Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

CBO: Graham-Cassidy would lead to “millions” fewer people with insurance

It’s an incomplete analysis, but it aligns with outside estimates.

Alex Wong / Getty Images
Dylan Scott
Dylan Scott covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017.

The Graham-Cassidy plan to repeal and replace Obamacare would reduce the federal deficit by at least $133 billion, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday afternoon, after reviewing a recent not final version of the bill.

While the office couldn’t specify a number, it also said that the bill would likely lead to millions fewer Americans having health insurance when compared with current law.

“The number of people with comprehensive health insurance that covers high-cost medical events would be reduced by millions,” when compared with Obamacare, the CBO’s analysts said.

The coverage losses would result from Medicaid cuts, cuts to tax subsidies for people to purchase private insurance, and the repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate, the CBO said.

But that’s about as specific as the office could be.

The CBO has said it will take weeks to fully assess the plan, including exactly how many people would have health insurance under the bill or what would happen to insurance premiums.

But we do have more specific outside estimates on the previous version of the bill: upward of 20 million fewer Americans with health insurance and hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to federal health care spending.

Meanwhile, a vote on the bill is just days away, and the Senate is still revising it. Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) released a new draft Monday. The topline numbers from the CBO are unlikely to change, however.

The deficit reduction number is important for procedural reasons. Under the budget reconciliation process Senate Republicans are using to pass their Obamacare repeal bill with 51 votes instead of the usual 60, the Senate’s health care legislation must save as much money as a House version passed in May — a little more than $100 billion over 10 years.

Senate Republicans will still likely need to get their final version of the bill reviewed by the CBO, at least to double-check that the final bill meets the reconciliation requirements. And it’s not clear if they’ll wait for the full analysis of the effect on premiums and the number of people with insurance in order to hold a vote.

Graham-Cassidy’s projected coverage losses: 21 million

Although the CBO is still doing its calculations, we have some estimates of the original bill from the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, which attempted to replicate the CBO’s methodology:

  • 15 million fewer people with insurance in 2018 and 2019, versus current law
  • 21 million fewer insured by 2026
  • 32 million fewer Americans with coverage after 2026 if the funding provided in the Graham-Cassidy bill is not reauthorized by Congress

The analysis may be the best estimates the public and Republican senators will see before they vote on the Graham-Cassidy plan, which would turn much of Obamacare’s funding into a block grant and send the money to states to establish their own health care programs.

Graham-Cassidy’s projected funding cuts: $215 billion by 2026

An analysis from Avalere Health, an independent consulting firm, put a price tag on the original bill’s spending cuts: $215 billion from 2020 to 2026, when the bill’s funding expires. Stretched out to 2036, if the spending isn’t reauthorized, the cuts are nearly $4 trillion versus current law.

The crux of Graham-Cassidy is a block grant program: The bill keeps most of Obamacare’s taxes and packages the revenue into block grants that are sent down to the states to set up their own health care programs with few strings attached. A complex formula, based in part on the number of residents in or near poverty, is used to distribute the funding between the states. The bill also overhauls Medicaid, placing a federal spending cap on the program for the first time.

Add it all up and, generally speaking, states led by Democrats are hit the hardest, while states led by Republicans receive the largest reward.

Or looked at another way, because the cuts don’t break down purely along party lines: The more aggressively a state implemented Obamacare and sought to enroll people in coverage, the worse it fares under Graham-Cassidy.

The last-minute revisions that Graham and Cassidy are making don’t seem likely to significantly change that underlying story. But the bill is being rushed to the Senate floor too fast for the CBO to confirm what outside estimates have said.


Join the conversation

Are you an Obamacare enrollee interested in what happens next? Join our Facebook community for conversation and updates.

More in Politics

The Logoff
Trump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictionsTrump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictions
The Logoff

How the Trump administration is still trying to rewrite January 6 history.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Donald Trump messed with the wrong popeDonald Trump messed with the wrong pope
Politics

Trump fought with Pope Francis before. He’s finding Pope Leo XIV to be a tougher foil.

By Christian Paz
Podcasts
A cautionary tale about tax cutsA cautionary tale about tax cuts
Podcast
Podcasts

California cut property taxes in the 1970s. It didn’t go so well.

By Miles Bryan and Noel King
Podcasts
Obama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwupsObama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwups
Podcast
Podcasts

Wendy Sherman helped Obama reach a deal with Iran. Here’s what she thinks Trump is doing wrong.

By Kelli Wessinger and Noel King
Politics
The Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything elseThe Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything else
Politics

McNutt v. DOJ could allow the justices to seize tremendous power over the US economy.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
The new Hormuz blockade, briefly explainedThe new Hormuz blockade, briefly explained
The Logoff

Trump tries Iran’s playbook.

By Cameron Peters