'Medicare for all' could be cheaper than you think

September 20, 2017 by Gerald Friedman, The Conversation

Public support for single-payer health care has been rising in recent months amid failed Republican efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

That's perhaps why Sen. Bernie Sanders on September 13 introduced a new version of his single-payer plan with the support of 16 Democratic colleagues, a sharp rise from 2013 when none signed on to a similar proposal. It would not only expand Medicare to all Americans but make it more comprehensive by covering more services like mental , dental care and vision, all without copayments or deductibles.

But Sanders's plan would come at a steep price: likely more than US$14 trillion over the first decade, based on an estimate I did of a previous version.

There is, however, a simpler and less costly path toward single-payer, and it may have a better chance of success: Simply strike the words "who are age 65 or over" from the 1965 amendments to the Social Security Act that created Medicare and, voila, everyone (who wants) would be covered by the existing Medicare program.

While this wouldn't be single-payer – in which the government covers all costs – and private insurers would continue to operate alongside Medicare, it would be a substantial improvement over the current system.

I have been researching the economics of health care for four decades. While I prefer a more comprehensive universal health care plan that covers all Americans, a simpler version would be much more affordable – and maybe even politically possible.

What Medicare was and what it was meant to be

Striking the words "over 65" from the Medicare statutes was an idea championed by the late Senator Daniel Moynihan. Moynihan, who held several roles in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, was an original architect of the War on Poverty and a central figure in the evolution of health care policy in the latter 20th century.

In fact, many advocates originally intended that Medicare be the basis for universal . A key reason it serves so well as the foundation is that it includes a funding mechanism – the 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax paid by you and your employer, alongside modest monthly premiums.

In addition, its limited scope, skimpy benefits and cost-sharing keep costs low. Medicare covers only a little more than half of participants' health care spending, forcing many elderly Americans to buy private insurance and pay significant out-of-pocket expenses. A little over 11 million poorer participants also rely on Medicaid, especially for long-term care.

For example, Medicare covers hospitalization only after a person has paid the $1,316 deductible, and there's a copay of $329 per day after 60 days and double that beyond 90. It also covers only 80 percent of the cost of doctor visits and the use of medical equipment – though only after a $183 deductible and the monthly $134 premium.

Still, it provides meaningful protection against the potentially crippling cost of accident or illness.

Giving Medicare to everyone

Single-payer, in its purest form, means the government becomes everyone's insurer, and private insurance is largely dropped as redundant. This is the way health insurance is provided in the United Kingdom and Canada, as well as other countries like Taiwan. Sanders's plan would follow this framework.

A simple expansion of Medicare would be more like a hybrid system in which the government program exists alongside private insurers, with residents free to use any combination of the two.

One of the reasons single-payer health care has failed in the United States is that even though it might eventually lower costs, it would require substantial new taxes up front. Sanders's plan, as I noted earlier, would cost around $1.4 trillion a year. But because of its lower benefit levels and built-in revenue stream, a simple Medicare expansion would cost substantially less, maybe only half that.

In 2015, the last year with complete data, over 55 million Americans received Medicare benefits (including nine million who were disabled). Total spending was $646 billion that year, or an average of $11,000 per recipient.

A simple expansion would add the nondisabled population under age 65 to Medicare: 28 million without insurance, 61 million covered by Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Plan and 181 million with . For the purposes of my calculations, I assume everyone eligible for Medicare would take advantage of the program.

Because the vast majority of the new enrollees would be younger and healthier than current Medicare participants, the cost per person would be much less, or about $5,527 for the once uninsured and $3,593 for everyone else. With a few other calculations, the total price tag of an expansion would tally around $836 billion – almost $600 billion less than Sanders' single-payer.

Substantial savings

Something that often gets lost in the debate over the cost of single-payer is that its implementation would lead to a host of savings that make the bill to taxpayers a lot less than the sticker price.

I estimate that a full single-payer system would likely save almost 19 percent of current spending, or about $665 billion for 2017. A simple Medicare expansion wouldn't save quite as much but it'd still be significant.

So where would the savings come from?

To begin with, studies show that medical billing is more expensive in the U.S. than in many countries.

The U.S. health care system spends twice as much as Canada, for example, because more "payers" means more complexity. Savings from a simple Medicare expansion could reduce this waste by about $89 billion a year.

Another source of savings is on insurance administration. Private insurers spend more than 12 percent of total expenditures on overhead, compared with around 2 percent for Medicare. Savings from moving everyone to Medicare would approach around $75 billion because of economies of scale, lower managerial salaries and more meager marketing expense.

