Author Archive
Perhaps Someone IS Listening
The NY Times editorial of 12/18/2011, “Working with Medicare,” picks up on some ideas the Center has been espousing for years:
- Negotiate drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
- Let the Affordable Care Act do its job.
- Be careful regarding private plans, premium support and too much cost-shifting to beneficiaries.
- The REAL solution to Medicare costs lies in addressing health care costs in general.
Medicare “Reform” – Beware the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
This week, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) outlined yet another effort to privatize Medicare; a twist on Rep. Ryan’s voucher plan from earlier this year.
The new proposal would supposedly “preserve” the traditional Medicare program, but force it to compete with private plans. Similar to the earlier Ryan voucher plan, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would cost Medicare beneficiaries twice as much as traditional Medicare, this one is based on the flawed assumption that private plans will save Medicare money through competition and innovation. The belief that privatization will drive down costs is not based in fact.
On the contrary, private plans have not saved Medicare money, and often cost more than traditional Medicare. In fact, traditional Medicare — not private plans — has been the leader in innovations to keep health costs down and increase quality.
Under the latest Ryan privatization plan, beneficiaries would have a voucher to purchase a health plan (including traditional Medicare), and there would be a cap on the overall amount of Medicare spending per beneficiary. If a plan (including traditional Medicare) cost more than the voucher amount, then the beneficiary would have to pay the difference between the actual price and the voucher.
If traditional Medicare is forced to compete with private, for-profit plans, as Ryan proposes, private plans will work to minimize their spending, and woo the least costly beneficiaries. If beneficiaries that are more expensive to treat remain in traditional Medicare, it will be at a built-in competitive disadvantage, and might well become unsustainable.
The math is pretty simple. If beneficiaries pay more for health care, the federal government will save money. That’s where these federal savings come from. But this approach won’t do anything to reduce overall health care spending, which is the real problem. Instead, it will likely lead to reduction in benefits and increase cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries. Don’t be fooled into thinking this proposal protects and preserves Medicare – it eliminates a unified program.
Traditional Medicare has changed dramatically since its inception in 1965. It has been a cost-effective health care insurance model leading to innovation, access to care and economic security. But Medicare has been complicated and made more expensive by adding layers of private options. Further, as Medicare becomes more and more fragmented and traditional Medicare loses enrollment, it loses its bargaining power over health care costs and its ability to create innovations in the broader health system.
Untethered from the overspending and complexities that have been foisted on Medicare by private plans and non-negotiable drug prices, it could once again be a model, for affordable health insurance. Traditional Medicare needs to be strengthened with fewer, not more private options.
Medigap – Fact & Fiction
Nearly one in five Medicare beneficiaries rely on Medicare Supplemental insurance policies (Medigap) to fill in the gaps of some of their Medicare coverage. As noted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, “Medigap policies help shield beneficiaries from sudden, relatively high out-of-pocket costs due to an unpredictable medical event, and also allow beneficiaries to more accurately budget their health care expenses, which is important to a population living on a fixed income” (Kaiser Family Foundation, “Medigap Reform: Setting the Context” Sept. 2011; http://www.kff.org/medicare/8235.cfm).
Unfortunately, among the proposals raised to achieve savings for Medicare as part of ongoing debt and deficit reduction talks, some policy-makers have suggested changing the way Medigap policies are structured. Under the assumption that charging beneficiaries more upfront will deter them from using unnecessary medical care, these proposals seek to increase Medigap deductibles and other cost-sharing. Such proposals are found in the Simpson-Bowles Debt Reduction Commission proposal, the President’s Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction, and have been echoed in the media. (See, e.g., a recent Washington Post editorial “Mind the Medigap” October 1, 2011.)
MYTH: Eliminating First-Dollar Medigap Coverage Will Lead To Beneficiaries Choosing Only Necessary, “Higher Value” Health Care Services
Many of the proposals to reform Medigap coverage aim to achieve Medicare savings by creating “financial incentives for newly eligible beneficiaries to seek high-value health care services.” (See, for example, the President’s Plan for Economic Growth.) However, as discussed in our recent CMA Alert, many so-called cost-saving measures are based on the misguided assumption that greater out-of-pocket expenses will lead to more reasonable decisions about obtaining various types of unnecessary or “low-value” medical care. (See CMA Alert at: http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/2011/09/the-presidents-plan-for-economic-growth-and-deficit-reduction-a-first-look-at-the-impact-on-medicare/.)
