Basic needs are costly, and the programs you mention do not completely cover basic needs. For things like social security, people spend something like half a lifetime paying into it inorder to recieve relatively small payments for a short portion of their life. Child benefits and unemployment are also short duration.
I have no doubt that eliminating programs and bureaucracy will lead to better efficiency. However, I'm not convinced it will be cheaper. I also question the efficacy if the money is less targeted towards those who need it most. It seems the tests are not addressing the aspect of removing other services.
> Basic needs are costly, and the programs you mention do not completely cover basic needs.
If they don't cover basic needs they aren't fit for their intended purpose and should be increased so that they do cover them, if they aren't replaced by UBI.
There are other programs that in combination do cover basic needs for those that qualify by need. You're not going to be able to replacement CHIP and Medicaid with UBI. At least not without extensive bureaucracy on the tax side.
If your country has a national health service, paid for by taxes, medical treatment isn't paid for when you need it and so wouldn't affect the rate of UBI.
I have no doubt that eliminating programs and bureaucracy will lead to better efficiency. However, I'm not convinced it will be cheaper. I also question the efficacy if the money is less targeted towards those who need it most. It seems the tests are not addressing the aspect of removing other services.