CBO’s Updated Projections of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund’s Finances

The Congressional Budget Office regularly updates the Congress on our projections of the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund’s financial position as well as changes in our outlook on that position. This blog post serves as that update.

The HI trust fund is used to pay for benefits under Medicare Part A, which covers inpatient hospital services, care provided in skilled nursing facilities, home health care, and hospice care. The fund derives its income from several sources. Over the next 30 years, about three-quarters of its annual income comes from the Medicare payroll tax and roughly one-eighth comes from income taxes on Social Security benefits. The rest comes from other sources.

Budget Projections

We estimate that the HI trust fund’s balance is exhausted in 2040. The balance generally increases through 2031, but spending begins to outstrip income in the following year.

That projection is based on our demographic projections published in January 2026, our economic and 10-year budget projections published on February 11, 2026, and our long-term budget projections that extend those earlier projections. It does not account for any effects, including effects on the economy or the budget, of the Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs on February 20, 2026 (Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 24-1287, 25-250, slip op. (S. Ct. Feb. 20, 2026)).

As required by the Deficit Control Act, our projections reflect the assumption that benefits would be paid as scheduled even after the HI trust fund was exhausted. If the balance of the fund was exhausted and the fund’s spending continued to outstrip its income, total payments to health plans and providers for services covered under Part A would be limited by law to the amount of income credited to the fund. Total benefits would need to be reduced (in relation to the amounts in our baseline projections) by an amount that rises from 8 percent in 2040 to 10 percent in 2056, we estimate. It is unclear what changes the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would make to operate the Part A program under those circumstances.

We estimate that the HI trust fund’s actuarial balance measured over a 25-year period is negative: an actuarial deficit of 0.30 percent of taxable payroll (or 0.13 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP).

The actuarial balance is a single number that summarizes the fund’s current balance and annual future streams of revenues and outlays over a certain period. It is the sum of the present value of projected income and the current trust fund balance minus the sum of the present value of projected outlays and a year’s worth of benefits at the end of the period. A present value is a single number that expresses a flow of current and future income or payments in terms of an equivalent lump sum received or paid today. And taxable payroll is the total amount of earnings—wages and self-employment income—subject to the payroll tax.

To eliminate the actuarial deficit, lawmakers would need to take action. They could increase taxes, reduce payments, transfer money to the trust fund, or take some combination of those approaches. The estimated size of the change needed—0.30 percent of taxable payroll—excludes the effects of changes in taxes or spending on people’s behavior and the economy. Those effects, which would depend on the specifics of the policy change, would alter the size of the tax increase, benefit reduction, or transfer needed to eliminate the actuarial deficit.

Changes in Our Projections Since March 2025

The year in which the HI trust fund’s balance is exhausted in our current projections, 2040, is 12 years earlier than in our most recent estimate of that date, which was published in March 2025. Measured in relation to taxable payroll, the trust fund’s 25-year actuarial deficit is 0.17 percentage points greater in the current projections than in last year’s. (Measured in relation to GDP, the actuarial deficit is 0.07 percentage points greater than we projected last year.) Those changes are driven largely by projections of less income to the fund. Projections of greater spending also contribute to the changes.

Our projections of income to the HI trust fund are less this year than last year for three main reasons:

  • First, revenues from taxing Social Security benefits are smaller in the current projections because of changes put in place by the 2025 reconciliation act (Public Law 119-21), which lowered tax rates and created a temporary deduction for taxpayers age 65 or older.
  • Second, we decreased our projections of revenues from payroll taxes to account for projections of lower earnings.
  • Finally, we now project interest income credited to the trust fund to be smaller than estimated last year because of the smaller trust fund balances in this year’s projections.

Spending is projected to be greater mainly because of an increase in expected spending per enrollee. Per-enrollee spending in Medicare Part A’s fee-for-service program in 2025 and bids in 2026 by providers of Medicare Advantage plans were both higher than we expected, leading to projections of greater per-enrollee spending in both programs.

