RAND researchers Elizabeth McGlynn et al have used a microsimulation model to conclude that the health care reform bill signed into law did about as good a job of expanding coverage without increasing the bill (much) as we could reasonably expect within the confines of the real political world.
The researchers did a sensitivity analysis with multiple variables, including:
1) Varying individual or employer penalties for not obtaining or providing health insurance. Researchers found that lower penalties increased the cost of expanded coverage. Increased penalties lowered the cost of increased coverage – but were not likely politically palatable.
2) Varying the threshold for Medicaid eligibility. If this is lower than the federal poverty level, the rate of uninsurance remains high. If it is set above 133%, there is more ”crowd out” with members leaving employer-sponsored plans, which increases the cost to government.
3) Varying the restrictions on increased costs for older enrollees.,
All modeling was done as if there was a single national exchange, and the researchers did not consider penalties collected (essentially discounted these at 100%).
The researchers also evaluated which scenarios led to the highest value for consumers. Invariably, there was a proportionate relationship between government spending and value to consumers – so to reliably give more benefit to consumers, government spending would have to increase.
In the graphic above, the origin (red square) is the health care reform bill as passed. Area 1 represents less government spending AND more people insured. It’s the smallest area – meaning the fewest of the simulations were here. All of these were judged by the authors to be political non-starters,. Area 2 is unequivocally worse outcomes – higher government cost with fewer new enrollees covered. Area 3 represents more coverage and higher spending, while Area 4 represents less coverage and lower spending. (3B and 3B represent better ‘value’ – in that there is less government spending for each newly insured person).
We all know what’s wrong with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). We wish that its cost saving was more iron-clad, and we wish some of the benefits came more quickly. We are worried that some of the cost savings might be overstated. Having said that, the sausage-factory that is Congress ultimately passed a bill that does an admirable job of increasing coverage and being prudent with taxpayer dollars.
