by In 2010 Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Acts (there were 2) from now on called the ACA. One of the aims was to bend the Medicare spending curve and, they hoped (or dreamed) stop the increase in spending per beneficiary. The spending per beneficiary ceased increasing. Oh crap Chrome refuses to upload an image (and says I am offline while also opening other pages. I should have kept my oath). sorry for housekeeping tangent. I am here using Firefox. Trying again: the spending per beneficiary ceased increasing. See the very clear dramatic break at 2010. Evidence doesn’t get clearer than that. In true 200 proof commitment to the tradition that “opinions on shape of planet differ: both sides have a
Topics:
Robert Waldmann considers the following as important: Featured Stories, Healthcare, Medicare, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes Biden finalizes rule opening up Obamacare to DACA recipients
Eric Kramer writes Ukraine, Israel, and Biden: lessons and questions
Bill Haskell writes A Teaser for you . . . Trickle Down Economics
Angry Bear writes Broker Fraud in the ACA marketplace
In 2010 Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Acts (there were 2) from now on called the ACA. One of the aims was to bend the Medicare spending curve and, they hoped (or dreamed) stop the increase in spending per beneficiary.
The spending per beneficiary ceased increasing.
Oh crap Chrome refuses to upload an image (and says I am offline while also opening other pages. I should have kept my oath). sorry for housekeeping tangent. I am here using Firefox.
Trying again: the spending per beneficiary ceased increasing.
See the very clear dramatic break at 2010. Evidence doesn’t get clearer than that.
In true 200 proof commitment to the tradition that “opinions on shape of planet differ: both sides have a point.”
Margot Sanger-Katz, Alicia Parlapiano and Josh Katz write “The reason for the per-person slowdown is a bit of a mystery.” Yep, probably a coincidence.
Now back in 2010, there were those who asserted that this outcome was unlikely. One was Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He is quoted and paraphrased by Lori Montgomery questioning whether the ACA cuts to Medicare spending will actually be implemented (by the way the link to the House Ways and Means Committee which should lead to the official document is dead).
“
The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.
Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but “so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings” than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.”
I wrote . . .
“I think that ‘Hospitals will refuse Medicare and/or Medicaid’ is a serious policy concern on a level similar to the “tax cuts cause increased revenues.” And here it is on the front page of www.washingtonpost.com.”
I told you so.