Projections of the HI trust fund’s balances are sensitive to small changes in projections of its spending and income. As a result, those estimates are highly uncertain.

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security

https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-top-ten-facts-about-social-security

 

Happy Birthday, Social Security!

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935, 83 years ago today. Here are some key facts about the program:

  • About 62 million people received Social Security checks in June of this year.
  • The average monthly check was $1,343.
  • Social Security lifts about 15 million elderly Americans out of poverty.
  • Benefits for the average worker are only about half those in other developed countries.
  • About 1 in 5 seniors rely on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income.
  • Administrative costs for the program are just 0.7 percent of annual benefits.
  • Social Security’s trust funds will be exhausted by 2034. If policymakers do not act by then, payments could be reduced by about 25 percent.

 

More Than One-Third of People with Traditional Medicare Spent at Least 20 Percent of Their Total Income on Health Care in 2013

http://connect.kff.org/many-people-with-traditional-medicare-spent-at-least-20-percent-of-their-income-on-health-care-in-2013?ecid=ACsprvsiFmfyaQUfADFrf32n4wh0OUu4gIROk6tAc4VZ2GmtOCvvgdhIWsEh3xLkkK2toktoTqJN&utm_campaign=KFF-2018-January-Medicare-Out-Of-Pocket-Spending&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=60277390&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8TexIgilMHyZy_2ZHSiNhSiGZ7_j6xP8h5pBC_LYjbUou03aHoJahmhFiI7UBZrjo7aWH-BfGSNqiNYCUmP5Ho5m9bNA&_hsmi=60277390

revisedmedicare.png

Health Costs Are Projected to Consume Half of Average Per Social Security Income by 2030

Health care costs are a substantial and growing burden for many people on Medicare and are projected to consume a larger share of total income over time, according to a new analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The studyMedicare Beneficiaries’ Out-of-Pocket Health Care Spending as a Share of Income Now and Projections for the Future, finds that more one-third of people with traditional Medicare spent at least 20 percent of their total income on out-of-pocket health care costs in 2013. That included premiums, deductibles and cost sharing for Medicare-covered services, as well as spending on services not covered by Medicare, such as dental and long-term care. The analysis of spending as a share of total income does not include enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans, who account for 19 million of the 59 million people with Medicare. Income is measured on a per person basis, which for married couples is income for the couple divided in half.

While some people with Medicare face relatively low out-of-pocket costs, the financial burden can be especially large for beneficiaries with modest incomes and significant medical needs. For instance, among beneficiaries in traditional Medicare, just over half with incomes below $20,000 and those ages 85 and over spent at least 20 percent of their total income on health expenditures in 2013, along with more than 4 in 10 beneficiaries in fair or poor health status.

Among all Medicare beneficiaries, out-of-pocket costs consumed 41 percent of beneficiaries’ per person Social Security income in 2013, on average. Older women and beneficiaries ages 85 and older tended to have higher average out-of-pocket spending as a share of average Social Security income than others, according to the analysis.

The analysis projects that the health care spending burden among Medicare beneficiaries will rise over time. By 2030, the study projects that under current policies 42 percent of people with traditional Medicare will spend 20 percent of their total income or more on health care costs.  Among all people with Medicare, out-of-pocket costs are projected to consume half of the average per person Social Security benefit by 2030.

With rising health care costs representing a growing challenge to the financial security of older adults, these findings have implications for policies that could shift costs on to beneficiaries as part of a broader effort to reduce federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.

What happens when the federal government eliminates health coverage? Lessons from the past

http://theconversation.com/what-happens-when-the-federal-government-eliminates-health-coverage-lessons-from-the-past-79989?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%201%202017%20-%2077496134&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20July%201%202017%20-%2077496134+CID_7e419ab4ae6962d1afd6f9273e9cc417&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=What%20happens%20when%20the%20federal%20government%20eliminates%20health%20coverage%20Lessons%20from%20the%20past

Image result for aca

After much secrecy and no public deliberation, Senate Republicans finalized release their “draft” repeal and replace bill for the Affordable Care Act on June 22. Unquestionably, the released “draft” will not be the final version.