On the contrary, these proposals would at best fail to steer people toward high-value services and, at worst, would charge people more for obtaining needed health care, or deter them from seeking care altogether.
FACT: As Cost-Sharing Goes Up, Utilization of Services – Both Necessary and Unnecessary – Goes Down.
Raising cost-sharing for beneficiaries will discourage utilization of health care, including necessary services. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the organization of state insurance regulators who oversee Medigap plans, recently warned of just such dire consequences:
It is important to note that the proposed changes will impact cost-sharing coverage for “medically necessary” services. By contract, Medigap policies only pay cost-sharing for items and services that Medicare itself has already determined to be medically necessary. The NAIC is concerned that the effects of this proposal will result in many seniors foregoing needed medical care because they cannot afford the care resulting in more costs to the Medicare program later on. Additionally, the proposal will simply shift more costs onto seniors (who by and large are not wealthy) and not address the underlying cause of increased medical costs. (Emphasis added.)
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Letter to the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction (September 21, 2011), http://www.naic.org/documents/committees_ex_grlc_
110921_letter_murray_hensarling_medigap_first_dollar.pdf.)
Raising the Medicare Eligibility Age Will Actually INCREASE Costs
Policymakers and pundits continue to propose Medicare changes that would have severe repercussions for beneficiaries and their families. These proposals will continue to make news as deficit discussions heat up. Too often, however, they are based on false information, which is repeated as fact by the media, pundits and policymakers. We aim to correct public misinformation about Medicare.
Medicare Works. For 46 years it has opened doors to necessary care for hundreds of millions of older and disabled people, and enhanced economic security for beneficiaries and their families. Informed Americans need to know the truth about the program and the people it serves.
Did you know?
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (www.cbpp.org) that “Raising Medicare’s eligibility age from 65 to 67, which the new Joint Select Committee will likely consider this fall as a deficit-reduction measure, would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would increase them.
While this proposal would save the federal government money, it would do so by shifting costs to most of the 65- and 66-year-olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to employers that provide health coverage for their retirees, to Medicare beneficiaries, to younger people who buy insurance through the new health insurance exchanges, and to states.
View the full report at: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3564 or http://www.cbpp.org/files/8-23-11health.pdf 7pp.
We’re Not the Only Ones Saying It: Let ACA Work!
As the Center has written, letting the Affordable Care Act do its job is a key component to reducing rising health care costs. Lawmakers appointed to the “Super Committee,” tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit-reductions, will be considering various options to meet their budgeting goals. While doing so, we urge them to heed the words of Paul Van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who writes:
“The Affordable Care Act (ACA) holds the potential to vastly improve Medicare’s long-term financial outlook…These reforms will take time to plan, test, and implement. But they can succeed only if we give them a chance, and that won’t happen if health reform opponents succeed in repealing them.” (Read the rest of the Van de Water’s blog at: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-%E2%80%9Csupercommittee%E2%80%9D-and-medicare/)
Support health care reform and reasoned approaches to our national budget concerns. Let ACA work!
Medicare Facts & Fiction: 3 More Lessons to Combat Medicare Spin
Congress continues to propose Medicare changes that will have severe repercussions for beneficiaries and their families. Policymakers and pundits are feeding the media and the public misinformation about Medicare. The truth is, most people with Medicare are low-income and most pay more for health care than other insured Americans. Nonetheless, Medicare Works. For 46 years it has opened doors to necessary care for millions of older people, people with disabilities, and their families.
Did you know?
- Medicare beneficiaries already spend a disproportionate share of their income on health expenses. Health expenses accounted for nearly 15% of Medicare household budgets in 2009, on average – three times the percentage of health spending among non-Medicare households (Kaiser Family Foundation Data Spotlight: Health Care on a Budget, June 2011)
- The financial burden of health care costs is greatest for Medicare beneficiaries ages 85 and older, those in relatively poor health, those with low or modest incomes, and those with Medigap supplemental policies (Kaiser Family Foundation Data Spotlight: How Much Skin in the Game is Enough?, June 2011)
- Half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $22,000 in 2010; less than 1% had incomes over $250,000
- Median per capita income declines with age, and is lower for black, Hispanic, and unmarried Medicare beneficiaries (Kaiser Family Foundation Data Spotlight: Projecting Income and Assets, June 2011)
- Raising the age of Medicare eligibility to 67, as has been proposed recently, will not produce significant savings: according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, most savings to the Medicare program would be off-set by other federal expenditures, and there would be a net increase in out of pocket costs for those age 65 and 66 who would otherwise have been covered by Medicare (Kaiser Family Foundation, Raising the Age of Medicare Eligibility, July 2011)
Surely there are better ways to save money than by piling more onto an already burdened population?