A third way a simple Medicare expansion would yield savings is by reducing the ability of hospital monopolies to overcharge private insurers. Medicare, in contrast, is able to pay 22 percent less for the same services because of its size. If all Americans used Medicare savings on hospital costs could exceed $53 billion.

These three areas then would save just under $220 billion, bringing the cost down to $618 billion.

One small step

While $618 billion still seems like a hefty price tag, taxes wouldn't have to be raised much to pay for it.

For starters, most everyone would pay the premiums already charged by Medicare. This would generate an additional $210 billion in revenue from premiums.

In addition, a Medicare expansion would reduce the need for two current insurance subsidies: one for employer-provided insurance plans and another that the ACA provides insurers. This would save about $161 billion.

This leaves about $246 billion that would still need to be raised through additional taxes. This could be done with an increase in the Medicare tax that gets deducted from your paycheck. The tax, which is split evenly between employee and employer, would need to rise to 5.9 percent from 2.9 percent today. This would amount to just under $15 a week for the typical employee.

Campaigns for universal health insurance coverage have failed in the United States when they run up against the cost of providing coverage. Medicare, America's greatest success in advancing health care, succeeded precisely because it was limited and had its own dedicated funding streams.

We might learn from this example. Rather than jump all the way to a comprehensive single-payer system like the one Sanders favors, we could take a step along the way at a fraction of the cost by simply expanding Medicare to everyone who wants it.

Explore further: Key Democrats line up behind Sanders health care bill

Related Stories

Key Democrats line up behind Sanders health care bill

September 14, 2017
Former US presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced a revolutionary plan for government-sponsored health care, a proposal that has gained traction among rising-star Democrats.

Single-payer reform is 'the only way to fulfill the president's pledge' on health care

February 20, 2017
Proposals floated by Republican leaders won't achieve President Trump's campaign promises of more coverage, better benefits, and lower costs, but a single-payer reform would, according to a commentary published today in Annals ...

Sanders unveils huge universal US health care proposal

January 18, 2016
Senator Bernie Sanders, hours before taking the stage Sunday to debate Democratic presidential nomination favorite Hillary Clinton, unveiled his universal health care plan which would raise taxes on Americans across the board.

Home-based primary care model can produce medicare savings

June 14, 2016
(HealthDay)—The home-based primary care (HBPC) model at the core of the Independence at Home (IAH) demonstration has the potential to produce considerable savings for Medicare and Medicaid, according to research published ...

Plan suggested for reducing health care costs

May 17, 2017
(HealthDay)—Health care costs can be reduced, with a nine-step plan suggested as a starting place, according to an article published in Medical Economics.

Proposed 'Medicare Essential' plan estimated to save $180 billion over 10 years

May 6, 2013
Combining Medicare's hospital, physician, and prescription drug coverage with commonly purchased private supplemental coverage into one health plan could produce national savings of $180 billion over a decade while improving ...

Recommended for you

Early physical therapy benefits low-back pain patients

May 22, 2018
Patients with low-back pain are better off seeing a physical therapist first, according to a study of 150,000 insurance claims.

Closing coal, oil power plants leads to healthier babies

May 22, 2018
Shuttering coal- and oil-fired power plants lowers the rate of preterm births in neighboring communities and improves fertility, according to two new University of California, Berkeley, studies.

Insufficient sleep, even without extended wakefulness, leads to performance impairments

May 21, 2018
Millions of individuals obtain insufficient sleep on a daily basis, which can lead to impaired performance and other adverse physiological outcomes. To what extent these impairments are caused by the short sleep duration ...

Avoiding the car for travel could significantly lower risk of illness and death

May 21, 2018
People who are more active when commuting to work by walking or cycling could be cutting their relative risk of developing ischaemic heart disease or stroke by 11% and their relative risk of dying from these diseases by 30%, ...

New study shows higher formaldehyde risk in e-cigarettes than previously thought

May 21, 2018
Portland State University researchers who published an article three years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine about the presence of previously undiscovered forms of formaldehyde in e-cigarette vapor revisited their ...

Sleep better, parent better: Study shows link between maternal sleep and permissive parenting

May 21, 2018
Research has shown that consistently not getting enough sleep, or getting poor quality sleep, can put you at risk for a number of health conditions. But how does sleep, or the lack of it, affect how you parent?

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.