If you have been following my health posts closely over the past few months, then you should be ready for this analysis from CBO:  Different Measures for Analyzing Current Proposals to Reform Health Care.

This is only for budding policy wonks who want to test their newfound comprehension of the arcane world of health budgeting.

I offer my compliments to Director Elmendorf and the CBO health team for this analysis.  It is a fine example of how CBO has this year gone beyond what is strictly required of them and offered analysis to policymakers to make sure they really understand what they’re doing.  If only more lawmakers would read it.

I offer three observations.

1. CBO says that both bills would reduce the budget deficit in the short run and in the long run, but suggests they do so only by making Medicare payment changes that “may be” (I say are) politically unsustainable.  Senator Reid tried to be hypocritical last week when he attempted to pass a freestanding bill to increase Medicare spending on doctors at the same time the health reform bill allows “cuts” to take effect.  A majority of the Senate did the right thing and slapped this down.   The House is headed down this same path.  Because of the Speaker’s control over the rules, she is more likely to be successful in passing this hypocrisy.  Question for those Blue Dog Democrats who will vote for the Speaker’s bill “because CBO says it reduces the deficit”:  how do you justify the deficit-increasing impact of the combination of that bill with the doctor payment-increase bill?  If the separate “doc fix” bill passes the House, whether or not you vote for it, then your vote for the Speaker’s health reform bill is a vote to increase the deficit.

Read the full post here