Medicare, the nation’s health insurance program for disabled and elderly persons, turned 44 last week. The President and many Democrats want to make changes to the aging program as a part of health care reform. For instance, President Obama told the American Association of Retired Persons on July 28 that he wants to eliminate 177 billion in subsidies to the popular Medicare Advantage programs.
Although the President told the AARP, “nobody is talking about trying to change Medicare benefits,” many senior citizens are worried. And those who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans may have reason to worry. Although Mr. Obama considers Medicare Advantage an example of wasteful spending, the plans are popular with seniors because they offer benefits and care coordination which basic Medicare plans do not provide.
Some physicians and health plans are nervous as well.
For instance, this week, Dr. Mark Hoffing of Palm Springs, California, led a delegation of elderly patients to the capital for some citizen lobbying. They presented 10,000 signatures to legislators in an attempt to persuade them to leave Medicare Advantage plans intact.
Truly, Medicare Advantage plans are popular.
According to John O’Brien, Assistant Professor of Clinical and Administrative Sciences, College of Notre Dame School of Pharmacy, the proposed cuts are “a step backward” and would undermine plans which seniors appreciate. “Medicare Advantage plans are innovative health insurance products that have led the way in patient-centered care; 97% percent of MA enrollees are happy with the affordability and access their plan provides,” O’Brien explained.
According to a CBS News report, the President also told the AARP that reform “would put more focus on prevention and wellness efforts and incentivizing quality of care rather than quantity. That’s what health care reform will mean to folks on Medicare.”
Ironically, that is what Medicare Advantage plans are designed to do now.
Basic Medicare covers outpatient, inpatient and some prescription costs, but there are significant gaps. Using federal funds, Medicare Advantage allows private insurers to manage the basic Medicare benefits plus provide additional services that Medicare does not cover, such as wellness services, dental care, hearing and vision screening. Most Medicare Advantage plans also provide prescription drug options which are often easier to use and understand than the basic Medicare, Part D coverage.
Speaking of Part D, the President promises that his reform plan will close the gaps in prescription coverage. However, he fails to note that Medicare Advantage plans frequently cover prescription drugs more fully than basic Medicare. It is difficult to understand how the current House backed plan will save 177 billion while at the same time erasing the gap in current basic drug coverage.
President Obama claims the subsidies paid to insurers are “waste” which can be cut. However, what this assessment misses is the fact that the need for health care covered by Medicare Advantage plans will not go away because the funding scheme is altered. Somebody has to pay.
According to Andrea Zachar with Knepper Insurance in Somerset, Pennsylvania, Medicare Advantage plans provide an important option for Medicare beneficiaries. “We are seeing people gravitating toward the Medicare Advantage because monthly costs are lower than purchasing a supplemental insurance plan along with straight Medicare,” Zachar said. “If Advantage plans go away, then some seniors may not access certain services because they cannot afford them,” she added.
This amounts to a cost shift from the government to senior citizens and the disabled.
In practice, seniors who are now in Medicare Advantage plans may well see their benefits reduced if the funding structures are altered. The President is technically correct when he says, “nobody is talking about trying to change Medicare benefits,” if by that he means the basic Medicare benefit package. However, for people, often low income and rural residents (50% of Medicare Advantage subscribers earn below $20,000), who rely on those additional services covered by Medicare Advantage, reductions in benefits or increases in premiums are likely. The other possible outcome, which no one likes to talk about, is that seniors will simply avoid preventative care, doctor’s visits, and other needed services, thereby putting their health at risk.
There is some evidence that Medicare Advantage plans improve important aspects of patient care. According to a study reported this month by the America’s of Health Insurance Plans, Medicare Advantage plans had lower hospital utilization rates and fewer hospital readmissions among groups of patients with heart disease and diabetes. Some preliminary data indicated better health status as well. Perhaps Medicare Advantage plans should be studied, not eliminated.
For sure, there are aspects of Medicare Advantage that need tweaking.
