Health-care law: How Supreme Court ruling could affect US budget

US Supreme Court ruling on the health-care reform law's constitutionality will affect more than the making of public policy. It could also swing the federal budget significantly in either direction.

|
Charles Dharapak/AP
Supporters and opponents of health care reform rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, March 27, as the court continued to hear arguments on the health care law signed by President Barack Obama.

When the US Supreme Court hands down its ruling on the health-care reform law Thursday, the action will carry some big-money import for the federal budget.

A decision that strikes down President Obama's 2010 reforms in their entirety would increase federal deficits over the next 10 years.

By contrast, a narrow ruling striking down just one portion of the massive law could have a substantially different effect on government coffers. For example, a provision to expand access to Medicaid, if struck down, could save the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars, some finance experts say.

These facts aren't necessarily central to the question of what the Supreme Court should do, of course. The justices have been considering arguments pro and con that relate to weighty questions of constitutional law.

And from a public-policy viewpoint, the biggest issues at stake arguably are things separate from government finances: the health care Americans receive, its overall cost, and the way health-care policy affects the economy and job creation.

But with those caveats in mind, here's what the ruling could portend for government budgets, based largely on a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) in Washington.

The group estimates that, if the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is overturned in its entirety, federal budget deficits will rise by about $119 billion over the next 10 years.

How does that estimate arise? The CRFB started with an earlier official estimate of effects on the federal budget, from the Congressional Budget Office. That CBO tally found that the ACA would reduce federal budget deficits, because the law's new costs (such as tax subsidies for the uninsured to buy coverage) would be offset both by new tax revenue and by lower planned spending in some areas, such as Medicare.

The CRFB adjusted the CBO numbers based on changes to the health-care law that hadn't yet been accounted for, such as the effective repeal of its so-called "CLASS Act" (a long-term-care insurance program that was slated to reap some $85 billion in federal revenue during the reform act's early years).

The Supreme Court could rule in other ways, however.

If it strikes down only the ACA's "individual mandate" on Americans to buy insurance (or pay a fine), things would be complicated, the CRFB says. But one big impact is that fewer people would get health insurance, reducing the number of people who would get government benefits such as tax subsidies to help pay for their insurance. The result of this shift could exert some big downward pressure on federal deficits.

The high court might also decide to repeal the ACA's expansion of the Medicaid program for low-income Americans. The court could rule that the provision is an unconstitutional coercion of state governments, which administer Medicaid and help to pay for it.

A ruling that eliminates the Medicaid expansion would have a major impact at the federal level.

A March estimate by the CBO pegged the federal cost of expanding Medicaid at $930 billion over 10 years – with some 17 million uninsured Americans gaining coverage. Striking down that provision would mean many of those people remain uninsured. The federal savings would be large, although they might not add up to $930 billion, because of the way different parts of the law interact with one another, the CRFB says.

In all, health-policy analysts have estimated that those 17 million people getting Medicaid would account for about half of the ACA's overall extension of coverage to more Americans – the law's central goal. So although a ruling against this provision would save big money at the state and federal level, it would also be a huge setback for the law's proponents.

One final note: Whatever the court does, Congress will keep legislating on the issue of health care – with still more implications for budgets and deficits.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Health-care law: How Supreme Court ruling could affect US budget
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2012/0628/Health-care-law-How-Supreme-Court-ruling-could-affect-US-budget
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe