Health care costs are slowing: Is Obamacare responsible?

Is Obamacare even partly responsible for the slowdown in health care costs?

That is silly.

First, Obamacare is not a health care reform law; it is a health insurance reform law. No one on either side of the debate has ever argued anything different.

Does the law have some limited cost containment features in it?

Yes. But these are either pilot projects or are years from being fully implemented.

I have heard the argument that the Medicare cuts that were made to help pay for the program are examples of cost containment efforts that are having a short-term impact on controlling costs. The Democrats need to be careful with this one. I recall their countering Republican “Mediscare” claims by saying the Medicare cuts were not significant.

In a letter last year accompanying the Medicare Trustee’s report, the Medicare actuary said, “The [Obamacare Medicare cuts] will affect Medicare price levels more gradually, but a strong likelihood exists that, without very substantial transformational changes in health care practices, payment rates would become inadequate in the long range.”

Translated: The Obama Medicare provider cuts are not having a big impact in the short-run but will be unsustainable over the longer-term.

Obamacare cuts Medicare Advantage payments. But those cuts have either so far been put off or are just beginning to bite. The first real cuts hit in 2014 and the first big cuts come in 2015.

These provider cuts in their totality are a tiny percentage of health care spending in the first few years and have had almost no impact so far. The 2% across the board sequester cuts that have already hit provider payments and Medicare Advantage plans have been far more significant.

Some have argued the new Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) program, that reorganizes provider payment away from fee-for-service, is having a big impact. First, private ACOs were around long before the Obamacare architects had the idea. Second, the Medicare ACO program is only a pilot program just getting off the ground. Recent reports regarding the first 32 advanced “pioneer” ACOs only showed very limited and mixed results for the first year.

Then there is the high cost health plan “Cadillac” tax designed to discourage overly generous employer plans. It begins in 2018. We are getting indications that many employers are beginning to pare their health plans back so as not to hit the tax threshold four years down the road — but this is something that is only just beginning to happen particularly as employers announce their plan changes for 2014.

Perhaps the biggest, and most controversial, cost containment element of the Affordable Care Act is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which has the power to change Medicare reimbursement if costs are escalating at an unsustainable rate. But the IPAB doesn’t even begin until 2015 — the board members haven’t been appointed yet. More, it appears that health care cost trend is now so low the board may not even be triggered come 2015.

Why are health care costs escalating at historically low levels?

That is a question health care economists have been debating. No one is really sure. But at least three reasons are commonly listed:

  1. The economic slowdown that has persisted. Health care cost trend has long tracked the overall economy.
  2. Health insurance plans, particularly employer plans, have been going through a multi-year push to increase deductibles and co-pays as well as put consumers in a position to be more accountable for their health care spending choices. Health savings accounts have grown markedly in recent years.
  3. Managed care companies and their provider partners have made a marked improvement in changing the way care is delivered and paid for — today’s health care delivery system, while still largely a fee-for-service system, is not the same one we had ten years ago.

Clearly, there is a lot of debate over just what is causing the slowdown in health care costs.

I guess that just creates an opportunity for eager politicians to find another thing to spin.

Robert Laszewski is president, Health Policy and Strategy Associates and blogs at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review.

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • May Wright

    Those who are ideologically in favor of the ACA have a tendency to cherry-pick any Good Thing happening in the world of healthcare and health insurance and credit the ACA for it. Those who are ideologically opposed to the ACA have a tendency to cherry-pick any Bad Thing happening in the world of healthcare and health insurance and blame the ACA for it.
    Many of the Obamacare success stories touted by its proponents have fallen in a heap once they’re given any serious scrutiny, and many of the Obamacare sob stories touted by its opponents haven’t stood up to basic fact-checking either.
    I take everything I hear about it with a grain of salt* now.
    *Apologies to sodium-foe Mayor Bloomberg ;)

  • David Mokotoff

    Data shows the slow down in healthcare costs began in 2007, perhaps due to the recession. It is unlikely that Obamacare has much, if anything, to do with it. Early results from indicate few younger healthy individuals signing it which will inevitably increase costs for everyone.

  • Rachel Phillips

    How could a decrease in healthcare spending be a result of Obama Care when it hasn’t even been implemented yet?

  • Robert Luedecke

    As a physician, I think the main reason health costs are down is the economy. There is also a lot more attention now to costs and some focus on common things that are frequently a waist of money. We need to drive medical costs even lower since the US is almost twice as expensive as the next most costly country. Across the board cuts like the 2% sequester for providers in Medicare will cause more harm than good because more doctors will stop seeing Medicare patients (as has already begun to happen). Doctor fees are a very small percentage of total Medicare costs, but doctors can bring about huge cost savings if helped and encouraged rather than penalized.

  • Dorothygreen

    Health Insurance exchanges are a good thing. Not allowing Insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing diseases is a good thing.

    Allowing all players – insurance, physicians, hospitals, equipment and big pharma, others to continue to determine prices is a bad thing.

    Every other rich country with universal health care (and they all have a universal health systems) such that everyone is included (mandated), negotiate prices/rates with the players. If we did, this would be a real reduction in health care costs. The ACA is indirectly attempting to decrease the abuse and waste but it won’t happen without one rate for basic insurance for all that is not for-profit. Then let the insurance companies sell supplemental, if one wants perks, top docs, etc i.e. the cadillac plans al carte. then let that be for insurance companies to make profit. Switzerland made this determination in 1996 and while, like every country, there are some “issues” it works pretty well.

    For those who are upset “paying for others health care”. This is the basis for insurance. Right! Risk pools. Unexpected medical events. It is more pronounced in the ACA because we still have fragmented health care. Look at the limits to deductions, OOP, premium for a child until 18. All lower than US. And their health care costs are about half ours. Doctors are leaving to come to US. The hospitals are world class.

    We need to wake up and stop this nonsense that it universal health care equals socialism and the only way to do it is free market. It doesn’t have to be “government run to be effective and efficient. But the government does have to work on “we the peoples” behalf for fair pricing of health services.

Most Popular