“The bizarre thing about these plans is that the government does not pay insurers equally nationwide. Moneys are distributed by counties, based on previous year utilization.” Katalin Goencz, with MedBillsAssist told me. Ms. Goencz added that in many parts of the country, the plans are working well; elsewhere, not so much. When asked if she thought the Medicare Advantage should be cut, she said, the government “…should make some cuts to eliminate some of the poorly performing plans, but that is about all.”
Making those poorly performing plans either improve or get out of the Medicare market is a good idea. However, the President cannot raise benefits in basic Medicare and maintain his promise to cut spending, and he cannot cut Medicare Advantage without low income seniors losing benefits, spending more or avoiding necessary care. As configured, the President’s plan for Medicare is not the change we need.
……..
Warren Throckmorton, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychology, and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College. He can be reached via his blog: www.wthrockmorton.com.
















5 users commented in " Medicare Advantage cuts: Not the change we need "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackAny changes with the Medicare program should be cautiously made and must be thought of many times. It’s assistance to the public especially the old and disabled is undeniable.
The innovative idea of ‘a pay for outcome’ will most likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic, and the result is a greater likelihood of correctly diagnosing and effectively treating a patient earlier in the process.
Studies have documented that nearly one half of physician care in the United States is not based on best practices and that at least 98,000 Americans die of a ‘medical error’ each year.
Under the ‘pay for outcome’ pack, supposedly best practices as ‘recommendations’ would simply help them make a better decision, and the government won’t still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making process as a non-expert.
Thank You !
The ‘innovative’ idea of a ‘pay for value / outcome’ pack came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn’t work without ‘fundamental’ change in the out of date system. It is said that as much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people.
The expected Benefits of this ‘innovative idea’ are as follows ;
1. Meet the objective of revenue-neutral.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and ‘improve’
care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
wealthiest. Supposedly even the ‘conservative’ number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of
revenue-neutral.
2. Quality and affordability.
If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient’s outcome, you will most likely strive to
prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary treatments.
3. No intervention in decision-making.
The innovative idea of ‘a pay for outcome’ will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic.
Under the ‘pay for outcome’ pack, for good reason, best practices as ‘recommendations’ would simply help them
make a better decision, and the government won’t still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making
process as a non-expert.
4. Speed up the introduction of IT SYSTEM.
The pay for ‘Outcome’ pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM.
The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for ‘outcome’ system may allow the clinicians to
‘correctly’ diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably scale back the
crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.
5. Accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it saves more cash.
6. Settle the regional disparity.
7. Reduce the emergency room visits & save immense costs.
Public health insurance plans such as Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than 40 percent of U.S. emergency
room visits in 2006, according to government figures released recently. Many experts say reducing these hospital
visits would be an important way to lower the enormous, and growing, expense of U.S. health care.
I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly senate plan by ’some’ members, only a strong public option will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.
To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on ‘fair’ market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.
Thank You !
My Medicare Advantage plan rep told me that our government does not pay them to provide their benefits. All they get is a small part of the premium we pay for Medicare and the one we pay to them for our plan. She says our bills are paid by our plan. Does anyone know the truth about this?
Other info I read states the gov pays the plans to provide the benefits.
If this is so, why can’t our gov let Medicare provide us with certain copays for doctor visits and the same extras we get from our Advantage plans. If they “are” paying the plans to provide their benefits, why can’t they up the rates they pay our doctors so that they will accept Medicare patients? We purchased our Advantage plans because our doctors would not accept Medicare. The problems are not with the Advantage plans, they are with Medicare, in my opinion.
i am 69 years old i will turn 70 feb 11 2010 my wife is 66 she will turn 67 sept 26 2009 i have never receved a unemployment check in my life i have been working 53 years rec my ged after being out of school 25 years never rec help from any gov agence i feel that the goverment is going to let older americans fall by the way side /because the mr obama thinks we are to old if the senators and house of res had to liveon social securty unstud of the wayes they have now the rest of there life i do not think they would turn aganist us like this // america wake up i called aarp and removed our name off the list of members because of the stand they have tanken in this matter
Leave A Reply