*
claimed ‘Medicare for All’ will lower health care costs in this country by $450 exchange rate a year and save the lives of 68,000 human being who would certainly otherwise have died.”

— vermouth Sen. Bernie Sanders in remarks made Feb. 25, 2020, throughout the south Carolina autonomous primary debate


Updated at 11:03 a.m. ET on Feb. 26: This story to be updated to encompass information we received after the story was posted about recent researches the Sanders’ project referenced about the expenses of single-payer. This update does not readjust the rating.

You are watching:
How does bernie sanders pay for medicare for all

Defending his signature health plan — a single-payer system known as “Medicare because that All” the would relocate all americans to government-funded coverage — vermouth Sen. Bernie Sanders suggested that the huge health care expansion would certainly actually conserve the system hundreds of billions of dollars.

Sanders’ numbers come native a study released Feb. 15 in The Lancet, a British clinical journal.
This story also ran ~ above PolitiFact.This story have the right to be republished for free (details).

“It claimed ‘Medicare for All’ will lower health care costs in this country by $450 exchange rate a year and also save the lives of 68,000 human being who would otherwise have died,” Sanders claimed at the Feb. 25 autonomous presidential debate.

The price tags of Medicare for All has actually been fiercely debated, and also previous analyses have said that the proposal would certainly increase wellness spending, no decrease it. Yet Sanders is relying on the Lancet document — which has actually the lowest expense estimate for the plan, in the ar of $17 trillion over 10 years — to argue the the suite of financing mechanisms he has actually proposed would much more than cover the price of his health bill. (Funding would incorporate taxes top top high earners, a brand-new payroll tax and also 4% revenue premiums because that the bulk of families.) many other estimates place the cost in between $30 trillion and also $40 trillion over a decade, which would make paying for it far much more difficult. Therefore we decided to take it a closer look.

We got to out to one of the study’s authors however did not hear back. 

A spokesperson because that the Sanders project said the record is “similar come 22 various other recent researches that have also shown that moving to a single-payer medical care system will cost less than our current dysfunctional medical care system.” (We asked for those 22 various other studies but, as of publication, hadn’t got them. However, an elevation researcher listed us through this related analysis after this story’s initial publication.)

But other independent experts were skeptical of the Lancet study’s calculation — suggesting it exaggerates potential savings, cherry-picks evidence and also downplays some of the potential trade-offs.

“I don’t think this study, albeit in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal, have to be given any type of deference in the Medicare for every debate,” claimed Robert Berenson, a other at the urban Institute who studies hospital pricing.


Don't miss out on A Story


Subscribe come buzzpatterson.com’s cost-free Weekly execution newsletter.


So, Savings?

Largely, the Lancet record is an ext generous in its assumptions than various other Medicare for every analysis, noted Jodi Liu, an economist at the edge Corp., who studies single-payer plans. To the researchers’ credit, she said, they recognize that your findings are based on uncertain assumptions.

For instance, the researcher calculate $78.2 billion in to save from providing primary treatment to uninsured world — $70.4 exchange rate from avoided hospitalizations and also $7.8 from avoided emergency room visits. Yet previous evidence says that the logic is doubt at best. 

When states expanded Medicaid under the Affordable care Act, providing new insurance to human being who had actually previously short coverage, avoidable hospitalizations and emergency room visits didn’t disappear since people can suddenly use preventive care, detailed Ellen Meara, a professor in ~ the Harvard T.H. Chan college of publicly Health. That proof doesn’t show up anywhere in the Lancet paper.

“The concept that we’re walking to remove all this avoidable access time — that’s not been borne out,” she said. 

The researchers additionally assume the a Medicare because that All system would salary hospitals at a maximum of Medicare rates.

That’s tricky. In 2017, the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimated that, top top average, a hospital has actually a -9.9% margin on a patient insured with Medicare. (Private salary helps make up that difference.) part hospitals certainly would be able to swallow this cost. However others would battle to stay afloat, said Adrianna McIntyre, a wellness policy researcher in ~ Harvard University. 

Given the political affect hospitals, in particular, lug in conference — where many members room sensitive to their involves — pass a arrangement offering together a short payment price would be politically challenging.

