Author Archive
Medicare and Jobs: Not Mutually Exclusive!
The more people have health insurance, including Medicare, the more they stay healthy and are able to work. If health insurance is provided by Medicare or health care reform or any avenue outside the tired employer-based system, it reduces costs for employers and encourages hiring. Ask any employer.
Continuing to tie health insurance to employment only continues a system that COSTS jobs. It creates a disincentive for employers to hire. It creates an incentive for the new employment reality: Freelance, contract work, part-time, whatever you want to call the newly underemployed who do not have benefits and for whom employers do not pay into Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment, or Workers Comp. This is a big problem for everyone involved, including individual workers, their families, AND the solvency of important programs that Americans value and that have lifted generations out of poverty and provided fair access to health care.
Pay attention, people! We not only can have Medicare and jobs – we will have more jobs if we increase access to Medicare and health care. Don’t raid Medicare to pay for jobs. That will only reduce access to both.
Some Reasonable Ways to Save Medicare Dollars
With lots of attention on the upcoming debt-reduction “Super Committee,” many ideas about saving federal dollars are in the air, not the least of which include restructuring Medicare. Some of these ideas are sound, others are not. For a discussion of some reasonable ideas about Medicare that will not simply shift more costs to beneficiaries, see this New York Times Op-Ed piece written by Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Professor Jeffrey B. Liebman. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/opinion/cut-medicare-help-patients.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
While we disagree that “cutting Medicare” is a foregone conclusion, this article argues for eliminating Medicare coverage for tests, treatments and procedures that don’t work, and states that the Affordable Care Act should be left alone to do its job of producing higher quality, more efficient care. Across the board cuts aren’t smart, and cost-shifting to beneficiaries – including raising the age of Medicare eligibility – is not the right approach. We agree with these points. (IF the necessity for a given procedure and eligibility for coverage is decided based on each individual’s actual circumstances.)
For additional ideas of how to achieve savings in the Medicare program without gouging beneficiaries or backtracking on its promise, see the Center for Medicare Advocacy’s suggested Six Solutions. http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/2011/06/so-what-would-you-do-real-solutions-for-medicare-solvency-and-reducing-the-deficit/
Medicare Facts & Fiction: 3 Quick 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?
- The average income of Medicare beneficiaries is less than $22,000 per year.
- Medicare beneficiaries already pay more out-of-pocket for health care than people with other health insurance.
- Higher income people with Medicare already pay higher premiums for Medicare than other Medicare beneficiaries.
What’s Fair? Should we tax Millionaires or grandparents? Millionaires.
It’s Mediare’s Anniversary: Make Sure it Has Many More
The Center for Medicare Advocacy has represented older and disabled Medicare beneficiaries for over 25 years. We have seen the value of this time-honored program to our clients and their families. We have seen people with Medicare live better, more secure, longer lives. The 46th anniversary of Medicare, one of our country’s great successes, should not be tarnished by gutting the program for the next generation or changing its core structure, that holds the same promise for all of us, regardless of income. The universality of Medicare’s guaranteed benefits has been its hallmark and saving grace. Celebrate Medicare by preserving these time-tested values.
Hello Leaders: Are You Listening?
Medicaid Matters!
Medicare has received most of the headlines regarding proposals from Congress and the Administration to reduce the federal deficit and raise the federal debt ceiling. Proposals to restructure Medicaid have been receiving less attention than those about Medicare. But Medicaid, which serves nearly 60 million Americans − older people, people with disabilities, pregnant women, children and their families – may be in greater jeopardy than Medicare. The good news is that more than 50% of all Americans either have received services through Medicaid or have a friend or family member who has, so most Americans know something about Medicaid and its importance to them, their families and friends.
Medicare and Medicaid – Inextricably Intertwined
Nearly nine million low-income Medicare beneficiaries depend on Medicaid to help them pay Medicare’s significant premiums and cost-sharing and to pay for services erroneously denied or excluded from Medicare coverage, including nursing home care and community-based long-term supports and services. These beneficiaries are generally poorer and sicker than the general Medicare population. They comprise 21% of Medicare enrollees, and use 36% of Medicare dollars. They comprise 15% of Medicaid enrollees and use 40% of Medicaid dollars. Medicaid is critical to the health and well-being of these individuals and their families.
For these beneficiaries, Medicaid is necessary to cover:
- Medicare’s Out-of-Pocket Costs –Medicaid pays for all of Medicare’s cost-sharing for about four million Medicare beneficiaries and pays the Part B premium for more than eight million beneficiaries.
- Long-Term Care Supports and Services – More than 10 million people in the U.S. have long-term care needs and more than 80% of those people live in the community. Medicare pays for only about one-quarter of spending for long-term care. When family resources are exhausted or in need of additional support, Medicaid steps in.
- Nursing Facility Services –Medicaid pays some costs for 70% of all nursing home residents, most of whom are also eligible for Medicare.
- Home and Community-Based Services – Increasingly, Medicaid is paying for long-term care supports and services in the community in addition to paying for care in nursing facilities.
Real People Depend on Medicaid to Pay for Services Not Covered by Medicare or to Provide Coverage When Medicare is Denied
The Center for Medicare Advocacy represents thousands of dually eligible people who need help paying their Medicare cost-sharing or who have been denied Medicare coverage. These older and disabled people would go without necessary health care if they did not have Medicaid to help pay their Medicare out-of-pocket costs or to rely on when Medicare denies coverage – often erroneously.
