Spokesman Ty Bofferding said the United States spends more than twice as much per person as countries in Western Europe all of which have universal health-care systems so it was reasonable to believe better outcomes were possible with fewer dollars.
We expect when states are free of structural regulation, the American people will see innovative ideas, he said. No CBO coverage score is available for the bill yet, however this legislation has far more enrollment incentives than previous repeal-and-replace attempts, so we expect improved coverage.
Given the spending reductions in the bill, many health-care experts found this logic to be highly dubious. Yet no credible analyst has been willing to venture an estimate on coverage because no one knows how states would react.
For instance, the respected health-care consultant Avalere concluded that California would face a 13 percent shortfall ($78 billion between 2020 and 2026) under Cassidy-Graham compared to current law. But in theory, the state could decide to create a single-payer system that could cover everyone, so that would certainly increase coverage. In fact, the trade group for insurance companies Americas Health Insurance Plans opposes the bill in part because it could build a bridge to single-payer systems.
