Bush: Kids' health care will get vetoed

WASHINGTON - President Bush again called Democrats "irresponsible" on Saturday for pushing an expansion he opposes to a children's health insurance program.

"Democrats in Congress have decided to pass a bill they know will be vetoed," Bush said of the measure that draws significant bipartisan support, repeating in his weekly radio address an accusation he made earlier in the week. "Members of Congress are risking health coverage for poor children purely to make a political point."

At issue is the Children's Health Insurance Program, a state-federal program that subsidizes health coverage for low-income people, mostly children, in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private coverage. It expires Sept. 30.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers announced a proposal Friday that would add $35 billion over five years to the program, adding 4 million people to the 6.6 million already participating. It would be financed by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The idea is overwhelmingly supported by Congress' majority Democrats, who scheduled it for a vote Tuesday in the House. It has substantial Republican support as well.

But Bush has promised a veto, saying the measure is too costly, unacceptably raises taxes, extends government-covered insurance to children in families who can afford private coverage, and smacks of a move toward completely federalized health care. He has asked Congress to pass a simple extension of the current program while debate continues, saying it's children who will suffer if they do not.

"Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage — not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage," Bush said.

The bill's backers have vigorously rejected Bush's claim it would steer public money to families that can readily afford health insurance, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children. The bill would provide financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first, they said.

Many governors want the flexibility to expand eligibility for the program. So the proposal would overturn recent guidelines from the administration making it difficult for states to steer CHIP funds to families with incomes exceeding 250 percent of the official poverty level.

Heritage Foundation
September 19, 2007
SCHIP and “Crowd-Out”: The High Cost of Expanding Eligibility
by Paul L. Winfree and Greg D’Angelo
WebMemo #1627

Congress is engaged in an attempt to end the federal stalemate over reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is set to expire at the end of the month. Rather than refocus SCHIP as a targeted safety net for low-income uninsured children, the two chambers passed bills to extend the safety net to children in families with significantly higher incomes.

Expanding SCHIP eligibility further up the income ladder is not a good way to help families that lack insurance yet have incomes above the current federal threshold. Enrolling children in families at these income levels is inefficient and will disrupt the private coverage many of them already today. This is because government programs and taxpayer dollars will increasingly become substitutes for private coverage and funding. This policy-induced phenomenon, known as “crowd out,” substantially increases the cost of covering uninsured children.

The Heritage Foundation conducted an econometric analysis of the likely crowd out associated with the House and Senate bills. This analysis was based on a modified and extended version of the methodology developed by MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, a leading expert on the crowd-out effect. This analysis found that Congress’s expansion proposals for SCHIP could cover as many as 2.4 million newly eligible children, but because of crowd out, the ranks of the uninsured would decrease by only 1 million. This is because, for every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), 54 to 60 children would lose the private coverage that they have today. [1]

To avoid undue costs and ensure that the program effectively and efficiently serves its intended purpose,[2] Congress should change course and focus SCHIP on uninsured children in low-income families. To accomplish this, it should provide tax relief or direct assistance to needy families currently unable to afford to enroll their children in available private coverage.

When Congress reauthorizes SCHIP, it should keep in mind two important points. First, policies that expand eligibility thresholds cause children to lose private health insurance, which is often replaced by public programs. Second, estimates of this crowd out and its costs are significant and supported by most research in the field.[3]

SCHIP and the Crowd-Out Effect
Most of the debate over SCHIP reauthorization hinges on expanding program eligibility to children in higher income families. While expanding SCHIP eligibility would, to some extent, reduce the ranks of uninsured children, these gains would be significantly offset—or even outpaced—by losses in private insurance. As the safety net is cast further up the income ladder, instead of complementing private coverage and reducing the ranks of the uninsured, SCHIP would increasingly become a substitute for it.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently conducted a literature review to estimate crowd out due to previous SCHIP expansions. CBO estimates crowd out for these expansions is between 25 and 50 percent. In other words, one quarter to one half of newly enrolled children would have otherwise had private coverage.[4] Indeed, most leading studies of SCHIP expansions find crowd out of this magnitude. Moreover, it is generally agreed that the magnitude of the crowd-out effect will grow with further eligibility expansions because an overwhelming majority of newly eligible children already have private coverage to lose. [5] Yet recent studies have not estimated the crowd-out effects of SCHIP expansions relative to income eligibility thresholds. To fill this gap in the literature and to estimate the potential crowd-out effects if Congress were to expand SCHIP to children from families with higher incomes, The Heritage Foundation conducted its own econometric study.

Congress’s SCHIP Eligibility Expansions and Crowd Out
The Heritage Foundation estimates show that SCHIP expansions have significantly substituted government programs for private coverage among newly eligible children. Moreover, this effect grows significantly in magnitude as children from higher income families become eligible.[6] (See Table 1.)

On the aggregate, for every 100 children newly eligible for SCHIP, between 30 and 35 children lose private coverage. Disaggregating the analysis by income eligibility thresholds, however, indicates crowd out grows in magnitude when the program is extended beyond its intended focus of covering uninsured children in families below 200 percent of the FPL[7] In summary, Heritage finds:

* For every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of the FPL, 34 to 42 children would lose private coverage;
* For every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 300 percent of the FPL, 44 to 51 children would lose private coverage; and
* For every 100 newly eligible children in families with incomes between 200 and 400 percent of the FPL, 54 to 60 would lose private coverage.

The Cost of Senate and House Expansions
Estimating the magnitude of crowd out as a result of SCHIP expansions is important because, as the program becomes a substitute for private coverage, assistance flows to families whose children would have otherwise had insurance and away from children who currently go without. Because crowd out causes the ranks of the uninsured to decrease less than expected on a static basis, it increases the cost to the taxpayer of covering the uninsured. For this reason, despite what some in Congress might think, expanding SCHIP eligibility is a costly way to reduce the ranks of uninsured children.

Under the Senate’s SCHIP expansion,[8] an estimated 1 million to 1.2 million children would gain SCHIP coverage, but between 467,000 and 611,000 children would lose private coverage. Due to poor targeting and the relative cost of crowd out, the annual cost to taxpayers of covering an uninsured child under the Senate’s expansion plan would increase from $1,418 to between $2,508 and $2,859. This is 1.8 to 2 times the cost of SCHIP coverage for a child in a family at this income level or almost 2.5 times the average cost of private insurance.[9]

Under the House’s SCHIP expansion,[10] an estimated 2.2 million to 2.4 million children would gain SCHIP coverage, but between 1.2 and 1.5 million children would lose private coverage. Due to poor targeting and the relative cost of crowd out, the annual cost to taxpayers of covering an uninsured child under the House’s expansion plan would increase from $1,612 to between $3,485 and $4,008. This is 2.2 to 2.5 times the cost of SCHIP coverage for a child in a family at this income level or almost 3.5 times the average cost of private insurance.[11]

Conclusion
Expanding SCHIP to cover children in higher income families is not an efficient or cost-effective way to reduce the ranks of uninsured children. As the safety net is cast further up the income ladder, it will increasingly substitute government programs and taxpayer dollars for private coverage and funding. In order to avoid significant and increasing crowd out, and to optimize the program’s “bang for the buck,” Congress should abandon its current course before SCHIP expires. Congress should, then, restore SCHIP’s purpose as a targeted safety net for uninsured children in low-income families and work to more efficiently and effectively direct assistance to those most in need.

Paul Winfree is Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis, and Greg D’Angelo is Research Assistant in the Center for Health Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Andrew Nowobiliski, intern in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.