Although our clients may eventually win coverage on appeal, the vast majority of dually eligible people lack representation, and do not appeal Medicare denials. They depend on Medicaid to pay for necessary health care. The ability to fall back on Medicaid when Medicare coverage is denied, or is no longer available, or does not cover the needed health service, is also a blessing for families. Without Medicaid, families of these older and disabled people would have to find the resources themselves to pay for their loved-ones’ care, see them go without the care they need, or try to provide it themselves.
Medicaid matters. Protect it – for the health of all Americans.
Sen. Lieberman: Wrong Way on Medicare
We’re sorry – Connecticut’s Senior Senator has once again entered the Medicare “reform” debate with the wrong perspective. Instead of looking to insure more people while lowering costs, Senator Lieberman, and his colleague Sen. Coburn, unveiled a plan on June 28th that is misdirected – reducing the number of people covered by Medicare, and foregoing major opportunities to bring down costs.
The Lieberman-Coburn proposal would raise the age of eligibility for Medicare, raise the cost of Medicare for beneficiaries, limit the ability to purchase supplemental insurance to fill Medicare’s gaps, and continue billions of dollars of wasteful overpayments to pharmaceutical companies and private Medicare plans.
Listen carefully folks, this is not the right direction for Medicare!
Read more of Judith Stein’s comments on the plan nobody is going to like in the CT Mirror at http://www.ctmirror.org/story/13101/liebermancoburn
New York Says No
New York voted for Medicare yesterday. In a traditionally Republican district, Democrat Kathy Hochul won a special election for an open Congressional seat. The major issue in the campaign was the budget recently passed by Republicans in the House of Representatives that eliminates Medicare as a defined benefit program. Candidate Hochul opposed this change, recognizing it for what it is – an end to Medicare. Voters agreed with her.
The New York vote reminds us that Americans value Medicare. They understand that the Republican Budget won’t save Medicare; it will replace it with individual vouchers toward the cost of purchasing private insurance.
Under the Republican plan, beginning in 2022, people who become eligible for Medicare would instead receive a voucher, worth about $8,000. No one knows what private plans would be available for purchase, what geographic regions would be included, or what health services and providers would be covered. We do know that Medicare guarantees certain coverages, and it has worked to bring quality health care to older and disabled people for 46 years. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, half of all Americans 65 or older had no insurance. Private insurance did not want to cover them. Now, because of Medicare, 95% of people 65+ are covered.
Yesterday, Joe Courtney, the Congressman who represents the district of the Center’s home office also said yes to Medicare and no to vouchers. ( VIDEO: Courtney decries GOP plan to end Medicare as we know it.)
Fortunately, when Kathy Hochul takes her seat in Congress to represent New York, Congressman Courtney will have another ally in efforts to preserve Medicare.
Truth: Why I Love Paul Krugman
From Paul Krugman in today’s New York Time, May 13, 2011
This has to be one of the funniest political stories of recent weeks: On Tuesday, 42 freshmen Republican members of Congress sent a letter urging President Obama to stop Democrats from engaging in “Mediscare” tactics — that is, to stop saying that the Republican budget plan released early last month, which would end Medicare as we know it, is a plan to end Medicare as we know it.
Now, you may recall that the people who signed that letter got their current jobs largely by engaging in “Mediscare” tactics of their own. And bear in mind that what Democrats are saying now is entirely true, while what Republicans were saying last year was completely false. Death panels!
Well, it’s time, said the signatories, to “wipe the slate clean.” How very convenient — and how very pathetic.
Anyway, the truth is that older Americans really should fear Republican budget ideas — and not just because of that plan to dismantle Medicare. Given the realities of the federal budget, a party insisting that tax increases of any kind are off the table — as John Boehner, the speaker of the House, says they are — is, necessarily, a party demanding savage cuts in programs that serve older Americans. …
Between an aging population and rising health costs, then, preserving anything like the programs for seniors we now have will require a significant increase in spending on these programs as a percentage of G.D.P. And unless we offset that rise with drastic cuts in defense spending — which Republicans, needless to say, oppose — this means a substantial rise in overall spending, which we can afford only if taxes rise.
So when people like Mr. Boehner reject out of hand any increase in taxes, they are, in effect, declaring that they won’t preserve programs benefiting older Americans in anything like their current form. It’s just a matter of arithmetic.
Which brings me back to those Republican freshmen. Last year, older voters, who split their vote almost evenly between the parties in 2008, swung overwhelmingly to the G.O.P., as Republicans posed successfully as defenders of Medicare. Now Democrats are pointing out that the G.O.P., far from defending Medicare, is actually trying to dismantle the program. So you can see why those Republican freshmen are nervous.
But the Democrats aren’t engaging in scare tactics, they’re simply telling the truth. Policy details aside, the G.O.P.’s rigid anti-tax position also makes it, necessarily, the enemy of the senior-oriented programs that account for much of federal spending. And that’s something voters ought to know.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 13, 2011, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Seniors, Guns And Money.
Save Medicare by Ending It?
Save Medicare by Ending It? Reduce the Current Deficit with a Plan for 2022?
Really?
The Budget introduced by Rep. Ryan and passed by Republicans in the House of Representatives would eliminate Medicare as of 2022. Instead of guaranteeing coverage for specific health care, like Medicare does, the Ryan Budget would provide a voucher to each eligible person to buy private insurance. The voucher would be worth a flat dollar amount. There is no guarantee that someone would be able to buy insurance for that amount or that if insurance is available, the insurance would cover and pay for the same services as Medicare.
A voucher system is nothing like Medicare. You can’t save Medicare by eliminating it. And you can’t solve today’s deficit problems with a plan that begins in 2022.
This time, we’re not buying it!*
_______________________
* See, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, http://www.kff.org (April 27, 2011)
CMA Health Policy Blog 