Sanders’ invoice doesn’t clues the prices at which hospitals would be paid.

Beyond the lower payments, the researchers additionally suggest hospitals would spend less money ~ above overhead, having actually to navigate just a solitary insurance plan. That change accounts for $219 exchange rate in their approximated savings.

But again, that ignores some of the truth of how hospitals work. While a single-payer system would undoubtedly cost less to administer — requiring a smaller sized back-end staff, for circumstances — it would not remove the require for expensive items like electronic health records, which coordinate care in between hospitals.

“The presumptions are unrealistic,” stated Gerard Anderson, a wellness economist at Johns Hopkins college in Baltimore. “You are never ever going to save that much money indigenous the various providers.” 

The Cost-Sharing Question

Medicare because that All would enroll all Americans in coverage far an ext generous 보다 what most experience now — eliminating basically all price sharing linked with using health and wellness care. 

That’s a significant change, researchers told us. Ahead evidence says that together a shift would encourage consumers to use wellness care an ext than they currently do. 

The Lancet file acknowledges the — however only partially. It enables that human being who are uninsured or “underinsured” — that is, who have particularly high levels of price sharing currently — would use an ext medical care under Sanders’ mechanism than they currently do. It components that into the price tag. 

But its estimate does not account for civilization who already have kind or sufficient insurance and also who would still be moving to a richer benefit, and also therefore be an ext likely to use their insurance. 

“It dramatically underestimates the utilization increases we would expect to see under Medicare for All,” McIntyre said. “People have various views on even if it is the increased utilization is good or bad,” she added — it makes the program an ext expensive, however also way more civilization are obtaining treatment.

Other Estimates?

Context is helpful, too. Other approximates — namely, a estimate by the metropolitan Institute — of Medicare for all have argued it would increase federal wellness spending by about $34 trillion over 10 years. But the remove of other health and wellness spending would certainly make the overall change smaller. 

To perform the Sanders proposal, national health and wellness spending — public and private dollars, both — would boost by $7 sunshine over a decade, urban said. And also Medicare for All would certainly be bringing brand-new services: an ext insurance for much more people, and an ext generous coverage for those currently covered.

Urban’s calculation of $7 trillion an ext in spending end 10 years is much removed native the study’s calculation of $450 billion less annually. And, professionals said, relying on the latter number isn’t a an excellent idea.


Sources:


Bernie 2020, “How go Bernie Pay because that His major Plans,” Feb. 24, 2020. 

The Lancet, “Improving the Prognosis of Health care in the USA,” Feb. 15, 2020.

JAMA, “Association the Medicaid development With 1-Year Mortality among Patients v End-Stage Renal Disease,” Dec. 4, 2018.

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, “2019 Report to the Congress,” march 15, 2019.

University that Michigan, “Medicaid and also Mortality: new Evidence from connected Survey and also Administrative Data,” Aug. 17, 2019.

Email interview with Gerard Anderson, professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg school of windy Health, Feb. 19, 2020.

Email interview v Robert Berenson, fellow at metropolitan Institute, Feb. 19, 2020.

Email interview with Jodi Liu, associate plan researcher in ~ the rand Corp., Feb. 19, 2020.

Telephone interview through Ellen Meara, professor of health economics and policy in ~ the Harvard T.H. Chan institution of publicly Health, Feb. 25, 2020.

Telephone interview v Adrianna McIntyre, health policy researcher in ~ Harvard University, Feb. 25, 2020.


“I think they need much more work come prove” the savings, Meara said. “They’re no being complete, and by not being complete, they’re no being honest.”

It’s additionally worth noting that the study’s lead writer was likewise an not blocked unpaid adviser to the Sanders staff in drafting that is 2019 version of the Medicare for all bill, according to the paper’s disclosures section.

The ‘Lives Saved’

Experts agree that expanding access to wellness insurance would probably reduce at an early stage mortality. Yet the 68,000 figure is another example the cherry-picking, Meara said.

The figure is based upon a 2009 paper. The doesn’t acknowledge a body of research study that come afterward, including multiple researches that examined how expanding Medicaid impacted mortality — and maybe available less dramatic numbers.

