Posts filed under ‘Deficit Reduction’
Scary Ryan Medicare Plan
The Center for Medicare Advocacy is a national leader for Medicare and the people it serves. “We have represented Medicare beneficiaries since 1986,” says Judith Stein, founder and executive director of the Center. “We’ve seen Medicare coverage save lives and bring peace of mind to thousands of families. We know how Medicare works and what keeps Medicare strong. Mr. Ryan’s plan sounds the death knell for Medicare,” continues Ms. Stein. “The private plans added to Medicare since 2003 have cost Medicare and all its beneficiaries dearly. Unfortunately, Mr. Ryan’s vision is to privatize Medicare.”
The Ryan plan would provide each beneficiary with a limited amount to purchase an individual private policy. The Ryan plan would gut the community Medicare program. It would reduce coverage and increase costs for seniors – while doing nothing to address the real problem of rising overall health costs.
“Medicare has dramatically increased access to health care and economic security for millions of older and disabled people and their families since 1965. Mr. Ryan’s plan puts all this in jeopardy. He purports to save Medicare – but will actually end the Medicare program as we know it.”
More Information:
CMA Heath Policy Post: “Medicare ‘Reform’ – Beware the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” at: https://cmahealthpolicy.com/2011/12/16/medicare-reform-beware-the-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/
CMA Alert: “So What Would You Do? real Solutions for Medicare Solvency and Reducing the Deficit” at: http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/2011/06/09/so-what-would-you-do-real-solutions-for-medicare-solvency-and-reducing-the-deficit/
Quick!
Stop paying anything more to Medicare Advantage plans than to traditional Medicare. Listen to the GAO and stop all bonus payments to private Medicare plans. Start negotiating what Medicare pays for prescription drugs. Then recalculate Medicare’s fiscal solvency and begin serious discussions about Medicare’s future.
Constant calls for changing Medicare into a Voucher system will simply increase privatization of Medicare. Once again we’ll give taxpayer dollars to the insurance industry, increase costs to older people, disabled people, and their familes – and do nothing to address the needs of tomorrow.
Change the conversation. Insist on real solutions.
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.
CMA in the New York Times: Don’t Privatize Medicare
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/opinion/medicare-and-private-health-insurance.html
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.
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
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 