Amendments and a potential, albeit not necessary, conference committee are likely to make some adjustments. However, both the House version – American Health Care Act (AHCA) – and the Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) will significantly reduce coverage for millions of Americans and reshape insurance for virtually everyone. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is expected to provide final numbers early the week of June 26.

If successful, the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act would be in rare company. Even though the U.S. has been slower than any other Western country to develop a safety net, the U.S. has rarely taken back benefits once they have been bestowed on its citizenry. Indeed, only a small number of significant cases come to mind.

My academic work has analyzed the evolution of the American health care system including those rare instances. I believe historical precedents can provide insights for the current debate.

Providing help to mothers and infants

The first major federal grant program for health purposes was also the first one to quickly be eliminated. The program was authorized under the Sheppard-Towner Maternity and Infancy Protection Act of 1921. It provided the equivalent of US$20 million a year in today’s dollars to states in order to pay for the needs of women and young children.

Sheppard-Towner, which provided funding to improve health care services for mothers and infants, was enacted after a long debate in Congress amid accusations of socialism and promiscuity. Interestingly enough, the act may have passed only due to pressure from newly voting-eligible women.

Jeanette Rankin, the original sponsor of the Shepard-Towner Act and the first woman elected to Congress, pictured in 1970. John Duricka/AP

Overall, the program was responsible for more than 3 million home visits, close to 200,000 child health conferences and more than 22 million pieces of health education literature distributed. It also helped to establish 3,000 permanent health clinics serving 700,000 expectant mothers and more than 4 million babies.

The program continued until 1929, when Congress, under pressure from the American Medical Association, the Catholic Church and the Daughters of the American Revolution, terminated the program. Without federal support, a majority of states either eliminated the programs or only provided nominal funding. Fortunately for America’s children and mothers, the Social Security Amendment of 1935 reestablished much of the original funding and expanded it over time.

Helping America’s farmers during the New Deal

America’s next major program confronted a similar fate. To address the challenges of rural America during the Great Depression, the federal government developed a variety of insurance and health care programs that offered extensive and comprehensive services to millions of farm workers, migrants and farmers.

Grandmother and sick baby of a migratory family in Arizona. These types of families were targeted for help by the Farm Security Administration. NARA/ Dorothea Lange

Some of these programs provided subsidies to farmers to form more than 1,200 insurance cooperatives nationwide. At times, the federal government’s Farm Security Administaton (FSA) provided extensive services directly to migrant farm workers through medical assistance on agricultural trains, mobile and roving clinics, migratory labor camps that included health centers staffed with qualified providers, full-service hospitals and Agricultural Workers Health Associations (AWHA).

In all cases, services were generally comprehensive and included ordinary medical care, emergency surgery and hospitalization, maternal and infant care, prescription drugs and dental care.

Although these services were accepted during wartime, the American Medical Association and the Farm Bureau opposed them, which ultimately led to their demise shortly after World War II. Millions of farmers lost their insurance.

Medicaid in the 1980s

Perhaps the most indicative expectations on what will happen in case congressional Republicans are able to pass their proposal hails from the Medicaid program itself.

In the early 1980s, Medicaid underwent a series of cuts and reductions leading to the first contracting in the program’s history. These involved both a reduction in federal funding and in eligibility, and an increase in state flexibility to run the program, as do the Republican proposals in Congress.

The cuts pale in comparison to those currently proposed by both the Senate and House. Nonetheless, the results was the first slowing of the Medicaid growth rate. However, this came at a steep cost for many Americans in the form of a significant reduction in enrollment, benefits and access even during a recessionary period.

Protecting America’s seniors

The 1980s also saw the creation and quick demise of another health care program. The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 sought to fill in the gaps of the original Medicare program for America’s seniors. Specifically, it sought to provide them with protection from major medical costs and offer them a prescription drug benefit for the first time.

