 

chairmen and with the approval of the subcommittee chairman or chairmen involved. 

(b) Minority Professional Staff. Professional staff members appointed pursuant to clause 9 of 

Rule X of the House of Representatives, who are assigned to the ranking minority member of the 

Committee and not to the chairman of the Committee, shall be assigned to such Committee 

business as the minority party members ofthe Committee consider advisable. 

(c) Additional Staff Appointments. In addition to the professional staff appointed pursuant to 

clause 9 of Rule X ofthe House of Representatives, the chairman ofthe Committee shall be 

entitled to make such appointments to the professional and clerical staff of the Committee as 

may be provided within the budget approved for such purposes by the Committee. Such 

appointee shall be assigned to such business of the full Comm ittee as the chairman of the 

Committee considers advisable. 

(d) Sufficient Staff. The chairman shall ensure that sufficient staff is made available to each 

subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the Committee. 

(e) Fair Treatment of Minority Members in Appointment of Committee Staff. The chairman shall 

ensure that the minority members of the Committee are treated fairly in appointment of 

Committee staff. 

(f) Contracts for Temporary or Intermittent Services. Any contract for the temporary services or 

intermittent service of individual consultants or organizations to make studies or advise the 

Committee or its subcommittees with respect to any matter within their jurisdiction shall be 

deemed to have been approved by a majority of the members of the Committee ifapproved by 
256 


71722.184

the chainnan and ranking minority member of the Committee. Such approval shall not be 

deemed to have been given if at least one-third of the members of the Committee request in 

writing that the Committee fonnally act on such a contract, if the request is made within lO days 

after the latest date on which such chairman or chairmen, and such ranking minority member or 

members, approve such contract. 

RULE 13. SUPERVISION, DUTIES OF STAFF 

(a) Supervision of Majority Staff. The professional and clerical staff of the Committee not 

assigned to the minority shall be under the supervision and direction of the chairman who, in 

consultation with the chainnen of the subcommittees, shall establish and assign the duties and 

responsibilities of such staff members and delegate such authority as he detennines appropriate. 

(b) Supervision of Minority Staft: The professional and clerical staff assigned to the minority 

shall be under the supervision and direction of the minority members of the Committee, who 

may delegate such authority as they determine appropriate. 

RULE 14. COMMITTEE BUDGET 

(a) Administration of Committee Budget. The chairman of the Committee, in consultation with 

the ranking minority member, shall tor the ll2th Congress attempt to ensure that the Committee 

receives necessary amounts for professional and clerical staff, travel, investigations, equipment 

and miscellaneous expenses of the Committee and the subcommittees, which shall be adequate to 

fully discharge the Committee's responsibilities for legislation and oversight .. 

(b) Monthly Expenditures Report. Committee members shall be furnished a copy of each 

monthly report, prepared by the chairman for the Committee on House Administration, which 

shows expenditures made during the reporting period and cumulative for the year by the 

Committee and subcommittees, anticipated expenditures for the projected Committee program, 

and detailed infonnation on travel. 

RULE IS. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS 

Any meeting or hearing that is open to the public may be covered in whole or in part by radio or 

television or still photography, subject to the requirements of clause 4 of Rule XI of the Rules of 

the I-,louse. The coverage of any hearing or other proceeding of the Committee or any 

subcommittee thereof by television, radio, or still photography shall be under the direct 

supervision of the chairman of the Committee, the subcommittee chairman, or other member of 

the Committee presiding at such hearing or other proceeding and may be terminated by such 

member in accordance with the Rules of the House. 

RULE 16. SUBPOENAS 

The chainnan of the Committee may, after consultation with the ranking minority member, 

authorize and issue a subpoena under clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the House. If the ranking 

minority member objects to the proposed subpoena in writing, the matter shall be referred to the 
257 


71722.185

Committee for resolution. The chairman of the Committee may authorize and issue subpoenas 

without referring the matter to the Committce for resolution during any period for which the 

House has adjourned for a period in excess of 3 days when, in the opinion of the chairman, 

authorization and issuance ofthe subpoena is necessary. The chairman shall report to the 

members of the Committee on the authorization and issuance of a subpoena during the recess 

period as soon as practicable but in no event later than one week after service of such subpoena. 