“When they so clearly are cherry-picking, when they plainly have all the information on studies in former of them, it’s concerning,” Meara said. “It’s a situation where she going come overpromise and also underdeliver.”

Our Ruling

Sanders said a recent study said Medicare for every would conserve $450 billion annually and also save 68,000 lives.

That research does exist. And also it cites some evidence. Yet many of its assumptions are flawed, and experts uniformly told united state it overestimates the potential savings. That cherry-picks data in calculating mortality effects.

This statement has actually some truth but ignores context that would develop a dramatically various impression. We rate it largely False.

Shefali Luthra: ShefaliL
kff.org,
Shefalil

Related Topics

Elections Health care Costs insurance Medicarebuzzpatterson.com & PolitiFact HealthCheck

Share This Story:


Updated at 11:03 a.m. ET on Feb. 26: This story was updated to encompass information we received after the story to be posted about recent researches the Sanders’ campaign referenced concerning the costs of single-payer. This update does not change the rating.

Defending his signature health setup — a single-payer system recognized as “Medicare for All” that would move all american to government-funded coverage — vermouth Sen. Bernie Sanders argued that the enormous health treatment expansion would actually save the system hundreds of billions of dollars.

Sanders’ figures come from a study published Feb. 15 in The Lancet, a British medical journal.
This story likewise ran ~ above PolitiFact.This story can be republished for complimentary (details).

“It stated ‘Medicare because that All’ will reduced health treatment costs in this nation by $450 exchange rate a year and also save the resides of 68,000 world who would otherwise have actually died,” Sanders said at the Feb. 25 autonomous presidential debate.

The price sign of Medicare because that All has been fiercely debated, and also previous analyses have suggested that the proposal would increase health spending, not decrease it. Yet Sanders is relying top top the Lancet paper — which has actually the lowest price estimate because that the plan, in the neighborhood of $17 trillion over 10 years — come argue that the suite of financing mechanisms he has proposed would more than covering the expense of his health and wellness bill. (Funding would incorporate taxes on high earners, a new payroll tax and 4% income premiums for the majority of families.) many other estimates place the cost between $30 trillion and also $40 sunshine over a decade, which would make paying for it far an ext difficult. Therefore we made decision to take it a closer look.

We got to out to one of the study’s authors yet did no hear back. 

A spokesperson because that the Sanders campaign said the file is “similar to 22 other recent studies that have also shown that relocating to a single-payer medical care system will cost less than our current dysfunctional health care system.” (We asked for those 22 other studies but, as of publication, hadn’t received them. However, an live independence researcher provided us with this related analysis ~ this story’s early publication.)

But various other independent professionals were hesitant of the Lancet study’s calculation — saying it exaggerates potential savings, cherry-picks evidence and also downplays several of the potential trade-offs.

“I don’t think this study, albeit in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal, have to be given any kind of deference in the Medicare for all debate,” said Robert Berenson, a fellow at the city Institute who research studies hospital pricing.

So, Savings?

Largely, the Lancet paper is more generous in its presumptions than various other Medicare for every analysis, provided Jodi Liu, an economist at the rand Corp., who studies single-payer plans. To the researchers’ credit, she said, they acknowledge that your findings are based upon uncertain assumptions.

For instance, the researcher calculate $78.2 billion in savings from giving primary treatment to uninsured world — $70.4 billion from avoided hospitalizations and $7.8 indigenous avoided emergency room visits. However previous evidence says that the reasonable is suspect at best. 

When states increased Medicaid under the Affordable care Act, providing new insurance to human being who had actually previously lacked coverage, avoidable hospitalizations and emergency room access time didn’t disappear since people could suddenly use preventative care, detailed Ellen Meara, a professor in ~ the Harvard T.H. Chan school of public Health. That evidence doesn’t show up anywhere in the Lancet paper.

“The notion that we’re walk to eliminate all this avoidable access time — that’s no been borne out,” she said. 

The researchers likewise assume that a Medicare for All device would pay hospitals in ~ a preferably of Medicare rates.

