Course | Intermediate | Healthcare Reform
This course explores trends in the ongoing development of state and federal healthcare policies and covers topics related to the national healthcare debate. It also discusses increased employer and consumer awareness and its impact on healt...
Course | Advanced | Healthcare Reform
This course addresses the broad provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, CMS's proposed alternative delivery and payment models, and Standard Quality Measures.<div><br></div><div>Estimated course completion time: 1 hour and 30 m...
News | Healthcare Reform

‘Medicare for All’ to cost hospitals $200 billion annually, analysis finds

News | Healthcare Reform

‘Medicare for All’ to cost hospitals $200 billion annually, analysis finds

  • Use of Medicare rates for any single-payer system would cut hospital net revenue by $200 billion annually.
  • Shifting to Medicare rates would cause much steeper losses in outpatient — rather than inpatient — care.
  • Savings from administrative simplification would not offset the net revenue loss.

Although a slice of hospitals might financially benefit from a single-payer model based on Medicare rates, 90% would face cuts totaling $200 billion each year, according to a new industry analysis.

Crowe, a consulting, accounting and technology firm, analyzed its transaction database for more than 1,000 hospitals to project revenue impacts under “Medicare for All” legislation, which would create a single-payer system that pays most hospitals at Medicare rates.

The database encompasses hospitals in 45 states and includes 605 hospitals in Medicaid expansion states and 409 in non-expansion states.

If all hospital payments switched to Medicare rates, the report found, financial impacts would include:

  • An average per-case outpatient payment cut for hospital-based services of $143 (21.9%)
  • An average per-patient inpatient payment cut of less than 1%
  • A cut in net revenue for 90.2% of the hospitals studied
  • A decrease in payment across all hospitals of $200 billion

The divergent impacts on inpatient and outpatient care would likely magnify the significance of the overall financial impact, according to Crowe, because many hospitals have “robust” outpatient managed care contracts, while many others use a “case rate” payment system that is similar to Medicare’s DRG system.

The impact at specific hospitals likely will depend on their mix of payer types. The largest revenue cut (53.5%) at any hospital studied would occur at a 246-bed facility with a nongovernment managed-care payer mix of nearly 50%. The largest revenue increase (24%) would occur at a 97-bed facility with a government payer mix of nearly 90%.

The findings echo previous projections, including an April JAMA report that concluded a "Medicare for All" system that extends the current fee schedule to all patients would cut net revenue by more than $150 billion.

Other findings of the Crowe analysis included:

  • Cost to collect would decrease from an average of 3.5% of net revenue to about 2% or less
  • Patient experience would improve
  • Savings from administrative simplification appear insufficient to offset net revenue cuts

Trump administration steps up fight

The findings followed the launch this year of a campaign by the largest hospital advocacy organizations and health systems to oppose both “Medicare for All” and the creation of a government health plan for the individual-insurance market, known as the public option.

Trump administration officials have underscored their continued opposition to both proposals.

“The secret of the public option is that it’s only cheaper because it uses the force of government to strong-arm doctors and hospitals into accepting below-market payment rates,” Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said July 22 in an address to Medicare Advantage executives gathered in Washington, D.C. “But the government cannot wave a wand and impose lower rates on some providers while holding everyone else harmless.”

Verma said those comments, her first public statements against a public option, stem from concerns about such a system, including that it:

  • Compromises access to care for patients
  • Cuts payments to providers
  • Shifts pressure to employer-sponsored plans to make up the difference
  • Drives up costs for 180 million Americans with private insurance

Democratic responses to concerns about expanding Medicare payments

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has responded to hospital payment concerns by proposing a “$20 billion emergency trust fund to help states and local communities purchase hospitals that are in financial distress,” according to media reports.

One public-option bill, sponsored by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and titled the Medicare-X Choice Act of 2019, would allow for provider payment rates up to 25% higher than Medicare rates “for items and services provided in rural areas.”

The State Public Option Act, sponsored by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), would use Medicaid rates for all non-primary care providers.

The CHOICE Act, which also creates a public option for the individual market, was sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). The bill would allow the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate provider payment rates but would default to Medicare rates if negotiations failed.

About the Author

Rich Daly, HFMA senior writer/editor,

is based in the Washington, D.C., office. Follow Rich on Twitter: @rdalyhealthcare


Related Articles | Healthcare Reform

Blog | Managed Care

State public option efforts waiver in face of the COVID-19 pandemic

HFMA's Chad Mulvany says although COVID-19 may have "dampened enthusiasm" for Washington state's public option, he is not sure the blame for its slow start rests solely, or even partly, on COVID-19.

Blog | Coronavirus

COVID-19's impact on healthcare purchasers' balance sheets will drive cost reduction efforts after the pandemic

HFMA's Chad Mulvany anticipates a combination of efforts to reduce the growth in per unit prices of healthcare and to reduce the total cost of care on the healthcare delivery system side after the pandemic.

Blog | Coronavirus

Telehealth's impact on clinic staffing models post-COVID-19

HFMA's Chad Mulvany predicts that if COVID-19 leads to widespread usage of telehealth, post-pandemic it will lead to a rethinking of primary care clinic footprints and staffing models.

Column | Healthcare Reform

2020 will see healthcare policy mired in inaction

Political polarization has posed a barrier to Congressional action in important areas of concern in healthcare, and these areas will likely not be addressed until after the 2020 presidential election.