How Medicare reduced spending by $315 billion without even trying

Medicare has spent $315 billion less than expected over the past four years — all thanks to a remarkable slowdown in health-care spending growth.

The best evidence we have suggests this slowdown is largely about utilization: Medicare patients are using the health-care system less intensely than they did in the mid-2000s. The health-care law also includes a number of cuts to Medicare reimbursement rates — the prices the government pays doctors — which likely are also a factor.

Between 2002 and 2008, Medicare's per-person spending grew, on average, by 5.9 percent each year. Since 2009, health-care costs — both overall, but especially in Medicare — have grown at historically low rates. Medicare per-person spending inched upward by an average of 1.8 percent each year between 2009 and 2012, and then by another 0.2 percent in 2013.

That slower growth matters: the federal government spent $315 billion less on Medicare between 2009 and 2013 than it would have if the program kept growing at the 2002-to-2008 rates.

This may overstate the obvious, but $315 billion is a pretty astounding amount of money. It works out to a 12 percent reduction in Medicare spending in the time period studied (from an expected $2.87 trillion down to an actual $2.55 trillion).

Those savings are meaningful: when the government spends less money on Medicare, it frees up dollars to spend more money on education or defense or whatever other priorities the administration wants to invest in. Over four years, $315 billion could, for example, cover federal spending for the Children's Health Insurance Program (which covers about 8 million low- and middle-income kids) about nine times over. Or it could cover the entire Education Department's budget, without spending any more money.

This is what makes the spending slowdown in health care so meaningful for the federal government: it suggests that Medicare, a program typically seen as a budget-buster, may not be the juggernaut we thought.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via