Posts filed under ‘Access to Health Care’
Let Health Care Reform Work!
Hello, Supreme Court:
Since the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, significant progress has been made to enhance access to health care for all Americans. The health care reform law is strengtheing Medicare, helping families, and saving taxpayers money. This progress touches the lives of millions of Americans — of all ages, from every state, and every walk of life. That’s why the Constitution authorizes the FEDERAL government to implement this kind of law for the general welfare.
The Affrodable Care Act will help millions more Americans if it is fully implemented.
Let it work!
Affordable Care Act’s 2nd Anniversary: So Far, So Good
We are happy to celebrate the second anniversary of health care reform. Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law in 2010, significant progress has been made to enhance access to health care for all Americans. This progress touches the lives of millions of American families.—from every state, and every walk of life. We look forward to the law’s full implementation in 2014.
Health care reform has already improved and strengthened Medicare. It’s helping older and disabled Americans in many ways, including:
1. Adding Medicare preventive health care services, usually at no cost, including an annual wellness visit, many cancer screenings, vaccines, smoking cessation and dietary counseling. This means people with Medicare can work to maintain their health and can recognize problems early, when treatment is most effective.
2. Increasing Medicare coverage for prescription drugs for people with the highest medication costs, by providing more coverage during the “Donut Hole” coverage gap. These benefits will continue to improve every year through 2020, when the “Donut Hole” will end, ensuring continued cost savings for older and disabled people.
3. Insisting that private Medicare Advantage plans provide real value to those who enroll, including appropriate Medicare coverage and quality customer service. Beginning in 2014, the law will also require these plans to spend at least 85% of the premiums they collect on medical care, rather than on excessive administrative costs and increased profits. The law also saves Medicare and taxpayers millions of dollars by ending wasteful overpayments to these private insurance companies.
These are just a few of the ways ACA insists on fair value in return for taxpayer dollars, while improving health care for older and disabled people. And this is just the beginning. If the Affordable Care Act is allowed to proceed as designed, it will continue to enhance access to quality health care, increase efficiency, and reduce costs to Medicare and taxpayers.
Spread the word about the value of the Affordable Care Act and the need to see it through to full implementation. Health care reform is good for Medicare, good for families, and good for the country. Let it work!
No Medicare For Mitt
How much does Mitt Romney really care about Medicare’s solvency? A lot. So much that he has decided not to enroll or use it at all – even though he’s turning 65.
What should we take from this? One thing for sure, Mitt Romney can afford a whole lot more financial risk than most Americans. Unless he has private insurance that will pay as the primary policy even after he’s Medicare eligible, Mr. Romney is accepting a huge liability if he intends to pay for his own heath care. Either way, he’s in a very different position than the vast majority of older and disabled Americans who MUST rely on Medicare to help pay for their health care and can not obtain insurance that will take its place.
Is Romney going to lead a battallion of well-to-do Americans out of Medicare? Leaving behind those who can not afford to pay either for their own care or for preciously rare primary insurance available to people eligible for Medicare. What a shame that would be.
Mr. Romney should enroll and rely on Medicare coverage like most Americans do when they turn 65. As a would-be national leader he should experience firsthand what works and what doesn’t, what coverage is and should be available. He should be part of the Medicare community and help it stay viable for all those who look to this national treasure to help pay for health care.
If Mr. Romney really cares about Medicare he should vote for it with his feet.
Protecting Medicare and the Middle Class: Themes From The State of the Union
As described in his State of the Union address, the President’s blueprint for a lasting economy is both necessary and commendable. An essential part of that blueprint is ensuring all Americans have access to high-quality, affordable health care. As the President stated, we need to ensure that Medicare “remain[s] a guarantee of security” for older Americans and individuals with disabilities. When private insurance let older people down in the 1960s, Americans embraced the President’s theme of “shared responsibility” to care for our most vulnerable citizens by creating Medicare. While the economic security of the middle class has declined for decades, Medicare has dramatically enhanced the economic and health security of hundreds of millions of older Americans and people with disabilities.
And yet, the future of Medicare hangs in the balance as members of Congress discuss ways to privatize Medicare and diminish the security it provides for middle class families.
“We applaud the President’s commitment to continuing Medicare as a community program that families can rely on,” states Judith Stein, founder and executive director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “Medicare is an American success story. It has served American families and adapted with the times for more than four decades. It has provided a critical economic lifeline for families” she continued. “We can not afford to risk the security of the next generation by giving Medicare away to private insurance companies.”
The Center for Medicare Advocacy also echoes the President’s call to uphold the consumer protections and health coverage in the Affordable Care Act. “The Affordable Care Act greatly enhanced Medicare,” says David Lipschutz, policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “Since it was signed into law, millions of older and disabled Americans with Medicare have received more help in paying for their prescription drugs, putting money back into their pockets. Among other things, the Affordable Care Act has also added no-cost preventive benefits for people with Medicare and extended the solvency of the program.”
