I’m sorry, but both of the following things can’t be true.
- About the House version of the Massachusetts health care cost control bill, Rep. Steve Walsh said that the plan would save $160 billion over 15 years.
- About the Senate version, Senate leaders said their plan would save at least $150 billion in savings over the next 15 years.
So, they have nearly identical savings estimates. (I don’t know how either was computed.) I think at least one of them must be wrong. The reason? The bills have very different rate growth caps.
- The House would cap per capita state health care spending at potential GSP per capita for the next several years and then cap it at PGDP less half a percentage point until 2027. (See section 46 of the bill.)
- The Senate bill would, from 2012 to 2015, “cap projected growth of health care spending equal to the gross state product plus half a percent. From 2016 to 2026, the goal is to keep health care cost growth equal to the projected growth in the gross state product.” (That’s from the Boston Globe.)*
These growth caps are so different I don’t see how the two bills could lead to nearly the same savings. It seems like the House bill must save much more — not just $10B more over 15 years — than the Senate one. Someone is wrong in Massachusetts. Perhaps with more information I will come to discover that it is me!
UPDATE: A trusted source wishing to remain anonymous says the Senate bill would save $124B through 2025. I cannot personally verify this figure.
* I have not seen the text of the Senate bill so I cannot say whether it actually specifies the target in terms of per capita potential GSP, which would make it more comparable to the House bill.
