Immigrants Give More to Medicare Than They Receive, a Study Finds



May 29, 2013


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/health/immigrants-give-more-to-medicare-than-they-receive-a-study-finds.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Immigrants have contributed billions of dollars more to Medicare in recent years than the program has paid out on their behalf, according to a new study, a pattern that goes against the notion that immigrants are a drain on federal health care spending.
The study, led by researchers at Harvard Medical School, measured immigrants’ contributions to the part of Medicare that pays for hospital care, a trust fund that accounts for nearly half of the federal program’s revenue. It found that immigrants generated surpluses totaling $115 billion from 2002 to 2009. In comparison, the American-born population incurred a deficit of $28 billion over the same period.

The findings shed light what demographers have long known: Immigrants are crucial in balancing the age structure of American society, providing an infusion of young, working-age adults who support the country’s aging population and help cover the costs of Medicare and Social Security. And with the largest generation in the United States, the baby boomers, now starting to retire, the financial help from immigrants has never been more needed, experts said.

Individual immigrant contributions were roughly the same as those of American citizens, the study found, but immigrants as a group received less than they paid in, largely because they were younger on average than the American-born population and fewer of them were old enough to be eligible for benefits. The median age of Hispanics, whose foreign-born contingent is by far the largest immigrant group, is 27, according to the Brookings Institution. The median age of whites in the United States is 42.

The study, which was published on the Web site of the journal Health Affairs on Wednesday, comes as Congress considers legislation that would eventually give legal status to the country’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants. The legislation has sparked a vigorous debate about whether immigrants ultimately contribute more than they receive from the federal budget. One of the sticking points has been whether immigrants should be eligible for government programs, including health benefits, before they qualify for citizenship, but while they are on the path to getting it.

The study was concerned only with Medicare, the federal program that accounts for about a fifth of all American health care expenditures. Experts said that the study’s findings served as a useful reminder that immigrants, at least for now, are extending the life of the beleaguered program, not hastening its demise.

“There’s this strong belief that immigrants are takers,” said Leighton Ku, the director of the Center for Health Policy Research at George Washington University. “This shows they are contributing hugely. Without immigrants, the Medicare trust fund would be in trouble sooner.” The belief prevails, for example, among some opponents of immigration reform.

The study did not grapple with the health care costs of immigrants over their full lifetimes, a calculation that economists say is critical to understanding their long-term impact on the federal budget.

“It’s just a snapshot of a point in time,” said Paul Van de Water, a visiting fellow at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The study drew on two nationally representative federal surveys from the Census Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services. Researchers included the contributions of legal residents who were not citizens, a group that is eligible for Medicare if certain requirements are met; unauthorized immigrants; and citizens who were born abroad.

It was not clear how much of the surplus was made up of earnings by immigrants in the country illegally, who are ineligible for most government programs.

The finding “pokes a hole in the widespread assumption that immigrants drain U.S. health care spending dollars,” said Leah Zallman, an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and the lead author of the study.

Similar calculations have been made for Social Security. The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, Stephen C. Goss, estimated that immigrants in the country illegally, some of whom assume fake Social Security numbers to provide cover for employers, generated a surplus of about $12 billion for the Social Security Trust Fund in 2010.

But that equation would change if unauthorized immigrants were to gain legal status under a new law and eventually began collecting Social Security once they were of retirement age. One major policy question is how much that might cost, experts said.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative institute, estimated that the legislation’s changes, if implemented, could cost taxpayers more than $6 trillion. Critics of that calculation said it did not take into account the economic benefits that would arise from taking millions of people out of the shadow economy.

Mr. Goss, in a letter this month to Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, said that the legislation’s effect on the long-term health of Social Security would be positive in the long term.

Immigrants tend to be healthier than American-born citizens, and have lower mortality rates, research has found. Dr. Ku said there was evidence that individual immigrants actually use less health care than native-born Americans. He has calculated, for example, that immigrants’ medical costs were 14 percent to 20 percent less than those who were born in the United States, even after controlling for other factors such as emergency room visits and insurance coverage, which fewer immigrants have.

The study found that average expenditures among immigrant Medicare enrollees in 2009 were $3,923, lower than the average $5,388 expenditure among the American-born. The difference, however, was just shy of statistical significance, because of wide variations in medical expenditures and the small numbers of immigrant enrollees, which made the study’s margin of error wide.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who is an author of the institute’s report earlier this month, said that looking at Medicare alone was not very useful, as it was just one slice of the entire entitlement pie. And the large immigrant youth population, which the study spends most of its time on, is familiar, he said.

“It’s a yawner of a study,” he said. “Young people don’t get Medicare. We don’t need several Ph.D.s to tell us that.”

Others defended the findings, saying that they showed immigrants were helping prop up the country’s retirement funds at the critical point when baby boomers were starting to retire.
“They’ll be paying into the system at the very time it is most strained,” said Patrick Oakford, a researcher on economic and immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning institute. He estimated that the average undocumented immigrant was 34 and therefore would not retire until 2046.

