Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 respecting the scoring of preventive health savings.
Description: This bill requires the Congressional Budget Office, upon receiving a request from Congress, to determine if legislation would reduce spending outside of the 10-year budget window through the use of preventive health and preventive health services.
Sponsors: Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26]
Target Audience
Population: People indirectly impacted by changes in legislative health policy scoring
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill affects the Congressional Budget Office's procedures for scoring preventive health measures.
- Preventive health savings can potentially affect healthcare costs and outcomes for individuals accessing healthcare, but these impacts would likely be indirect.
- The primary impact is on legislative processes, specifically on how healthcare initiatives are evaluated in terms of long-term budgetary impact.
- Changes in scoring could influence what preventive health measures are passed, indirectly affecting individuals who might benefit from those measures.
Reasoning
- The policy is focused on altering how preventive health measures are scored, which indirectly affects individuals by potentially influencing which health measures are implemented.
- Since the policy affects budgeting and legislation, individuals who use healthcare services may see longer-term benefits or changes in access and affordability to preventive health services.
- Given limited budgetary measures, the immediate impact on individuals is likely small, but over time, the legislation could lead to significant changes in health policy, particularly if preventive health becomes more prominent in healthcare initiatives.
Simulated Interviews
Public Health Researcher (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can streamline long-term budgeting for preventive measures.
- Improved scoring could lead to more preventive policies being enacted, benefiting public health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might benefit from improved access to preventive care if this policy leads to new health measures.
- The complexity of budget scoring often feels distant from personal impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Legislative Aide (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could significantly alter what health bills get legislative attention.
- Preventing illness is a sound investment; if the policy helps pass preventive measures, it's a win.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Freelance Writer (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's influence is in the policy space, which could ultimately shape healthcare messaging and coverage.
- I'd be more hopeful if preventive care saw an actual increase post-policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Healthcare Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Potentially more funding could be allocated to preventive programs due to the new scoring model.
- Small clinics might see indirect benefit if preventive health is prioritized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
General Practitioner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A change in budget scoring could increase funding for preventive health, which aligns with my practice philosophy.
- Long-term effects might foster a healthier population.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The scoring change is a technical edit with potentially widespread implications.
- Assessing long-term impacts on public wellness is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Registered Nurse (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 57 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Emphasizes preventive care, so any policy promoting it has potential in my job context.
- Such changes often take time to show results at the patient level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Denver, CO)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could encourage more corporate wellness programs if preventive measures advance.
- Healthier community means healthier employment pool.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Portland, OR)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that any policy supporting preventive health will help my family and community.
- Legislation feels far removed from daily life, but long-term changes in healthcare access matter.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy does not directly implement preventive health measures; rather, it changes how such measures are evaluated for budgetary impact.
- Actual cost savings would depend on the specific preventive health measures and their effectiveness, which are unpredictable.
- Indirect effects may include changes in public health and labor productivity, potentially affecting GDP.