RULE 17. TRAVEL OF MEMBERS AND STAFF 

(a) Approval of Travel. Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such additional 

expense resolutions as may have been approved, travel to be reimbursed from funds set aside for 

the Committee for any member or any staff member shall be paid only upon thc prior 

authorization of the chairman. Travel may be authorized by the chairman for any member and 

any staffmember in eonnection with the attendance of hearings conducted by the Committee or 

any subcommittee thereof and meetings, conferences, and investigations which involve activities 

or subject matter under the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before such authorization is 

given there shall be submitted to the chairman in writing the following: (I) the purpose of the 

travel; (2) the dates during which the travel is to be made and the date or dates of the event for 

which the travel is being made; (3) the location of the event for which the travel is to be made; 

and (4) the names of members and staff seeking authorization. 

(b) Approval of Travel by Minority Members and Staff. In the case oftravel by minority party 

members and minority party professional staff for the purpose set out in (a), the prior approval, 

not only orthe chairman but also of the ranking minority member, shall be required. Such prior 

authorization shall be given by the chairman only upon the representation by the ranking 

minority member in writing setting forth those items enumerated in (I), (2), (3). and (4) of 

paragraph (a). 

RULE 18. WEBSITE 

The chairman shall maintain an official Committee website for the purposes of furthering the 

Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities, including communicating information 

about the Committee's activities to Committee members and other members of the House. The 

ranking minority member may maintain an official website for the purpose of carrying out 

official responsibilities, including communicating information about the activities of the minority 

members of the Committee to Committee members and other members of the House. 

RULE 19. CONFERENCES 

The chairman of the Committee is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of Rule XXll of the 

Rules of the House whenever the chairman considers it appropriate. 
258 


71722.186

FRED UPTON, MICHIGAN 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA 

RANKING MEMBER 

((ongrt£)£) of tbt ilntttb ~tatt£) 

f!.Ious£ of l\cpw5cntatibcs 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--6115 

Mr. Douglas W. Elmendorf 

Director 

Congressional Budget Office 

402 Ford House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Elmendorf: 

(2[)2) 225-2927 

(202)225-35<11 

June 3, 2011 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Health on Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 

to testify at the hearing entitled "The True Cost ofPPACA: Effects on the Budget and Jobs." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on, Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for 10 business days to pennit Members to submit additional questions to witnesses, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to thcsc questions should be as follows: (I) the name of'the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and then (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions by the close of 

business on Friday, June 17,2011. Your responses should be e-mailed to the Legislative Clerk, in 

Word or PDF format, at Allison.Busbee@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Sincerey ~~ fit Joa:~t \. 

Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Health r., I" 

cc: Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, ' 

Subcommittee on Health 

Attachment 
259 


71722.187

Questions for the Record 

Page 1 

Questions for the Record 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

The Honorable Phil Gingrey 

1. From an economic and actuarial perspective, which has a greater risk of adverse 

selection-the market for health insurance, or the market for long-term care 

insurance? 

Adverse selection is the phenomenon whereby a disproportionate number of people who 

expect to have higher-than-average costs enroll in an insurance plan. Adverse selection 

(and even the potential for adverse selection) results in higher average premiums and thus 

lower enrollment than would otherwise occur. In the extreme, an insurance market may 

break down because of adverse selection: In such cases, the higher premiums drive away 

potential purchasers who expect to incur relatively low costs, leaving fewer and fewer 

enrollees, of whom an increasingly large proportion are high-cost, requiring even higher 

premiums. 

The potential for adverse selection may result in plans offering less comprehensive 

coverage than would otherwise exist in an attempt to avoid enrollees with relatively high 

costs. The potential for adverse selection is high (for either type of insurance) in 

situations when (1) enrollment is low, (2) premiums are not allowed to vary on the basis 

of the health status of a new applicant, and (3) potential policyholders are better able to 

predict their use of benefits than is the insurer. 

Both health insurance and long-term care insurance have characteristics that heighten the 

possibility of adverse selection and various tools exist for mitigating that risk. CBO is not 

aware of any definitive information about which of those two markets may faee a greater 

risk of adverse selection. 

Insurers of both kinds have sometimes dealt with low enrollment, which has led insurers 

to abandon certain service areas or cease offering particular types of policies. State 

policies differ on the extent to which they permit health insurers to vary premiums on the 

basis of health status, a practice known as medical underwriting. Most states place at least 

some restrictions on medical underwriting in the small group market, although those 

restrictions vary widely in their stringency. By contrast, the majority of states do not 

restrict medical underwriting in the non-group health insurance market. Likewise, private 

long-term care insurers may take into consideration an applicant's health status and 

family medical history in determining the premium they will charge. 

