Health Care

Paul Ryan’s Own Little Obamacare

Republicans’ Medicare plan would be wide open to the same attacks the GOP is aiming at Obamacare.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Sam Baker
Jan. 6, 2014, 4:59 p.m.

For Re­pub­lic­ans, Obama­care is the gift that keeps on giv­ing. Each day brings a fresh batch of hor­ror stor­ies of people los­ing their plans, get­ting cut off from their doc­tors, and shelling out more for premi­ums.

But had Mitt Rom­ney won in 2012 and let Paul Ry­an have his way with Medi­care, Re­pub­lic­ans would be on the oth­er side of the fence, try­ing to de­fend a health care over­haul that pro­duced a nearly identic­al suite of hor­ror stor­ies.

That’s be­cause, des­pite the polit­ic­al chasm between them — and though neither will ad­mit it — Obama and Ry­an are push­ing sim­il­ar policies in the bid to change the U.S. health sys­tem. Both rely on private in­sur­ance, sold through a com­pet­it­ive ex­change, with help from a gov­ern­ment sub­sidy.

And though they ap­ply it to dif­fer­ent pop­u­la­tions, both pro­grams share a fun­da­ment­al con­ceit: They move a big group of people in­to the private in­sur­ance mar­ket. Both Obama and Ry­an ar­gue their over­haul would im­prove the coun­try as a whole, but neither can es­cape the real­ity that in a shift of that size, some people will lose out.

And each plan’s losers would have sim­il­ar stor­ies to tell.

Some premi­ums will go up

In­sur­ance com­pan­ies cut back on cov­er­age or lim­it pro­vider net­works to keep premi­ums low. Lower premi­ums also will usu­ally come with high­er de­duct­ibles. This is pretty much how private in­sur­ance works, and that will be the case wheth­er Obama or Ry­an is ex­pand­ing the mar­ket for private in­sur­ance.

The Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice has said seni­ors’ costs would be high­er un­der Ry­an’s mod­el, though it has de­clined to provide a spe­cif­ic es­tim­ate, in part be­cause the plan hasn’t been in­tro­duced as a bill.

A Ry­an-like plan that im­me­di­ately af­fected cur­rent seni­ors would raise seni­ors’ premi­ums by an av­er­age of 30 per­cent, and their total spend­ing — in­clud­ing premi­ums, de­duct­ibles, and oth­er cost-shar­ing — by about 11 per­cent, ac­cord­ing to CBO.

CBO’s es­tim­ate isn’t an ex­act com­par­is­on to the Ry­an plan, be­cause it as­sumes changes would af­fect cur­rent be­ne­fi­ciar­ies — which Ry­an’s plan wouldn’t. But lib­er­al health care ex­perts poin­ted to the re­port as an in­dic­a­tion of how the Medi­care pro­gram would be dif­fer­ent once a policy frame­work sim­il­ar to Ry­an’s was fully in place.

The House Budget Com­mit­tee, which Ry­an chairs, did not re­spond to a re­quest for com­ment for this story.

Some people can’t keep their doc­tors

Re­pub­lic­ans have as­sailed the Af­ford­able Care Act be­cause many of the plans offered through its ex­changes use nar­row net­works of doc­tors, hos­pit­als, and oth­er health care pro­viders. Con­ser­vat­ives sharply cri­ti­cized the White House after Zeke Emanuel, a former health care ad­viser, said that if you like your doc­tor, you can pay more to keep your doc­tor.

But, again, the same ba­sic trade-off ap­plies un­der the Ry­an Medi­care plan. The Ry­an plan guar­an­tees that seni­ors will have a sub­sidy big enough to buy a health care plan. But in most parts of the coun­try, it won’t be enough to buy tra­di­tion­al Medi­care.

So, in or­der to choose that pro­gram — and its ex­tens­ive pro­vider net­work — seni­ors would have to make up the dif­fer­ence out of their own pock­et. They could pay more for the plan that ex­ists today, or they could switch to a cheap­er private plan that would likely of­fer a smal­ler pro­vider net­work, mean­ing they might have to change doc­tors.

Premi­ums for tra­di­tion­al Medi­care would cost seni­ors about 56 per­cent more than they pay today, un­der the ac­cel­er­ated scen­ario CBO ana­lyzed. About half of Medi­care be­ne­fi­ciar­ies would buy private plans and half would re­main in tra­di­tion­al Medi­care, un­der CBO’s mod­el.

Losers, but dif­fer­ent losers

Obama­care and the Ry­an plan are sim­il­ar, but it’s im­port­ant to re­mem­ber their re­spect­ive start­ing points. Obama­care is primar­ily cov­er­ing people who have nev­er had in­sur­ance be­fore, and also re­quir­ing some people (no one knows ex­actly how many, but it’s some­where in the mil­lions) to buy new policies. Ry­an, mean­while, would over­haul an ex­ist­ing pro­gram.

“With Medi­care, you’re talk­ing about the whole 40-plus mil­lion be­ne­fi­ciar­ies who are go­ing to have to make new choices and whose be­ne­fits and premi­ums are likely to be af­fected,” said Paul Van de Wa­ter, a seni­or fel­low at the Cen­ter on Budget and Policy Pri­or­it­ies, which op­poses Ry­an’s mod­el for Medi­care.

From a cost per­spect­ive, that means the Ry­an plan has one es­pe­cially big win­ner: the fed­er­al budget. The pur­pose of Ry­an’s plan is to cut fed­er­al en­ti­tle­ment spend­ing, and it would do that. Over­all costs, com­bin­ing fed­er­al spend­ing and seni­ors’ costs, would also fall.

Obama­care launched a new stream of fed­er­al health care spend­ing while the Ry­an plan would shrink an ex­ist­ing one. That’s a big dif­fer­ence. But both op­tions would ex­pand the mar­ket for private in­sur­ance, and there­fore would ex­pose mil­lions more people to nar­row net­works and the oth­er stand­ard trade-offs of the in­sur­ance mar­ket. Both would in­ev­it­ably mean some de­gree of stick­er shock for cer­tain people, and pay­ing a lower price would mean giv­ing up be­ne­fits.

“How it all works out is com­plic­ated, but that’s an­oth­er point of com­par­is­on with health re­form,” Van de Wa­ter said.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.