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

Cuomo Administration Ducks Important Questions on Nursing Homes

A new report from the state Health Department tries to deflect blame for thousands of coronavirus deaths in the state's nursing homes—but undermines its own case by withholding data and engaging in tendentious analysis. Read More

Nursing Home Vacancy Rate Soars, Hinting at a Higher Coronavirus Toll

The vacancy rate in New York's nursing homes has more than doubled since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, suggesting that the death toll among residents may be thousands higher than officially reported. Read More

Unsure of COVID Impact, NY Insurers Roll Dice on Rate Hikes

The health insurance industry's rate applications for 2021, , reveal deep uncertainty about the long-term impact of the coronavirus pandemic on medical costs. Some companies anticip Read More

Hospitalization rising in some areas

Coronavirus hospitalizations are surging in parts of upstate, including three regions that the Cuomo administration authorized to begin reopening today. Read More

Uneven ‘relief’ for NY providers

A review of federal emergency payments to New York health-care providers reveals a striking disparity: Four of Manhattan's most prosperous private hospitals collected more individually than the 11 city-owned hospitals combined. Read More

A grim toll gets worse

The full toll of the coronavirus pandemic in New York is likely thousands higher than the official death tallies, according to newly released federal data. Read More

More fiscal turmoil for Medicaid

In a sign of pandemic-related strain on state finances, the Cuomo administration is postponing a series of multi-billion-dollar Medicaid payments over the next three months. Read More

Upstate escapes the worst

With the coronavirus pandemic hitting some parts of New York much harder than others, Governor Cuomo has signaled that he will begin to relax shutdown restrictions in low-virus parts of the state. Here's a closer look at how infection and fatality rates vary from region to region. 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.