Posts tagged ‘Medicare Reform’
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
CMA Health Policy Blog 