Study: Obamacare could increase costs in RI, unlike elsewhere
July 6th, 2012 at 5:00 am by Ted Nesi under Nesi's Notes, On the Main Site
Rhode Island is one of the few states that could wind up spending more money on health care once President Obama’s health care law is fully implemented instead of reaping savings.
The key question: how much will the new law reduce uncompensated care at Rhode Island hospitals?
With a 50% decline in the cost of uncompensated care, the Affordable Care Act would reduce state-level spending on health care by $64 billion between 2014 and 2019; with a smaller decline of 25%, state-level spending would actually rise by $44 billion, according to an Urban Institute study [pdf].
Rhode Island “would see increased costs under the low scenario and reduced costs under the high scenarios, with the magnitude of savings under the high scenario being greater than … the additional costs under the low scenario,” the study’s authors explained.
Federal spending on health care in Rhode Island over the five-year period will increase by an estimated $1.96 billion to $2.12 billion depending on the scenario, including nearly $962 million for subsidies to residents who buy coverage through the new health insurance exchange, according to the study.
Most other states would save money under either scenario, unlike Rhode Island, and supporters are pointing to those savings to counter some governors’ resistance to the law’s expansion of Medicaid coverage.
“Much of the state savings we project depend on the Medicaid expansion,” Stan Dorn, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, told The Washington Post. “It’s essential to reducing uncompensated care; it’s a key piece shifting mental health costs from the state to the federal government; and it’s essential for other state savings as well.”
The authors of the Urban Institute study cautioned that their analysis could not estimate all of the state-specific savings that the Affordable Care Act could provide, including savings from better coordination of care, reforms to the delivery system, higher tax revenue from insurance premiums and lower premiums for state workers.
State spending on health care is projected to rise in 2020 compared with in 2014-2019 because the federal government will reduce its cost-sharing for the Medicaid expansion from 100% to 90%. “States would still spend less under the ACA than without it,” the authors wrote. “The pattern for subsequent years will be similar to 2020, but with some differences driven by economic and demographic changes over time.”
(chart: lieutenant governor’s office)
Tags: affordable care act, exchanges, health care, health insurance, medicaid, obamacare, state budget
Nesi's Notes covers politics and the economy in and around Rhode Island for WPRI.com. (Twitter: 
Where is mitt romneys strategic plan to do anything? Wheres that study? Big word here is “could”.
Human nature is when you get something for free you use more of it. The state may spend less, but the federal governement will spend much, much more. Since we all pay federal taxes, we will all pay much, much more. Except ,of course, those folks who don’t work. If anyone thinks healthcare is going to be free…think again.
As for seniors on Medicare, the premium is expected to double in three years. Obamacare takes $500 billion from Medicare. They have to make up the lost money somewhere. So we are taking from people who have worked their whole lives to give to those who haven’t.
Well said. People are being sold a bill of goods.
There are 21 new taxes associated with Obamacare. Insurance premiums have already risen as a result of this act, and will only go up, not down.
Do your research. Obamacare is a scam, and there are plenty of people not paying attention who are being herded like lambs to the slaughter.
I, for one, will be advocating for repeal of this monstrosity.
I was interested in this claim of 21 new taxes and needed to look up what they are.
A website that makes the same claim and summarizes them is at this link.
http://www.project2112.org/obamacare/new-taxes/
Some of them seem like pretty loose definitions of “taxes” though. Unless any regulation that may increase cost on a person or company is a tax.
While, I don’t think Obamacare is the greatest legislation, it’s at least something to fix our monstrosity of a healthcare system as it stood before this legislation. I personally cannot get behind a repeal unless there is a credible studied plan offered as a replacement.
I’m looking forward to voting to fire those who perpetrated “Obamacare”. First, and foremost, it is none… repeat none… of the business of the federal government. Expanding federal intrusions into areas like health care, have bloated deficits, warped and distorted medical and fiscal behaviors, and guaranteed the current deep recession will continue as far as the eye can see. Obamacare is full of new charges, added costs, fees, penalties and taxes. Who do you think will pay? It’s the consumer/taxpayer. You want socialized medicine… take a hike over to Europe. You can get the proverbial medical care that is a mile wide and an inch deep. Again, what passes for “compassion” by our so called, but misnamed “progressives”( actually power hungry-grabbing socialists), deserves an electoral defeat of a magnitude which guarantees a long stay out of political power.
I am grateful for people like you who are able to see past the emotional propaganda that the apologists for Obamacare feed us, and see things for what they are.
How interesting that these apologists first sold the mandate as a “penalty” but then switched to “tax” language when arguing before the Supreme Court. Classic bait and switch — and reprehensible.
I’m going to take my wife off my Tricare Retiree plan that I pay for and let her use the FREE stuff.
Also, gonna see if we qualify for food stamps, free cell phone and any other FREE stuf.
Screw you all, free loaders and politicians. You’re going to go broke. I’m not. LOL!
I like Ms. McCaughey’s perspective on this, especially the fact that 2,000 plus pages could have been accomplished in0 about 20 were it not a complete scam on the American people.
Chafee and Lt Governor Elizabeth Roberts were “whores” in grabbing the $60+ million to set up the health insurance exchange. Doing so under an “executive order” is apprehensible. There has never been competition in RI Healthcare and never will be.
The rise of the Tea Party(s), nationally and locally in acting for fiscal prudence and transparency couldn’t have come soon enough. “Trust Chafee”, huh! Trust our government, huh. Wake up peoples…carpet’s being pulled out from under you.