Center for Medicare Advocacy Recommended as Top-10 Caregiver Resource
Jane Gross, creator of The New York Times‘ “New Old Age” blog, recently highlighted the Center for Medicare Advocacy as a top 10 resource for caregivers in an appearance on “Krista Tippet On Being” on NPR. The episode, entitled “The Far Shore of Aging” is garnering an overwhelming response from listeners. See the complete list of resources, and listen to the full show, at http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2011/far-shore-of-aging/gross_topten.shtml.
Lower Medicare Age
Lawmakers continue to talk about the future of Medicare as they address the federal deficit, and many of the proposals that have emerged would have horrible repercussions for Medicare beneficiaries and their families. Just last week, Connecticut’s Senator Joe Lieberman suggested raising the eligibility age for Medicare; an unsound idea that would hurt the actuarial balance of the Medicare risk pool. Raising the eligibility age would increase the proportion of older, sicker people in Medicare, while younger, healthier people – and their largely unused premiums – would be excluded. That’s the exact wrong direction, and we at the Center had to respond.
Follow the links below to see our letters in the New York Times and the Washington Post.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/opinion/l16krugman.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
So – What Would You Do? Real Solutions for Medicare Solvency and Reducing the Deficit
As lawmakers debate the future of Medicare as part of broader efforts to address the federal deficit, proposals have emerged from Congress that would have severe repercussions for beneficiaries and their families.[1] Sound and measured solutions that would protect Medicare coverage while reducing costs to taxpayers have not been seriously addressed. The six solutions we propose would accomplish both of these goals.
These solutions, unlike current proposals, do not shift costs to beneficiaries or completely restructure theMedicare program. They promote choice and competition while shoring up the solvency ofMedicare. Adopting these solutions would be a responsible step in reducing our deficit the right way.
1. Negotiate Drug Prices with Pharmaceutical Companies
The Medicare prescription drug law passed in 2003 prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies. These companies gained 44 million customers when Medicare began covering prescription drugs, but they did not have to adjust their prices in return. Requiring the Secretary to negotiate drug prices for Medicare would save taxpayers billions of dollars – potentially over $200 billion over ten years.[2] Taxpayers currently pay nearly 70% more for drugs in the Medicare program than through the Veteran’s Administration, which has direct negotiating power.[3] Savings realized from reducingMedicare drug cuts could be used to improve benefits for beneficiaries and reduce the deficit.
2. Stop Paying Private Medicare Plans Anything More Than Traditional Medicare
According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), Medicare pays, on average, 10% more for beneficiaries enrolled in private insurance (Medicare Advantage or MA plans) than for comparable beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare.[4] Despite these extra payments, beneficiaries in private plans who are in poor health, or who have chronic conditions, often have more limitations on coverage than they would under traditional Medicare.[5]
A large portion of the overpayments made to private plans actually goes to insurers rather than to benefit Medicare beneficiaries.[6] Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) changed the payment formula forMedicare Advantage plans, some plans will continue to be paid as much as 115% of the average traditionalMedicare payment rate for their county when the new rates are fully implemented. MedPAC estimates that by 2017Medicare Advantage payment benchmarks will average 101% of traditionalMedicare. ACA also provides additional payments for plans that receive high quality ratings, increasing the likelihood that some MA plans will continue to be paid more than under traditionalMedicare. Reducing private MA payments to 100% of traditionalMedicare, as MedPAC proposed before the enactment of ACA, will increase the solvency of theMedicare program and curb costs for taxpayers. Private plans simply should not receive higher pay than traditionalMedicare.