Pro-immigrant groups balk at Gang of Eight's goal of winning 70 votes


By Alexander Bolton - 05/31/13 06:00 AM ET

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/302675-pro-immigrant-advocates-push-back-against-gang-of-eights-goal-of-70-votes


Pro-immigrant advocates are pushing back against the Gang of Eight’s strategy to win 70 votes or more for comprehensive immigration reform, fearing it would require too many concessions to Republicans.

Liberal advocates of comprehensive immigration reform argue the bill only needs 60 votes to clear the Senate and that additional concessions to pad the vote total are not necessary.


Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other members of the gang are pushing for 70 votes to give it maximum political momentum out of the upper chamber. But the cost of winning 15 to 17 Republican votes could prove steep. Pro-immigrant advocates are leery of proposed changes to strengthen enforcement provisions, which could lengthen the already arduous path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.

Some advocates of comprehensive immigration reform prefer the strategy of passing the strongest possible Senate bill — from their point of view — to maximize negotiating leverage with the House in conference talks expected later this year.


They believe the actions of the next several weeks will largely determine the final outcome of the bill.


The behind-the-scenes debate boils down to whether it’s better to make concessions now to pick up a larger group of Senate Republicans, or to keep the Senate legislation as pristine as possible so it emerges from negotiations with the House still palatable to the vast majority of Democrats.


“Some members of the Gang of 8 seem willing to trade a bit too much in order to ratchet up a high vote count,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, in a statement. “We would remind them that it’s far better to pass a good bill with 60-70 votes than a hopelessly compromised bill with 70-80 votes. The Senate bill is already a carefully balanced compromise between the right and the left.”


America’s Voice was heavily involved in past efforts to pass immigration reform and is a key player in this year’s pro-immigration reform coalition.


Sharry said in a telephone interview he is most concerned about Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the Gang of Eight, who has pressed for changes to the bill since the group unveiled the legislation in April.


The National Review Online reported Thursday that Rubio is contemplating changes that would lay out more definitively a plan for border enforcement, instead of leaving it largely to the discretion of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.


Rubio touched on the idea during a May 24 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity.
Rubio has also voiced support for a Republican amendment to implement a visa-tracking system based on biometric data before adjusting the legal status of immigrants. Pro-immigrant advocates say this could significantly delay the path to citizenship.


“It’s not only Rubio. Schumer and McCain have talked about getting more than 70 votes,” said Sharry. “And we just want to be very clear that from our point of view [what] we’re interested in is a good bill, even if it means 63 or 65 votes rather than a bad bill that can pick up more Republicans but at the expense of policy that will work when implemented.”


Schumer and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another leader of the Gang of Eight, have set a goal of 70 votes.


“Our goal is to get 70 votes. It is going to take a lot of work,” Schumer told Politico last week.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Schumer, downplayed 70 votes as a rigid target.


“That is not a split. That is the same thing. If we get 66, 67, 68 votes, Schumer and Sharry will both be happy,” he said.


Other immigration reform advocates say the 60-vote threshold that has become the standard for passing legislation through the Senate is ambitious enough.


“How many pieces of the legislation has the Senate been able to pass?” said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and national campaigns at La Raza, a group advocating for the needs of Hispanic Americans.


“I think there’s been enough debate about the 60-vote threshold that has become the threshold for anything [passing] has so paralyzed the Senate. So in my mind, why should we impose a different standard for immigration legislation?” she asked.


"The threshold for passing the bill should be the same as any other bill," she added. "We're talking about a bill that was crafted as a result of extensive negotiation and compromise to achieve a fragile balance."


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has signaled immigration reform already has enough votes to pass the Senate.


"I think we have 60 votes," Reid recently told the public affairs show, “To the Point.”


"Remember, we start out at 55 Democrats. I think the most I'll lose is two or three,” he said.


"Let's say I wind up with 52 Democrats," he continued. "I only need eight Republicans, and I already have four, so that should be pretty easy."


The 70-vote goal discussed by Schumer and McCain is not viewed as imperative throughout the Democratic leadership.


“Whatever number can get us to pass a bill, that’s the number we care about,” said a Democratic leadership aide.


“You don’t want to threaten the more than 50 votes we expect from Democrats in order to pick up an extra five to seven votes from Republicans,” Sharry said.


Counting Republicans on the Gang of Eight and Republicans who voted for comprehensive immigration reform in the past, pro-immigrant groups think the bill already has 60 votes.


"We're also sending a message to our Democratic members of the gang. We know they're going to be engaged in negotiations to try to pick up extra Republican votes. Of course they are. That's their job. We need that," he added. "But we're saying, 'Look, don't give away the store.'


"We have confidence they won't, but this is a very delicate moment because most likely the Senate bill is going to be the high-water mark," he said.