screen-shot-2019-02-24-at-5-13-58-pm-273x300-7656328At Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand gave a misleading description of the “Medicare for all” proposal that she says she helped to write – implying that it calls for a voluntary buy-in rather than mandatory government coverage.

Gillibrand cosponsors Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Act of 2019, and describes herself as the author of the section dealing with the transition from the status quo to single payer. That bill does provide for an optional buy-in during a four-year transition period, but it would work differently than she described during the debate.

Here is what she said on stage in Miami:

In 2005, when I ran for Congress in a 2-1 Republican district, I actually ran on Medicare for All, and I won that 2-1 Republican district twice. And the way I formulated it was simple: Anyone who doesn’t have access to insurance they like, they could buy it in [at] a percentage of income they could afford. So, that’s what we put into the transition period for our Medicare for All plan. … The quickest way you get there is you create competition with the insurers. God bless the insurers if they want to compete; they can certainly try. But they’d never put people over their profits, and I doubt they ever will. So what will happen is people will choose Medicare. You will transition. We would get to Medicare for All. And then your step to single payer is so short. I would make it an earned benefit just like Social Security, so that you buy in your whole life. It is always there for you and it’s permanent and it’s universal.

This account differs from the bill language in important ways.

  • The buy-in would not be available to anyone who wants it. Applicants would have to be at least 55 years old in the first transition year, 45 in the second and 35 in the third. 
  • Buy-in premiums would not be based on a percentage of income, but on the program’s average projected cost per recipient. The net cost would be reduced for many enrollees through tax credits similar to those offered under the Affordable Care Act.
  • The buy-in period would be limited to three years. At the beginning of the fourth year, Americans would no longer “choose” to buy the federal plan. Enrollment would be automatic and universal.
  • Even if private insurers successfully competed with the federal plan, they would be effectively banned and put out of business at the end of the third year.

These inconsistencies raise doubts about where Gillibrand stands on a central issue for Democrats in the 2020 race – the role of private and employer-based insurance in the nation’s health-care system. Her debate statement implied that it would continue to be an option, but the legislation she touts says otherwise.

Another thorny issue is how much what she calls an “earned benefit” would ultimately cost for taxpayers. Gillibrand initially claimed the price tag would be just 4 percent of income, then clarified that employers would also have to contribute a similar amount. As discussed in previous posts, neither rate would come close to raising enough revenue for a single-payer system.

 

About the Author

Bill Hammond

As the Empire Center’s senior fellow for health policy, Bill Hammond tracks fast-moving developments in New York’s massive health care industry, with a focus on how decisions made in Albany and Washington affect the well-being of patients, providers, taxpayers and the state’s economy.

Read more by Bill Hammond

You may also like

The CDC’s Nursing Home Death Count Is Even Less Complete Than New York’s

The result is that a major public health disaster affecting New York's nursing home residents is not being accurately documented by either of the agencies responsible for protecting them – because state officials are refusing to share the true numbers, and federal officials haven't yet asked for them. Read More

The DOJ’s Probe of Coronavirus in Nursing Homes Appears to Leave Out Most Victims

The U.S. Justice Department's newly announced inquiry into coronavirus in New York's nursing homes comes with a crucial caveat: It will look only at government-operated facilities, which represent a small fraction of the state's nursing-home industry. Read More

State’s Per-Recipient Medicaid Spending Rises to 3rd Highest in the U.S.

New York's per-recipient Medicaid spending has soared to the nation's third highest rate, a sign of fiscal trouble for one of the state's most important programs. Read More

New York Medicaid Spending Is Projected to Jump 6% in Fiscal Year 2021 (UPDATED)

Despite a round of cost-cutting this spring, New York's Medicaid spending is on track to jump by 6 percent this year thanks to a massive influx of federal aid. Read More

New York Has Widened Its Lead in Per-Capita Spending on Medicaid

New York's per-capita Medicaid spending soared to more than double the nationwide rate in 2018, widening its gap with the other 49 states. Read More

New York’s Medicaid Enrollment Surges to an All-Time High

New York's Medicaid program is growing at its fastest rate in six years, with a quarter-million additional enrollees landing in the safety-net health plan during the first three months of the coronavirus pandemic.  Read More

New York’s Health Premiums Remain Among the Highest in the U.S.

The average cost of New Yorkers' health benefits increased by less than the national average in 2019 but remained among the highest in the U.S., according to recently published federal data. Read More

New York’s Medicaid Roller Coaster Takes an Unusual Turn

The state's Medicaid spending was significantly lower than projected in the first quarter, but that's not necessarily a positive sign for state finances. Read More

Subscribe

Sign up to receive updates about Empire Center research, news and events in your email.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Empire Center for Public Policy
30 South Pearl St.
Suite 1210
Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-434-3100
Fax: 518-434-3130
E-Mail: info@empirecenter.org

About

The Empire Center is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank located in Albany, New York. Our mission is to make New York a better place to live and work by promoting public policy reforms grounded in free-market principles, personal responsibility, and the ideals of effective and accountable government.