Post on 27-Mar-2015
Medicaid and SCHIP: Dollars and Common SenseStan DornSenior Policy AnalystEconomic and Social Research Institute
Families USA National ConferenceJanuary 27, 2005
Economic and Social Research Institute 2
On a personal note I’m not an economist I don’t even play one on TV My boss is an economist
and usually reviews my work He’s out of the office this
week
Economic and Social Research Institute 3
Topics
1. Ups and downs
2. Taxing and spending
3. Winners and losers
4. Expensive and cheap
5. Real and illusory
Part I: ups and downs
Economic and Social Research Institute 5
The business cycle
Economic and Social Research Institute 6
Ameliorating recession – what’s a policymaker to do? Monetary stimulus –
lower interest rates Fiscal stimulus
Raise spending Cut taxes
Automatic fiscal stabilizers Stimulus automatically
rises and falls, against the business cycle (“countercyclical”)
Economic and Social Research Institute 7
Unemployment insurance
Grows when unemployment rises, falls when unemployment drops
Impact, during average recession between WW II and 1999: Mitigated the loss in real GDP by 15 to 17
percent Saved more than 130,000 jobs in the average
recession’s peak year Source: L. Chimerine, T. S. Black, and L. Coffey, Unemployment Insurance as an Automatic Stabilizer: Evidence of
Effectiveness Over Three Decades, Coffey Communications, LLC, for U.S. Department of Labor (July 1999) Unemployment Insurance Occasional Paper 99-8. http://wdr.doleta.gov/owsdrr/99-8/99-8.pdf
Economic and Social Research Institute 8
Changes in Medicaid spending, spending on unemployment insurance, and the unemployment rate: 1983-2003
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Medicaid (billions of dollars) Unemployment Insurance (billions of dollars)
Unemployment Rate (tenths of a percent)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Dept. of Commerce, August 2005; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), August 2005. Calculations by ESRI.
Economic and Social Research Institute 9
Impact of a 1 percentage point change in the unemployment rate (standard Medicaid program, no cap on federal dollars)
Expected change in the proportion of residents who have each listed form of coverage
ESI Medicaid No coverage
Children -1.048% +0.637% +0.427%
Adults <65 -0.995% +0.237% +0.670%
Source: Dorn, Smith, and Garrett. ESRI, HPA and the Urban Institute, 9/27/05.
Economic and Social Research Institute 10
Implications for state decisions about Medicaid waivers Caps on federal Medicaid dollars could
hurt a state’s ability to recover from future recession
More important – such caps could prevent the state from providing health coverage to vulnerable people precisely when ESI declines and Medicaid is most needed
Part II: Taxing and spending
Economic and Social Research Institute 12
What happens when taxes are raised to expand health coverage? Claim: “Raising taxes will hurt the state’s
economy!” Response: “Expanding health coverage helps
the state’s economy even more!” Urban analysis in MA: universal coverage + $700-900
million tax increase, would increase personal income by $400 million and create 7,300 to 8,600 jobs.
Why? Taxes reduce private spending, some of which would have happened outside the state. Almost all health spending happens within the state.
Other factors: more federal money in state, higher productivity
Source: Holahan, Blumberg, Weil, Clemans-Cope, Buettgens, Blavin, and Zuckerman. Urban Institute, 10/05.
Part III: Winners and losers
Economic and Social Research Institute 14
Scenario: use an employer assessment to expand health coverage
Claim: “Forcing employers to pay will hurt business!”
Response: “More employers win than lose!” Fewer uninsured means less cost-shifting, lowering
premiums for employers that cover their workers Exempt the smallest firms from the employer
assessment (e.g., under 10 workers) Let employers subtract from the assessment premium
payments and workers covered from other sources –only firms that don’t cover their workers will pay
Economic and Social Research Institute 15
Example: winners & losers in CTConnecticut firms that offer coverage vs. firms with 10+
workers that do not offer coverage: 2003
22,491
8,0055,151 5,659
13,045
0 1,050 923 51 473
<10 10 to 24 25-99 100-999 1000+
Firm size, by number of workers
Nu
mb
er o
f fi
rms
Firms offering coverage Firms with 10+ workers but not offering coverage
Source: AHRQ. MEPS-IC. July 2005. Calculations by ESRI, January 2006.http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/MEPSDATA/ic/2003/Index203.htm
Economic and Social Research Institute 16
Connecticut workers at firms that offer coverage vs. workers at firms with 10+ workers that do not offer coverage: 2003
105,126 99,687170,656
208,803
731,597
15,558 23,713 10,75847,527
<10 10 to 24 25-99 100-999 1000+
Firm size, by number of workers
Nu
mb
er o
f em
plo
yees
At firms offering coverage At firms with 10+ workers that do not offer coverage
Source: AHRQ. MEPS-IC. July 2005. Calculations by ESRI, January 2006.http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/MEPSDATA/ic/2003/Index203.htm
Part IV: Expensive and cheap
Economic and Social Research Institute 18
Metrics forcoverage expansion costs State budget costs vs. total health
spending Premium costs vs. taxes Change in health spending, as a
percentage of total health spending
Economic and Social Research Institute 19
Employer responsibility
If shift costs from employers to public sector, public costs go up more than total health care costs
If premiums go down and taxes on employers go up, firms wind up in the middle
Economic and Social Research Institute 20
Covering all the uninsured nationally would raise health spending by 3 percent, or less than half of one year’s health care inflation
Health spending, 2004: Real total vs. projected increase from universal coverage (billions)
$1,878
$48
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
Total health spending, 2004 Extra spending from universal coverage
Source: Hadley and Holahan, 2005; CMS, 2005 (NHE). Calculations by ESRI, 1/06.
Part V: Real and illusory
Economic and Social Research Institute 22
IOM Loss per uninsured -
$1,645 - $3,280 Illusion: this much
money is saved when someone gains coverage
Reality: this is a dollar value of improved morbidity and mortality resulting from insurance