The government's Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) 

program would not have been allowed to vary premiums in this way but would have used 

a vesting period and a work requirement to try to mitigate adverse selection: Among the 
260 


71722.188

Questions for the Record 

Page 2 

requirements to be eligible for benefits, enrollees would have had to pay premiums for at 

least five years and to earn a certain minimum amount of wages or self-employment 

income during the first five years in which premiums are paid. Despite thosc 

requirements, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that adverse 

selection would have made that program untenable and will not implcmcnt it. 

2. Do you believe that the CLASS Aet as written ean be implemented without 

requiring mandatory participation in the government program? 

The law directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set premiums 

based on an actuarial analysis of the 75-year costs of the program that ensures solvency 

throughout such 75-year period. In its analysis of the budgetary effects of the program, 

CBO produced estimates that it judged to be in the middle of the distribution of possible 

outcomes. Those outcomes included a number of possibilities-that HHS would 

implement the program (without mandatory participation) and it would be viable; that 

HHS would implement the program and it ultimately would not be self-sustaining; or that 

the department would decide not to implement the program because it would not be 

actuarially sound. CBO believed, at that time, that each of those outcomes was possiblc, 

rct1ecting the concerns that many observers expressed about the challenges of 

implementing such a program. 

Implicit in those estimates was the expectation that there was a significant probability 

that HHS would undertake to implement the program and some chance that it would be 

viable, especially because of the authority given to the Secretary to ensure its solvency. 

There was also a significant risk that the CLASS program would attract too many 

enrollees in poor health-people who might not be able to obtain coverage from a private 

insurer. In that case, premiums would have had to be high in order to maintain actuarial 

balance, and such high premiums would have depressed enrollment. High premiums and 

low enrollment would have contributed to more adverse selection and future financial 

instability of the program. In fact, the Secretary has now concluded that the program 

cannot be operated without mandatory participation so as to ensure its solvency. 
261 


71722.189

Questions for the Record 

Page 3 

3. Secrctary Sebelius has publicly commented that if HHS believes thc CLASS Act 

is going to be insolvent, the program will not be implcmented. If HHS makes 

such a declaration, or fails to implement the program due to solvency concerns, 

at what point would CBO adjust its budgetary bas cline accordingly? 

CBO's baseline is rcgularly updated threc times a ycar-usually in January, March, and 

August. In addition, for the purposes of estimating the impact of proposed legislation, 

CBO takes into account definitivc administrative actions that occur in bctwccn baselinc 

updates. Examples of such administrative actions include publication of a final rcgulation 

and final guidance to states about aspects ofthc Medicaid program. W11en such a 

definitivc action occurs, CBO incorporates its effects in its current-law estimates that are 

the basis for projecting the impact of legislation, and the subscqucnt baseline update 

incorporatcs the change in projected spending or revenues that results from that action. 

Bccause the Secretary has now made a definitive, official statement that the CLASS 

program will not be implementcd, the budgctary impact of any subsequent legislation 

will be measured against a current-law projection that does not include a CLASS 

program. 

4. CBO's update on the Long-Term Budget Outlook., released last June, included 

an alternative fiscal scenario under which several PP ACA-relatcd provisions 

would not be implemented in the years after 2020, because CBO concluded 

"those policics may be difficult to maintain ovcr thc long term." Included in 

those provisions are "the continuing reductions in updates for Medicare's 

payment rates, the constraints on Medicare imposed by IP AB, and the additional 

indexing provisions that will slow the growth of exchange subsidies after 2018." 

Should the three provisions outlined above NOT be implcmented after 2020-as 

CBO's alternative fiscal scenario assumes-what would be the fiscal and 

budgetary impact of PP ACA as a whole in the law's second decade? 

