CBO Chief Writes Preventative Care Will Increase Costs Due To Longer Longevity

[mikekohr]

clip: Elmendorf also noted that some types of preventive care will increase longevity, which would

increase federal spending in the long run as more people live longer and thus both Social

Security and Medicare outlays will increase.


full letter below:



CBO Letter, Aug. 7, 2009,
Expanding preventive services not cost neutral: CBO

While expanding preventive services, as proposed under health care reform legislation, would

improve people's health, the Congressional Budget Office said that evidence suggests that for

most preventive services, expanded utilization will lead to higher, not lower, national medical

spending.

In a letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, (R- ), ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and

Commerce Subcommittee on Health, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted that “even when

the unit cost of a particular preventive service is low, costs can accumulate quickly when a large

number of patients are treated preventively.” In addition, private insurers may be discouraged

from offering preventive services whose positive results are only seen in the future, since the

insurer offering the preventive benefit will bear the cost of providing the service but will not

likely be the beneficiary of any savings in the future that can be attributed to that preventive

service. Elmendorf cited a 2008 article published in the New England Journal of Medicine which

summarized the findings of hundreds of studies on preventive care. The article concluded that

only 20 percent of the services examined saved money.

Elmendorf also noted that some types of preventive care will increase longevity, which would

increase federal spending in the long run as more people live longer and thus both Social

Security and Medicare outlays will increase.
Elmendorf also noted that evidence on the cost of expanding wellness services such as

encouraging healthy eating habits or exercise is limited. He highlighted one study that concluded

that if U.S. obesity rates were cut in half, total Medicare spending by the elderly Medicare

population would decline by 10 percent by 2030.


:wtf:
Isn't this the goal?

mike kohr

[NC_Nurse]

1. Well, we CAN"T have that, can we?

:crazy:

That's why it's called "healthcare", isn't it? To protect your health.....sigh.

[indepat]

3. If the sons-of-bitches don't die off quickly enough, then some euphemistic term for state-sponsored

euthanasia, what ever it takes to thin out the non-productive, weak, sick, and/or frail? :wtf:

[DrToast]

5. He's not saying that. He's just saying it's not cost neutral

That's his job. To let Congress know what will reduce spending and what will increase spending.

[mikekohr]

6. Granted. But would you agree it sounds just a little tone deaf?

Keep Hope Alive, -but not to long-.

mike kohr

[DrToast]

10. Of course. But he's not supposed to say whether or not it's good policy

Just how much it will cost.

[CTyankee]

27. I remember when a similar argument was made about anti-smoking ads.

Smokers were liable to die early of lung cancer but if smoking were prevented those people would live longer and cost the government more in Social Security benefits and Medicare.

It's interesting that this issue should be raised in view of the "death panels" debate...

[NC_Nurse]

7. Yeah, but nobody seems to care when we spend trillions on wars and tax cuts.

Harumph.

[malletgirl02]

25. Exactly

I don't remember seeing and CBO reports on how much either Iraq, Afghanistan, or the tax cuts cost. Unlike some posters on this thread, I don't think the report is completely neutral. There is an element of politics in everything.

[Telly Savalas]

31. That's one of the many flaws in the decision making process behind the policies you list.

"How much is it going to cost?" and "How are we going to pay for it?" are two questions which should be given thorough consideration before implementing a policy.

Rather than using these past failures as an excuse to continue shoddy practices, we need to do things the right way but then point out the hypocrisy of the GOP when they ask the two questions listed above within the context of health care reform.

[sakabatou]

2. My WTF meter is off the chart

[babylonsister]

4. Link? Thanks. nt

[mikekohr]

9. Here is the link:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

The section the news article refers to is at the bottom of page 3/top of page 4 of the directors letter.

mike kohr

[Cali_Democrat]

8. You mean people might actually live longer?

Then maybe the US won't rank 50th in life expectancy among nations.....

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

[mikekohr]

30. Yes. Tragic isn't it?

nt

[eridani]

11. 100% true. Prevention saves live, but costs money. Duh. n/t

[dkf]

23. All the extra testing costs more than the savings from early detection and treatment.

It makes sense. But Dems have been selling the savings from preventive care for ages. We need to stop making this argument and tell people its simply an act of taking care of others...basically charity. For a supposedly Christian nation, politicians never talk about charity. I guess that spirit ended with Bobby Kennedy.

[boppers]

12. So... subsidize smoking?

Raise retirement age laws, so people can't "check out" of contributing at age 65?

[avaistheone1]

17. Raise the income cap on Social Security.

[theothersnippywshrub]

13. Did CBO address the offsets from Palin's Death Panels killing republicans? n/t

[Phx_Dem]

14. I guess we'll have to make ourselves sick so we can die

and save the government money.

Is the CBO even taking into consideration the reduction in costs due to competition, which years down the road, should be substantial? Or do they just want us all to die to save money?

Lame.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. Won't providing more preventative care also DECREASE costs?

:shrug:

[avaistheone1]

16. IS THIS THE CBO's ANALYSIS OF SINGLE PAYER, OR IS THIS A SNIPPET OF SOME OTHER ANALYSIS?

Sorry for the caps, but I am really getting pissed.

I would like to know who requested this analysis and for what purpose. I think we need some context here.

[mikekohr]

28. See post number 9 for the link to the letter the director sent nt

[donco6]

18. Isn't that kinda the point of health care?

I truly am in bizzaro world . . .

[dkf]

22. The point is expanding health care coverage simply increases expenses, not decreases them.

And we shouldn't be selling it like it does unless we overhaul a whole lot more than insurance. I really think the only cost savings will come from reducing compensation to providers. If we were looking at single payer, we could cut out anyone in the medical insurance industry and a bunch of clerk types at the doctor's offices and hospitals. Of course in this and future job markets I don't know how we're supposed to replace those jobs.

[donco6]

That's why Insurance Reform has not made sense from the beginning.

And why many of us have been pounding the table about Single Payer.

There'd have to be new jobs created in the government to manage the payment of claims.

[dkf]

26. I've been reading about some of the crazy bills submitted to the insurance

companies though. Some of them are completely outlandish. I don't understand all the pricing and all the data, so I don't know how we are supposed to come up with any judgment on what is required to make things more reasonable. I really wish Obama would break down a hospital bill and tell us what ideas there are to reduce it. I really do think tort reform is necessary. No more punitive damages, for gross negligence there should be criminal penalties instead. If errors cause bad outcomes, there should be payments for care.

[dkf]

19. The shocker isn't the extra spending due to longevity, its that preventive care doesn't cut costs.

Thus there is no cost savings in expanding health care, just more expenses to treat the extra people.

Don't be deluded that health care costs are going down. If we want to make things affordable for people who can't afford it, those who can will have to foot the bill. And this won't cut off at people making over $250,000, as taxing them for their entire incomes will only balance the budget, not pay down the deficit nor pay for expanded health care.

If you support universal health care, you WILL be paying more in taxes. To think otherwise is fooling yourself.

And you should WANT to pay more because we are Democrats and we believe in helping out those who can't help themselves.

[WeDidIt]

20. Time for a mass suicide

because obviously the US cannot afford for its citizenry to live.

[joeycola]

21. Do you have a link please.

[mikekohr]

29. See post number 9 for link to the Director's letter

nt

[joeycola]

24. In the early 19th c., business stated paying public health nurses

5cents a visit to workers homes to give advice on how to stay health. The Metropolitan Life insurance company paid the money. things sure have changed.