3. Include a Drug Benefit in Traditional Medicare
Offering a drug benefit in traditional Medicare would give beneficiaries a choice they do not now have, encourage people to stay in traditional Medicare, and save money for taxpayers. It would also provide an alternative to unchecked private plans that leave many with unexpected high out-of-pocket costs. A drug benefit in traditional Medicare would protect beneficiaries against expensive and sometimes abusive marketing practices. Further, traditional Medicare’s lower administrative costs could free up money for quality care, would result in lower drug prices for beneficiaries, and save taxpayers over $20 billion a year.[7]
4. Extend Medicaid Drug Rebates to Medicare Dual Eligibles
Dual eligibles (people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid) comprise one-fourth of all Medicare drug users, and are among the most costly beneficiaries. Because Medicare, rather than Medicaid, covers most of their drugs and because Medicare cannot negotiate drug prices, their drugs are not eligible for the same rebates as they would be under the traditional Medicaid program. Extending these rebates for dual eligibles would save at least $30 billion over ten years.[8]
5. Lower the Age of Medicare Eligibility
People between 55 and 65 who are not disabled are currently unable to enroll in Medicare. Lowering the age of eligibility to allow this healthier population to enroll in the Medicare program would add revenue for people who will likely need less care and fewer services than older and disabled enrollees.
6. Let the Affordable Care Act Do Its Job
The Affordable Care Act includes many measures to control costs as well as models for reform that will increase the solvency of the Medicare program and lower the deficit while protecting Medicare’s guaranteed benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that repealing or defunding ACA would add $230 billion to the deficit while ignoring the real issue of rising overall health care costs, which contribute heavily to the growing national debt. ACA includes strong measures to allow CMS to combat fraud, waste, and abuse that will bring down costs, as well as a variety of pilot and demonstration projects that aim to bring better care and quality to beneficiaries.[9] The bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission recommended that these projects be implemented as quickly as possible.[10] Allowing ACA to do its job will create a foundation on which to build by improving care and holding down costs for taxpayers.
Conclusion
Protecting”Medicare by shifting costs from the federal government to beneficiaries and their families – whether through the creation of a voucher program or through measures that would be required by spending caps – is a perversion of Medicare’s original purpose, which was to protect older people and their families from illness and financial ruin due to health care costs. The solutions proposed by the Center forMedicare Advocacy promote financial solvency without doing it at the expense of beneficiaries.
[1]See previous Alerts from the Center, “Why Medicaid Matters to Medicare Beneficiaries and Their Families”, “What Happens to Current Nursing Home Residents if House Budget Resolution Becomes Law?”
[2]National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, available at http://www.ncpssm.org/pdf/price_negotiation_part_d.pdf
[3]Center for Economic and Policy Research, “Negotiating Prices with Drug Companies Could Save Medicare $30 Billion”, March 2007, available at http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/negotiating-prices-with-drug-companies-could-save-medicare-30-billion.
[4]MedPAC, Report to the Congress, March 2011, Chapter 12 (March 2011), available at http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Mar11_EntireReport.pdf.
[5] Neuman P. Medicare Advantage: Key Issues and Implications for Beneficiaries. Testimony before the House Committee on the Budget, United States House of Representatives, June 28, 2007, available at http://www.allhealth.org/briefingmaterials/NeumanTestimony-830.pdf,
[6] Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. March 2009 Report to Congress, Chapter 3: The Medicare Advantage Program. P. 251-253, available at http://www.medpac.gov/chapters/Mar09_Ch03.pdf.
[7]Senator Dick Durbin, available at http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=555cc1e8-cc54-4ead-9d85-d5e6275b3789.
[8]Congressional Budget Office, Letter to Honorable Charles Rangel, available at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf
[9]See previous Alert from the Center, “Combating Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Health Care.”
[10]The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, “The Moment of Truth,” December 2010.
We Told You So…
The New York Times recently printed an article by Robert Pear entitled “Medicare Standards are Too Strict, 2 Courts Find.”
We’ve been telling people that for years.
The Times article refers to two decisions, Anderson v. Sebelius and Papciak v. Sebelius, both regarding the Medicare “Improvement Standard.” For anyone not familiar, this is an arbitrary rule of thumb which essentially says that if the beneficiary won’t improve, Medicare won’t cover certain services.
The Improvement Standard has been used for years by Medicare contractors to improperly deny coverage.
However, per these two recent decisions, Medicare must adhere to the law as written, and pay for services if they are needed to maintain a person’s condition or to prevent deterioration of the person’s condition. The courts stated that Medicare beneficiaries do not have to prove that their condition will improve, as the government generally contends.
The rulings are potentially significant for many people with chronic conditions and disabilities like multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease; conditions which, by their very nature, simply will not improve. In the words of one judge, patients “need not risk a deterioration of [their] fragile health” to justify continuation of coverage for skilled care.
Center for Medicare Advocacy Director of litigation Gill Deford acted as co-counsel in one of the two cases. The Center has launched a campaign to end the Improvement Standard, and these decisions represent a significant victory.
