Data: The Urban Institute; Note: 2020 estimates assumes all reforms fully phased in and in equilibrium, "Household spending" is for those 64 and under; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon/Axios
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.