CBO has not separately identified the cffect of not implementing the specific policies that 

might be difficult to maintain ovcr the long term that we identified in our June 2010 

Long-Term Budget Outlook. However, we have conducted similar analyses on two 

occasions. On March 19, 20 I 0, we sent a letter to Congressman Ryan that provided 

information about thc effects on the fedcral budget beyond the 2010-2019 period if 

scveral policies (including the three you asked about) were not implemented. In 

particular, he asked what would occur if: 

• The excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums-which will take 

effect in 2018 and for which the thresholds will be indexed at a lowcr rate 

bcginning in 2020-was never implemented; 
262 


71722.190

Questions for the Record 

Page 4 

• The annual indexing provisions for premium subsidies offered through the 

insurance exchanges continued in the same way after 2018 as before-in contrast 

to the arrangements specified by the Reconciliation Act of2010 (P.L 111-152), 

which will slow the growth of subsidies after 2019; 

• The scheduled reductions in payment rates for physicians under Medicare did not 

take effect, and instead, those rates were adjusted as specified in H.R. 3961; and 

• The Independent Payment Advisory Board-which will be required, under certain 

circumstanccs, to recommend changes to the Medicare program to limit the rate of 

growth in that program's spending, and whose recommendations will go into 

effect automatically unless blocked by subsequent legislative action-was never 

implemented. 

CBO concluded that, if the changes described above were made to PPACA and the 

Reconciliation Act, the net effect of the legislation would be an increase in federal 

budget deficits during the decade beyond 2019 relative to those projected under prior 

law-with a total effect during that decade in a broad range around one-quarter percent of 

GDP. 

That letter can be found at: 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocsIl13xx/docI1376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf 

We provided a similar analysis to Chairman Ryan on February 18, 2011, which addressed 

the impact of leaving certain policies in place, rather than repealing them as specified in 

H.R. 2. That letter can be found at: 

http://Vvww.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/docI2070/hr2RyanLtr.pdf 

S. CBO has previously opined that the 40 percent "Cadillac tax" on high-cost plans 

will lead insurers to modify their benefit packages, for instance by raising 

deductibles and co-payments or making other steps to trim benefits. However, 

PP ACA also includes an essential benefits package--a group of benefits that 

individuals must purchase in order to meet requirements of the law's individual 

mandate. Because the "Cadillac tax" threshold is only updated annually 

according to CPI inflation, the cost of the mandated benefits could well rise 

faster than the "Cadillac tax" threshold is increased. 

a. Do you agree that it is possible--cven likely-that sooner or later ALL 

employer plans will be subject to the "Cadillac tax"-because the mandated 

benefits will grow faster that the threshold for triggering the tax? 
263 


71722.191

Questions for the Record 

Page 5 

b. If an employer cannot avoid the "Cadillac tax" because of the requirements 

ofthe essential benefits package, who would bear the economic burden of this 

40 percent levy? 

c. Under this scenario, what will be the distributional impact at the margin of 

the 40 percent "Cadillac tax" when compared to a cap on the income and 

payroll tax exclusion provided to employer-sponsored health insurance? 

d. Should such a scenario occur whereby an employer cannot modify benefits to 

avoid the "Cadillac tax," do you believe employers would continue to 

maintain coverage for their employees? 

e. For the reasons outlined above, do you believe that the revenue generated 

from the "Cadillac tax" could eventually exceed the revenue generated from 

the income tax? 

CBO works in close coordination with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) 

on tax-related estimates. In particular, JCT spearheaded our combined efforts to estimate 

the budgetary impact of the excise tax provisions ofPPACA and the Reconciliation Act. 

(JCT is responsible for determining official estimates of revenue changes that would 

result from any amendments to the Internal Revenue Code.) Therefore, for detailed 

infoIDlation about estimates related to this provision, JCT would be the best source. The 

following are some general thoughts on the issues raised by your questions. 

Generally, the rate of growth of health insurance premiums paid by employers will, on 

average, be larger than the growth in the excise tax thresholds. Thus, over time, more 

employers will be subject to the excise tax. The extent to which this occurs will depend 

on the extent to which the growth in medical costs exceeds the growth in prices overall. 

Over the long teon, the burden of the tax will fall on linns' employees. Most economists 

generally expect that, on average, an employee's total compensation-including wages, 

fringe benefits, and any taxes on those amounts-will equal his or her contribution to the 

revenue of the firm. Thus, for employees enrolled in plans whose premiums exceed the 

relevant excise tax threshold, their employers will probably pay less in wages and other 

fonns of compensation, keeping total compensation about the same. 

