Get the latest market trends in your inbox
Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with the Axios Markets newsletter. Sign up for free.
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Denver news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver
Des Moines news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines
Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Minneapolis-St. Paul
Tampa-St. Petersburg news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa-St. Petersburg
Democrats aren't debating small differences in health policy — a public option would be radically different than a shift to a single payer system, and a new analysis by the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund illustrates just how big those differences are.
By the numbers: A public option — even a robust one — would cost the federal government an additional $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Full-blown single payer would result in a federal spending increase of $34 trillion.
Yes, but: More federal spending doesn't necessarily mean the health care system as a whole is getting more expensive.
Details: The analysis doesn't look at any specific piece of legislation or any particular Democratic candidate's plan, but it covers the spectrum of what's been proposed.
- National cost savings generally come at the expense of providers, as their payment rates would be regulated under expanded government coverage.