That’s tricky. In 2017, the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimated that, on average, a hospital has a -9.9% margin on a patient insured v Medicare. (Private salary helps comprise that difference.) part hospitals definitely would be able to swallow this cost. But others would struggle to continue to be afloat, stated Adrianna McIntyre, a health policy researcher at Harvard University. 

Given the political influence hospitals, in particular, bring in congress — where most members space sensitive come their pertains to — happen a setup offering together a short payment price would be politically challenging.

Sanders’ bill doesn’t clues the rates at which hospitals would certainly be paid.

Beyond the lower payments, the researchers also suggest hospitals would spend much less money on overhead, having actually to navigate only a solitary insurance plan. That adjust accounts for $219 exchange rate in their approximated savings.

But again, that ignores some of the reality of exactly how hospitals work. When a single-payer device would undoubtedly price less to carry out — inquiry a smaller back-end staff, for instance — it would not get rid of the need for expensive item like digital health records, which coordinate care in between hospitals.

“The presumptions are unrealistic,” claimed Gerard Anderson, a wellness economist at Johns Hopkins university in Baltimore. “You are never going to conserve that much money from the assorted providers.” 

The Cost-Sharing Question

Medicare because that All would certainly enroll every Americans in coverage far an ext generous than what many experience currently — eliminating basically all expense sharing connected with using health and wellness care. 

That’s a significant change, researcher told us. Previous evidence says that such a shift would encourage consumer to use health and wellness care an ext than they currently do. 

The Lancet document acknowledges the — yet only partially. It allows that human being who room uninsured or “underinsured” — that is, who have particularly high levels of expense sharing now — would use much more medical care under Sanders’ mechanism than they right now do. It components that right into the price tag. 

But its calculation does not account for people who currently have kind or enough insurance and also who would certainly still be moving to a richer benefit, and also therefore be an ext likely to usage their insurance. 

“It substantially underestimates the utilization increases we would mean to see under Medicare because that All,” McIntyre said. “People have various views on whether the boosted utilization is an excellent or bad,” she included — it makes the program more expensive, yet also way more human being are gaining treatment.

Other Estimates?

Context is helpful, too. Other estimates — namely, a forecast by the city Institute — the Medicare for every have said it would boost federal health spending by about $34 sunshine over 10 years. But the elimination of other health spending would make the overall adjust smaller. 

To carry out the Sanders proposal, national health and wellness spending — public and also private dollars, both — would increase by $7 trillion over a decade, urban said. And Medicare for All would certainly be bringing brand-new services: more insurance for much more people, and much more generous coverage for those already covered.

Urban’s estimate of $7 trillion more in spending over 10 years is much removed from the study’s calculation of $450 billion much less annually. And, experts said, relying top top the latter number isn’t a great idea.

“I think they need much more work to prove” the savings, Meara said. “They’re no being complete, and by not being complete, they’re not being honest.”

It’s likewise worth noting the the study’s lead writer was also an informal unpaid adviser to the Sanders employee in drafting that is 2019 variation of the Medicare for all bill, according to the paper’s disclosures section.

The ‘Lives Saved’

Experts agree the expanding access to health and wellness insurance would most likely reduce at an early stage mortality. Yet the 68,000 figure is one more example that cherry-picking, Meara said.

The figure is based on a 2009 paper. The doesn’t recognize a body of research that came afterward, consisting of multiple studies that check how widening Medicaid impacted mortality — and maybe available less dramatic numbers.

“When lock so plainly are cherry-picking, as soon as they plainly have every the information on researches in former of them, it’s concerning,” Meara said. “It’s a situation where you’re going to overpromise and also underdeliver.”

Our Ruling

Sanders claimed a recent study suggested Medicare for all would save $450 exchange rate annually and save 68,000 lives.

That study does exist. And it cites some evidence. However many that its assumptions are flawed, and experts uniformly told united state it overestimates the potential savings. That cherry-picks data in calculating mortality effects.

See more: How Did Michael Jordans Dad Die, The Death Of James Jordan: What We Know

This statement has some truth but ignores context that would create a dramatically various impression. We rate it mostly False.