Similarly to the Affordable Care Act, the law had a redistributive foundation by requiring richer seniors to contribute more than poorer individuals. Also, similarly to the Affordable Care Act, it phased in benefits over a period of time.

Congress, confronted by affluent seniors who would have shouldered much of the financial burden of the program, quickly repealed much of the law before its provisions came into effect.

A Republican President, George W. Bush, was responsible for extending prescription drug benefits to seniors under Medicare Part D.Jason Reed/Reuters

It took more than a decade to provide America’s seniors with a prescription drug benefit through Medicare Part D, while only limited steps have been taken to protect seniors from major medical losses.

A serious setback looming?

While a latecomer, the United States has inched closer to the development of a comprehensive welfare state when it comes to health care. While the development has been incomplete, health benefits, once granted, have rarely been revoked except in those few cases described above.

The consequences of those rare cases are nonetheless instructive. States were unable to continue the program without federal support or offer a valid replacement. Indeed, the programs quickly faded away. With them, millions of Americans lost access to health care.

In all three previous cases, the federal government eventually renewed its financial support. However, at times it took time for a replacement program to emerge.

The current changes proposed by congressional Republicans, particularly to the Medicaid program, are tremendously more consequential than anything we have previously experienced.

Indeed, in scale and extent, the proposed changes are unprecedented and would significantly roll back, likely for the foreseeable future, America’s safety net.

Price Urges Medicare Reforms, Breaking With Trump

https://morningconsult.com/2017/01/24/price-urges-medicare-reforms-breaking-trump-campaign-statements/

Image result for promises

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, said Tuesday he’d favor reforms to Medicare that would ensure the program’s viability.

“The Medicare trustees … have told all of us that Medicare, in a very short period of time, less than 10 years, is going to be out of the kind of resources that will allow us as a society to keep the promise to beneficiaries,” Price said Tuesday before the Senate Finance Committee. “We will not be able to provide the services to Medicare patients at that time — which is very, very close — if nothing is done.”

Price supports turning Medicare into a premium support system, giving eligible beneficiaries a set amount to buy coverage. GOP leaders such as House Speaker Paul Ryan have also backed this idea in the past.

Trump, on the other hand, vowed during his campaign not to cut Medicare and Social Security, pointing out that this position set him apart from other GOP candidates during the primary. Democrats are now trying to hold him to that promise.

CBO: Aging population, drugs driving federal healthcare spending

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/cbo-aging-population-drugs-driving-federal-healthcare-spending/425062/

The country’s aging population, which is using more Social Security and requiring more Medicare coverage, is driving most of the spending increases, according to the report. Compared to 50 years ago, the number of people who are 65 years old and older has more than doubled, CBO found. As a result, Medicare outlays will remain at about 3% of GDP until 2018 but then increase on an annual basis through 2026.

“Over the next decade, as members of the baby-boom generation age and as life expectancy continues to increase, that number is expected to rise by more than one-third, boosting the number of beneficiaries of those programs,” the report states, adding, “As a result, projected spending for people age 65 or older in three large programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — increases from roughly one-third of all federal noninterest spending in 2016 to about 40% in 2026.”

How Clinton and Trump view Medicare and retiree health plans

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-clinton-and-trump-view-medicare-and-retiree-health-plans/?utm_campaign=CHL%3A+Daily+Edition&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=33162087&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9oAIbaDQtxb4QcswlBvNhptpEnOvAuPzdM3wZ5GPdm93T9u09D7SfE0LClB9DcepAVRVolZJmQkwZXYhWNWpR3jUrmqg&_hsmi=33162087

 

Health care spending: some room for optimism

http://blog.academyhealth.org/health-care-spending-some-room-for-optimism/

This chart, produced by the Bipartisan Policy Center based on CBO data from 2011, shows the projected spending on health care, social security, discretionary, and mandatory by the federal government, as a percentage of GDP. As you can see, for all our hyperventilation about social security, it’s relatively stable once we get about 20 years out. Discretionary and other mandatory spending are similarly flat over time. But healthcare… that’s what’s going to get us.