Employers subject to the excise tax will be liable for excise tax payments on the amount 

of the total insurance premium (plus other amounts subject to the tax) that exceeds the 

threshold. Because of this disincentive to offer coverage, CBO and JCT estimate that 

some employers will drop coverage rather than pay the excise tax. But many employers 

potentially subject to the excise tax will continue to offer coverage because their 
264 


71722.192

Questions for thc Record 

Page 6 

employees will still continue to benefit from the income and payroll tax exclusions for 

health insurance premium amounts below those thresholds. We expect that most finns 

will avoid paying the excise tax by reducing the value of the benefit packages they offer. 
265 


71722.193

Questions for the Record 

Page 7 

The Honorable Bill Cassidv 

1. Can you please explain why your testimony indicates that Medicaid outlays will 

continue to increase every year between 2016 and 2020 by an average of 

$5.6 billion per year despite a flat level of Medicaid enrollment and a decrease in 

federal funding obligations for the newly eligible Medicaid population? In 

addition, what is the countervailing cost on state budgets? 

CBO estimated that the cost of adding approximately 17 million new enrollees to 

Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as a result of last year's 

health care legislation will grow from $77 billion in 2016 to $105 billion in 2021-in 

percentage terms, an average of about 6.4 percent per year, and in dollar terms, an 

average of about $5.6 billion per year-primarily because of rising prices for the medical 

services that those programs provide and to lesser extent because of changes in the 

utilization of medical services. Such changes in utilization can includc the increasing use 

of new drugs, devices, or technologies. For example, over the 2000-2010 period, 

Medicaid spending per capita grew by an average of about 6 percent per ycar, reflecting a 

combination of price inflation and growth in the utilization of medical services. 

CBO estimatcs that state spending for Medicaid and CHIP will increase by $60 billion 

over the 2012-2021 pcriod because of the coveragc provisions in last year's health care 

legislation. 

2. Did the CBO presume that there was cost savings in PPACA associated with 

expanding access? How much savings were scored due to this? What evidence 

does the CBO have to prove this is true? Please provide references. 

CBO expects that the federal government will incur significant additional costs as a result 

of the insurance coverage provisions of thc Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

(PPACA). (The net savings projccted to result from the new law stem from other 

provisions.) An estimated 17 million people will be added to the Medicaid and CHIP 

programs by 2021, and 24 million people will receive subsidies toward the purchase of 

private health insurance plans offered through exchanges. In March 2011, CBO estimated 

the additional federal costs in that year to be about $240 billion. 

Because health insurance reduces the price individuals must pay to providers to obtain 

care, those individuals who newly obtain insurance under PPACA are expected to 

increase their use of medical services and spend more for health care than they did while 

uninsured. Even after accounting for that increase in health carc spending among the 

otherwise uninsured, CBO estimates that, on average, the newly insurcd will have 

somewhat lower health care costs than those who would have been insured even if 

PPACA had not gone into effect. That gap reflects CBO's asscssment that, on averagc, 
266 


71722.194

Questions for the Record 

Page 8 

people without insurance have a lower propensity to use health care services-a tendcncy 

that would persist if they became covered under the new program. Those estimates are 

based on a review of the literature of the health status of the uninsured and original 

analysis by CBO. For a more complete discussion of the key research findings regarding 

the effects of gaining insurance coverage on health care use and spending, see CBO's 

report entitled Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals, Chapter 3, 

pages 71-76.' 

3. Your testimony states that Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) can reduce 

costs. However, according to a March 23rd New England Journal of Medicine 

article "The ACO Model-A Three-Year Financial Loss?" health eare entities 

specifically chosen to succeed as ACOs in demonstration projects more often 

than not failed to save money. What will happen when ACOs are implemented in 

"real world settings"? What is the estimated savings attributed to the adoption of 

ACOs and when are those savings estimated to begin? Did CBO include start- up 

costs and cost associated with implementation in rural areas in its estimate? If so, 

were savings different? 

Sections 3022 and 10307 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 

111-148) establish a Medicare shared savings program, under which groups of providers 

of services and suppliers may work together to manage and coordinate care for Medicare 

fee-for-service beneficiaries through an accountable care organization (ACO), and ACOs 

that meet quality performance standards established by the Secretary will be eligible to 

receive payments representing a share of the estimated savings realized by Medicare. 

CBO estimated that those sections will lead to savings in Medicare beginning in fiscal 

year 2013 and, after accounting for the shared savings payments to ACOs, will reduce 

gross Medicare spending in the fee-for-service sector by $4.9 billion over the 20 I 0-20 19 

pcriod. 

