The Hill article Trump’s healthcare plan is not a simple one.
But a few key details from a recent Heritage Foundation report suggest it could be one of the most effective and costly in history.
As the nation grapples with the opioid crisis, there is increasing concern over the costs and impact of Trumpcare.
While it’s true the plan does include a few high-risk measures, the actual details of the bill are still being hammered out.
Trumpcare includes a lot of things that have never been done before, including a new, government-run insurance exchange, expanded Medicaid eligibility, and more.
That’s where the bill falls apart.
The most glaring example is the proposal to expand Medicaid to cover any adult with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.
It doesn’t cover those who earn less than that, and it would raise the eligibility age to 65.
The Heritage Foundation estimated the cost of expanding Medicaid under the bill to be $816 billion over a decade, including an estimated $3.5 trillion in spending for private insurance companies, which would cover the rest of the cost.
But the Heritage report estimated that if that provision were in place, the total cost would actually be about $300 billion more than the current law.
So why didn’t the Trump administration add the provision?
Because they were unable to get support from the Congressional Budget Office, which had previously said that the plan would increase spending by $2 trillion over a 10-year period.
And even if the bill added the Medicaid expansion, it would still be less than the $2.8 trillion the CBO estimated the bill would increase over the same period.
This chart, from the Heritage Foundation, shows that the Trump plan would raise health care spending in a decade by $3,927 billion.
But if you subtract out the Medicaid provision, it actually reduces health care costs by $1,746 billion.
There’s a major caveat with the report.
As we previously reported, the Heritage analysis only considered the costs of the Trumpcare expansion, not the entire plan.
That’s because it was based on a “scenario,” a term that economists use to describe a scenario in which certain changes take place in the law.
That means the analysis didn’t include the more controversial provisions that would reduce the overall cost of the law by $500 billion, such as Medicaid expansion and the repeal of the individual mandate.
We asked a White House official for more information on how the Heritage study would be updated to include the additional costs, but haven’t heard back yet.
But even if that happens, it still leaves a significant hole in the Trump healthcare plan, which has a lot more to lose.