BREAKING: New CBO score on CHIP is out and news is big.

[demmiblue]

Link to tweet

Andy Slavitt ?Verified account @ASlavitt

BREAKING: New CBO score on CHIP is out and news is big.

$0.8B for 5 years.

Used to be $8.5B. All the excuses should be gone.

http://bit.ly/2m4modi

5:58 PM - 5 Jan 2018

[Victor_c3]

1. Money well spent in my opinion

I don’t really care what it costs, but I’m glad the score moved significantly to the better position.

We can dish out all sorts of money that we don’t have on wasteful and horrible wars that have nothing to do with our defense, but when it comes to taking care of our own citizens, things become too expensive. However, in the defense of wars and killing lots of people for greed, they don’t have parades to honor healthcare workers and educators.

Boy, our nation sure has its priorities messed up...

[MyOwnPeace]

4. I wait for the day............

when our schools will get the money they need and the military holds bake sales........................

[Vinca]

2. Why did it go down so dramatically? Did they monkey with coverage?

[BumRushDaShow]

3. The report gave the reasons

Compared with the October 20, 2017, cost estimate for the legislation, this cost estimate shows a cost over the next 10 years that is smaller by $7.5 billion. The net change in the deficit is significantly smaller than the agencies’ prior estimate primarily because the offset to the cost of funding CHIP for five years is larger. That offset, which reduces direct spending related to the marketplaces, is higher for three main reasons:

• CBO and JCT expect that premiums for coverage through the marketplaces will be higher in the absence of the mandate penalties than they would otherwise have been. As a result, the federal cost of enrolling a child in coverage through the marketplaces will be higher. Thus, funding CHIP for five additional years—causing some children to be covered in that program rather than through the marketplaces —would result in a larger reduction in spending related to the marketplaces than in the prior estimate.

• The agencies estimate that, without the penalties related to the individual mandate, a larger share of parents would be uninsured. When funding for CHIP is reduced under current law, some parents would seek to preserve coverage for their children and enroll them in a family policy through the marketplaces. Some of those parents would otherwise be insured and could add their children to their coverage, while other parents would be uninsured and enroll both themselves and their children, resulting in higher costs to the federal government relative to insured parents. In the revised estimate, more parents would fall into the latter category. Thus, funding CHIP for five additional years would result in a larger reduction in spending related to the marketplaces than in the prior estimate.

• The agencies now incorporate into their estimate final regulations related to how premiums differ by age that increase premiums for children’s coverage through the marketplaces. Those regulations cause federal spending per child in the marketplaces to be higher. Thus, funding CHIP for five additional years —reducing the number of children covered through the marketplaces—would result in a larger reduction in spending related to the marketplaces than in the
prior estimate.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/s1827_1.pdf (PDF file)