Unlike CBO's estimate, which addresses only cffccts on the federal budget, the article 

cited does not focus on costs or savings accruing to the Medicare program. Rather, the 

article focuses on financial losses incurred by physician group practices that participated 

in the Physician Group Practice (PGP) demonstration program. The article notes that 

"high up-front investments make the model a poor fit for most physician group 

practices;" and suggests that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 

"could limit participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program to a narrow group of 

provider organizations that can absorb the likely financial losses in the early years of 

participation." 

http://www.cbo.gov(ftpdocs(99xx(doc9924(12-18-KeY'5S ues. pdf 
267 


71722.195

Questions for the Record 

Page 9 

Neither conclusion is surprising. In fact. CBO's estimate that the shared savings program 

will generate savings for Medicare was predicated on the expectation that CMS would 

design the shared savings program so as to make the program attractive only to physician 

groups and clinically integrated organizations with a relativcly large number of Mcdicare 

patients. Because the paymcnts to ACOs under the shared savings program will be bascd 

on spending benchmarks reflecting historical experience, thc program will make 

substantial payments to organizations that don't actually generate savings for Medicare--

simply as a result of natural variation in the costs of treating patients with any particular 

set of characteristics. That variation in cost per beneficiary declines as the number of 

patients increases. Consequently, designing the rules of the shared savings program so as 

to limit participation by organizations that do not have relatively large numbers of 

Medicare patients is necessary to minimize the amount of "windfall" bonus payments and 

to maximize thc likelihood that the program will reduce Medicare spending. 

CEO focused on estimating the effects of the provision on Medicare spending and did not 

analyze the costs that would be borne by participating organizations---either nationwide 

or on an urban/rural basis. 
268 


71722.196

FRED UPTON, MICHIGAN 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Richard Foster 

Chief Actuary 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

HENRY A, WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA 

RANKING MEMBER 

QCongres's' of tbe mniteb ~tates' 

~ousc of l\cprcscntatibes 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

Majority (202) 225-2927 

Minority (202) 225-3&41 

June 3, 2011 

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service 

Department of Health and Human Services 

7500 Security Boulevard 

Baltimore, MD 21244 

Dear Mr, Foster: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Health on Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 

to testify at the hearing entitled "The True Cost ofPPACA: Effects on the Budget and Jobs." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for 10 business days to permit Members to submit additional questions to witnesses, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and then (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions by the close of 

business on Friday, June 17,2011. Your responses should be e-mailed to the Legislative Clerk, in 

Word or PDF fonnat, at Allison.Busbee@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

cc: Frank Pallone, Jr" Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Health 

Attachment 

S;t;inCerel

Y

, " K I~ ,¥ J Pitts 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Health 
269 


71722.197

The Honorable Phil Gingrey 

Additional Questions for the Rec{lrd 

The True Cost of the Patient Protection Act 

Hearing for the Subcommittee on Health 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

March 30. lOll 

1. From an economic and actuarial perspective, which has a greater risk of adverse 

selection-the market for health insurance, or the market for long-term care 

insurance? 

Health insurance and long-term care insurance are both potentially subject to adverse 

selection by individuals who might seek to obtain coverage because they know they have an 

above-average likelihood of the insured risk. Since long-term care insurance typically 

involves a much longer commitment and higher potential costs, the risk of adverse selection 

for such coverage would generally be greater than for health insurance. 

2. Do you believe that the CLASS Act as written can be implemented without requiring 

mandatory participation in the government program? 

Absent either (i) mandatory participation requirements, (ii) premium subsidies, or 

(iii) effective underwriting standards, long-tenn care insurance would be subject to severe 

adverse selection problems. The CLASS program, as enacted, did not include any of these 

mechanisms; accordingly, J opined that the program was unlikely to be sustainable. During 

implementation planning, consideration was given to stronger work requirements and other 

measures in lieu of underwriting. However, none of these measures was consistent with the 

statutory provisions governing the CLASS program, and ultimately the Secretary ofHHS 

suspended its implementation. 

3. Did anyone within HHS' Office of Planning and Evaluation discuss their modeling of 

the CLASS Act with you prior to enactment ofPPACA on March 23, 2010? If so, what 

was the substance of those conversations? Did anyone from the Office of Planning and 

Evaluation (or other offices within the federal government outside of the actuary's 

office) tell you they were of the conclusion that the CLASS Act as written in the bill was 

fundamentally l1awed-or did they provide information that would lead you to draw 

the conclusion that they were of that opinion? 

