Universal Healthcare Would Slow VT Cost Growth

John Commins, for HealthLeaders Media , November 3, 2011

Vermont's yet-to-be-defined leap into state-sponsored universal healthcare could cost as much as $9.5 billion by 2020, about double the $4.7 billion the state now spends on healthcare. That's roughly $14,000 for every person in the state.

But the state plan will still cost less than maintaining the current system of private plans, which could add an additional $550 million to $1.8 billion to the cost of healthcare in the state, according to new estimates released this week.

The 45-page report, Costs of Vermont's Health Care System Comparison of Baseline and Reform System, was mandated by Vermont lawmakers this spring after they passed Act 48, a universal healthcare bill. Lawmakers have until early 2013 to finalize the plan and figure out how to pay for it.

Whatever plan emerges will at best only slow the 7% annual increases in healthcare costs that are projected until 2020 under the status quo. Vermont, with an aging population and already aggressive coverage for the poor and under-insured, has seen some of the fastest growth in healthcare costs of any state in the nation. In 1992, healthcare represented 10% of the Vermont economy. In 2009, it represented nearly 19% of the state's economy.

"Achieving savings in healthcare spending is a difficult process. In this context, success is measured as reduction in the rate of growth—achieving absolute savings (spending less than in the prior year) is extremely unlikely," according to the report.

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

2 comments on "Universal Healthcare Would Slow VT Cost Growth"

James (11/3/2011 at 1:55 PM)
Blatantly false and misleading title to the article. According to the content it is not universal healthcare that causes the cost to nearly double, but other factors. The report says the universal system will actually save nearly 2 billion dollars compared to the current private system over the same period of time plus provide other positive outcomes the current system can't provide.

d (11/3/2011 at 12:02 PM)
The headline is misleading given the point of the article. It helps everyone to not state things in a way that seem inflamatory, when the goal is less cost and better health in the community.




FREE e-Newsletters Join the Council Subscribe to HL magazine


100 Winners Circle Suite 300
Brentwood, TN 37027


About | Advertise | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Reprints/Permissions | Contact
© HealthLeaders Media 2016 a division of BLR All rights reserved.