I have a question. Has the effect of the waivers granted on the CBO’s projections about the fiscal implications of the PPACA been studied?
I have a question. Has the effect of the waivers granted on the CBO’s projections about the fiscal implications of the PPACA been studied?
Uh, the waivers are limited (all expire in 2014 when that ACA takes effect fully). What kind of effects would you think they would have?
If costs are rising rapidly when measures intended to reduce the rate of increase are applied is important in determining what the dollar value of the effect will be after any given period has elapsed.
Let me give an example. Medicare spending is rising at roughly 9% per year. Arguendo let’s say we’re spending $500 billion per year. That means all other things being equal after one year we’ll be spending $545 billion, after two years $594 billion, after three years $647 billion, and after four years $705 billion.
If the rate of increase is cut to 8% those numbers will be $540 billion, $583 billion, $630 billion, and $680 billion, an appreciable difference. If you delayed whatever you’re doing to slow the rate of increase by one year the numbers would be $545 billion, $589 billion, $636 billion, and $689 billion. When you implement your change makes a difference in the outcome after four years. That’s the reasoning behind my question.
I’m wondering about the order of magnitude of the effect of the waivers. I don’t know whether we’re talking thousands, millions, or billions.
My understanding is that waivers are being granted primarily because the ACA requires the elimination of annual dollar limits on health insurance. The waivers disappear when subsidies start in 2014. This means lower costs for the companies with limited benefit plans prior to 2014. . I am not sure how this transfers to the ACA. When the exchanges open, the companies who received waivers will be paying the same to insure their employees as those who did not receive waivers AFAICT.
To answer your specific question, I have seen no studies addressing the issue.
Steve