The Office of the Actuary was not directly involved with HHS' modeling of the CLASS 

program. We were, however, aware that the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning 

and Evaluation (ASPE) was working with an actuarial contractor to estimate the premium 
270 


71722.198

levels that would be required. In addition, in conversations with ASPE and OMB officials, it 

was widely acknowledged that the CLASS program, as originally drafted, would be subject 

to serious problems with adverse selection. ASPE worked with members ofthe Senate 

HELP Committee staff to develop a number of revisions to the proposal designed to reduce 

the risk of adverse selection, but ultimately the changes were not included in the final 

language as enacted. 

4. Last May, CMS spent S18 million sending out a mailer to all Medicare beneficiaries 

telling them the health care law would "keep Medicare strong and solvent." While 

CMS Administrator Berwick submitted comments to the Finance Committee indicating 

that "CMS consults with OACT whenever its actuarial expertise is relevant"-which 

presumably would apply to any mailer making claims about Medicare's solvencySecretary Sebelius pointedly declined to answer a question from eight senators who 

wrote asking whether your office was consulted on this mailer's content. Were you, or 

anyone within your office, consulted before this mailer was distributed to beneficiaries? 

To the best of our recollection, no one in the Office of the Actuary was asked to review the 

beneficiary mailer in question before it was distributed. 

5. If you were not previously consulted regarding the Medicare mailer, do you have any 

concerns about the accuracy or completeness of claims made within it? 

The mailer on Medicare and the new health care law, which was sent to Medicare 

beneficiaries in May 20 I 0, focuses on benefit improvements, efforts to combat fraud and 

abuse, reduced premiums and cost-sharing payments, and other positive aspects of the 

Affordable Care Act. It does not describe certain other elements of the legislation that might 

be viewed with concern by many beneficiaries. lfwe had been asked to review the mailer, 

we would have recommended a more complete and balanced summary ofthe legislation's 

effects on the Medicare program, and we would have advised against some of the language 

used because of its misleading nature. 

Responses by Richard S. Foster 

Chief Actuary 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 

December 14.2012 

2 
271 


71722.199

FRED UPTON, MICHIGAN 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED 1WELFTH CONGRESS 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA 

RANKING MEMBER 

(!Congress of tbe Wnittb ~tatts 

~ouse of l\epresentatiites 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILOING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--B115 

MajoritY (202) 22~2927 

Minority (202) 225-3641 

June 3, 2011 

Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin 

President 

American Action Forum 

1401 New York Avenue, N. W. Suite 1200 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Dear Dr. Holtz-Eakin: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Health on Wednesday, March 30,2011, 

to testify at the hearing entitled "The True Cost ofPPACA: Effects on the Budget and Jobs." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for 10 business days to pennit Members to submit additional questions to witnesses, which are 

attached. The fonnat of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and then (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions by the close of 

business on Friday, June 17,2011. Your responses should be e-mailed to the Legislative Clerk, in 

Word or PDF format, at Allison.Busbee@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

cc: Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Health 

Attaclunent 

S;OO=I'1 . ;.Pf;t J~\..') 

Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Health 
272 

Æ 


71722.200

I believe that Medicaid waivers are a desirable policy that allow states the flexibility to innovate and 

provide better services for their Medicaid populations. While those at eMS need to do their jobs and 

thoroughly review waiver applications, the time should be kept to a minimum. As for the state 

budgetary impact, the magnitudes would depend on the goals of the waiver. It seems unlikely that a 

state would seek a waiver that would raise its costs in an undesirable way, so the presumption must b 

that a waiver provides savings and that it is costly to delay a new program or initiative. An additional 

cost would be any time and money needed to design (and perhaps implement) a less-attractive "plan 

while waiting for a decision. 

The Honorable Cathv McMorris Rodgers 

1. As you know, waivers give states more i1exibility in how they implement their Medicaid 

programs. Flexibility in most scenarios means cost savings. In your opinion, what impact 

does eMS's delayed response to Section IllS waiver requests have all slate budgets? I'll 

give you one example, Washington State submitted a waiver application and it took eMS 

about one year -. give or take a few weeks -- to finalize its approval. In the meantime, the 

State was prevented from moving forward to address its budget crisis. I know this delay cost 

the state money at a time when the state can least afford it (the state of Vi:ashington is facing 

a $5.7 billion defic·it over the next two years).