screen-shot-2019-02-24-at-5-13-58-pm-273x300-7656328Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has apparently doubled the price tag of her Medicare buy-in proposal, from 4 percent of income to 8 percent – but the math still does not add up.

In a profile of her presidential campaign in The Nation magazine, Gillibrand pitched an optional buy-in as a transitional step toward a single-payer health system.

I’d let people choose [Medicare] for a certain amount of time—maybe a four-year buy-in at 4 percent of income, and your employer then matches it at 4 percent. That’s 8 percent of income in America. That is enough; it will pay for itself.

In previous interviews and speeches, and in a campaign video, Gillibrand had said her buy-in would cost 4 percent of income without mentioning that it would have to be matched by employers.

Even at 8 percent, however, it’s not clear how her plan would work.

For a Medicare buy-in to truly “pay for itself,” its average per-enrollee charges would have to equal its average per-enrollee costs.

Applied to the typical U.S. household – which has an average of 2.5 members and median income of $58,000 – an 8 percent tax would raise about $1,900 per person.

That’s less than a third of the average premium for employer-sponsored insurance, which is $6,400 nationwide and $7,300 in New York. It’s also substantially less than the $3,300 that Medicaid – with its low fees and limited provider networks – spends on the average non-disabled adult.

Thus the buy-in plan would stand to lose thousands on every low- and median-income family who signs up. Meanwhile, most higher-income people would probably keep the employer-sponsored insurance they already have, especially if it costs less than 4 percent of their wages.

If enrollment were mandatory for Americans of any income –- as under a Medicare for All plan that Gillibrand sees as the ultimate goal – 8 percent income tax would still raise only a fraction of the necessary revenue.

The Urban Institute has estimated that such a plan would require an additional $2.5 trillion per year in federal revenue – which equates to 25 percent of the nation’s total adjusted gross income as of 2016. Sanders himself estimates a cost of about $1.4 trillion per year, which equates to 14 percent of adjusted gross income.

The challenge of raising that much money through income taxes is illustrated in the accompanying chart. The blue and gray bars show the adjusted gross income and tax payments of different income groups in 2016, and the red bar shows the projected cost of single payer. Each box equates to $250 billion.

financing-medicare-for-all-9089869
Source: IRS data. *Cost of the Sanders Medicare for All bill estimated by the Urban Institute. (Click to enlarge)

 

Financing Medicare for All through income taxes would entail collecting 10 blue boxes’ worth of revenue from the bars at left.

As seen in the chart, the wealthiest group (with incomes in excess of $11 million a year) could contribute at most a fraction of one box. Doubling tax collections on the wealthiest 10 percent would generate about four boxes, leaving six more to be extracted from middle- and lower-income Americans.

How Gillibrand arrived at her 8 percent estimate is hard to say. It’s not included in any legislation, or is there an explanation on her campaign website.

The transitional buy-in system included in Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill – which Gillibrand says she helped to write – specifies that premiums would be based on a projection of per-person claims, not a percentage of income.

Sanders has developed a list of revenue-raising ideas to finance Medicare for All, including a 4 percent tax on income and a 7.5 percent payroll tax on employers. But those are just two of 10 items on the list, and account for only about half of the total revenue his proposals would generate.

 

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

New York’s Shrinking Budget for Public Health Deserves More Attention

As Medicaid costs spiraled over the past decade, other parts of the state Health Department were losing money and staff—leaving New York with diminished public health resources when the pandemic struck last year. Read More

The Cuomo Administration Releases More Data on Coronavirus Deaths in New York Nursing Homes

The state Health Department has revealed additional detail about coronavirus deaths in New York nursing homes, showing for the first time how many residents of each home died of COVID-19 outside of the facility, typically in a hospital. Read More

SCOTUS Punts To Biden On Potential Challenge to NY’s Taxing of Work-at-Home Nonresidents

The U.S. Supreme Court today kept alive federal litigation that could cost New York a big chunk of the billions of dollars in taxes it collects from nonresidents working for New York-based employers. Read More

The State’s Vaccine Appointment System Was Not Ready for Prime Time

The two top priorities Governor Cuomo identified in his State of the State speech Monday morning were "Defeat COVID" and "Vaccinate New York." Read More

The Pandemic Could Take Away Some NY Cash Cows

The Empire State has long asserted the right to tax nonresidents commuting to work in New York—even when their work is done at home. The payoff for Albany is huge: as of 2018, newly released state data show, nonresidents generated $7.4 billion in New York State personal income taxes, 15 percent of the total. Most of that came from people who were regular commuters before COVID-19 hit. Read More

As a Supreme Court Ruling Loomed, Cuomo Bent His Own Rules on COVID ‘Clusters’

In the midst of the constitutional showdown over his pandemic policies, Governor Cuomo made changes to a disputed Brooklyn 'cluster zone' that seemed to contradict his own declared guidelines. Read More

New York’s Rising COVID Curve Casts Doubt on Cuomo’s ‘Micro-Cluster’ Strategy

The ongoing surge in New York's coronavirus pandemic raises doubts about the effectiveness of Governor Cuomo's "micro-cluster" strategy. Read More

The Autumn Coronavirus Wave Is Hitting New York’s Nursing Homes, Too

Coronavirus infections are again rising in New York's nursing homes, a sign that blanket testing, tight limits on visitors and other precautions have not fully isolated their acutely vulnerable residents from conditions in 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.

Empire Center Logo "Readers will recall that the Empire Center is the think tank that spent months trying to pry Covid data out of Mr. Cuomo’s government, which offered a series of unbelievable excuses for its refusal to disclose...five months after it sued the government, and one week after a state court ruled that the Cuomo administration had violated the law and ordered it to come clean—Team Cuomo finally started coughing up some of the records."   -Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2021

SIGN UP TO STAY UP TO DATE ON THIS AND THOSE OTHER ISSUES THAT IMPACT NEW YORKERS.