Medicare is a tried and true American value that provides high-quality, cost efficient health care for our grandparents, parents, neighbors and friends. “Pretending to protect Medicare by shifting costs from the federal government back to older people and their families would negate Medicare’s original purpose: to protect older people and their families from illness and financial ruin due to health care costs,” said Judith Stein. “We thank the President for defending Medicare’s guarantee of security and resisting calls for a private voucher system that would further endanger the middle class and destroy the national treasure we’ve known as Medicare.”
CMA Responds to the NY Times: Don’t Privatize Medicare!
Dec. 4, 2011
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
To the Editor:
Your December 4, 2011 editorial (”What About Premium Support?” ) about changing Medicare into a voucher system wisely states many of the problems with public subsidies of private health insurance for Medicare beneficiaries. All such experiments have cost more and provided less value to those in need of coverage.
I have been an advocate for Medicare beneficiaries for almost 35 years. I’ve seen numerous forays into privatizing Medicare. Clinton-era plans, Medicare Plus Choice, Medicare Advantage: none of them have provided better coverage more cost-effectively than the traditional Medicare program.
I don’t recommend a private plan to my mother. That should be a good test for anyone championing premium support.
Additionally, ever-increasing private options have made Medicare too complex, especially given the very limited number of advocates available to help beneficiaries understand, choose and navigate the system.
Call it what you will, ”premium support” is the latest jingle for privatizing Medicare. It’s not a new or creative idea, and it will only add more costs and confusion. What we need is an objective look at what’s needed to encourage participation and cost efficiencies in traditional Medicare, not further adventures in privatization.
JUDITH STEIN
Executive Director
Center for Medicare Advocacy
Federal Judge Refuses To Dismiss Medicare Beneficiaries’ Challenge To The Medicare “Improvement Standard”
Plaintiffs have overcome a major hurdle in a lawsuit filed by the Center for Medicare Advocacy and Vermont Legal Aid on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries with long-term and chronic conditions. In a comprehensive 35-page decision, Chief Judge Christina Reiss refused the federal government’s request to throw out a lawsuit that seeks to end use of an illegal Improvement Standard to deny Medicare coverage. The Improvement Standard is a “rule of thumb” that Medicare uses to deny or terminate coverage to beneficiaries whose conditions are not improving. Jimmo v. Sebelius, Civil No. 5:11-CV-17 (D. VT. 10/25/20011).
“The Improvement Standard is the most unfair and harmful reason for Medicare denials,” stated Judith Stein, executive director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “It has a particularly devastating effect on patients with chronic conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, Parkinson’s disease, and paralysis.”
The lawsuit, which was filed in January of this year, was brought on behalf of a nationwide class of Medicare beneficiaries by six individual beneficiaries and seven national organizations representing people with chronic conditions.
In asking the court to dismiss the case, the government raised several arguments to contend that the court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims. The government also argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim, namely, that there was no proof that the government was even applying such a policy as the Improvement Standard. Judge Reiss rejected that contention. She did agree, however, that the court lacked jurisdiction over one beneficiary plaintiff and one organizational plaintiff, but the case will go forward with the remaining eleven plaintiffs.
“Judge Reiss understands the core issue plaintiffs in this case seek to address,” stated Michael Benvenuto, attorney for plaintiffs from Vermont Legal Aid. “They are not seeking individual claim reviews; they are challenging a broad secret policy.”
“This is a great first step for these plaintiffs and for Medicare beneficiaries in general,” remarked Gill Deford, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “The Improvement Standard has been used for over 30 years to deprive hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries of coverage they desperately needed. This decision starts the process of ending that illegal policy.”
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.)
A Modest Medicare Proposal (As Suggested by a Reader)
Instead of raising the age of eligibility for Medicare, why don’t we just use Part D as a model and create a new Eligibility Donut Hole?
People ages 65 – 69 can keep their eligibility. But, between ages 70 and 85: Into the new Donut Hole. Eligibility for Medicare would end during this time – after all it’s these older people that start getting sick, so it’s the perfect time to stop paying for their health care. The new Donut Hole would save the government a ton of money!
Those who do make it through the Eligibility Donut Hole without Medicare, would once again become eligible at age 86. At that point most people only need “comfort measures” and their conditions usually won’t improve, so Medicare wouldn’t pay for their care anyway!
If the goal is to save money, a new Medicare Eligibiity Donut Hole is the way to go.
Class Warfare? Discuss.
To reduce the deficit, the President suggests we increase taxes for the 430,000 Americans who have incomes above $1 million. The Republican leadership (Boehner, Ryan, McConnell and Graham) say that’s class warfare. They say it’s unfair to balance the budget at the expense of these few rich people (0.3% of the population). Instead, they say, we should look to reduce spending – only. In particular, we should cut Medicaid and Medicare.
47 million older and disabled Americans are enrolled in Medicare. 58 million poor children, pregnant women, older and disabled people are enrolled in Medicaid.
Query: Why is it class warfare to tax a little more the few of us who are lucky enough to be millionaires, but it’s not class warfare to cut health care coverage for the vast number of us who are enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid? Discuss.
CMA Health Policy Blog 