Senate Republicans have decided to attack the health care bill by offering a tactical motion to recommit. This motion, as offered by John McCain, would send the bill back to the Senate Finance Committee to have it rewritten without any “cuts” to Medicare Advantage. Democrats are defending the existing bill by explaining how this Medicare Advantage program is a huge boondoggle that hands hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars to private health insurance companies.
There was a program for many years that would let seniors get their Medicare benefits through a private insurance company instead of the traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) system. The government would give these private insurance plans slightly less money than they would normally pay per capita to Medicare enrollees. This program was meant to save the government money. For the most part, the only types of private insurance that would participate were HMOs that could provide more cost-effective care. Relatively few private insurance companies could provide the same care for less money, so the program was not used by many Medicare enrollees.
This all changed with the massive Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. It put in place a new bidding formula for determining how much Medicare would pay a private insurance company to cover an enrollee. The formula was horribly flawed, and the result has been one of the most massive corporate giveaways in American history.
The original idea was that private insurance companies could do a better job than Medicare, and therefore save the government money. The result has been the complete opposite. The CBO found:
The government’s spending for beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage plans will, in almost all cases, exceed what it would spend if those beneficiaries were in the traditional fee-for-service sector. That outcome occurs because benchmarks are almost always higher than FFS costs, and the government retains only 25 percent of the difference between a plan’s bid and the benchmark.
In 2007, CBO estimates, the average payment to such plans is 12 percent above traditional FFS costs. The differential is larger for private fee-for-service plans: According to estimates by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), the payments to those plans in 2006 averaged 19 percent above FFS costs. Of that difference, 10 percentage points’ worth went to beneficiaries in the form of extra benefits or rebates. In contrast, payments to HMOs averaged 10 percent above FFS costs, MedPAC estimates. On average, HMOs offered extra benefits and rebates equal to 13 percent of FFS costs; those additional benefits and rebates reflected the difference between the benchmark (which averaged 10 percent above FFS costs) and the plans’ bids (which averaged 3 percent below FFS costs).
The extra benefits and rebates offered by Medicare Advantage plans attract enrollees, and the rising proportion of beneficiaries enrolling in the plans will add to the growth in Medicare spending. In addition, because premiums for Part B of Medicare are set to cover 25 percent of the costs of that program, the higher costs of Medicare Advantage plans add about $2 to the monthly premium for Part B. Those higher costs also accelerate the exhaustion of the trust fund that supports Part A.
The government is paying these private plans 12% more than it would cost to cover the same people with traditional Medicare. Some of this extra money is used by private insurance to offer additional benefits to entice more customers, and some of it is just pocketed by the insurance companies. This attempt to use private insurance to save the government money has turned into an extremely costly failure.
The Democrats, through their health care reform legislation, are simply planning to have the government stop overpaying the private insurance companies. The reform bills would change the formula, so that Medicare Advantage plans would only be given an amount equal to the cost of covering someone with traditional Medicare.
Not overpaying the private Medicare Advantage plans would save the government huge amounts of money.
Relative to spending under current law, CBO estimates, that policy would save $54 billion over the 2009–2012 period and $149 billion over the 2009–2017 period.
The Republicans have spent the last three days defending the massively wasteful corporate giveaway to private insurance companies. They are defending a program that wastes billions of taxpayer dollars. You can’t be a defender of the broken Medicare Advantage program and still be a fiscal conservative.
Ideally, the establishment media will start reporting on the GOP’s amazing hypocrisy.





31 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Prove to me that the loss of Medicare Advantage is going to lead to the kind of health care seniors get. Unlike regular Medicare, seniors can get into doctors for good care with Advantage. Without it, many doctors don’t cover it…and Seniors don’t get hearing aids and wheel chairs. My late father depended on it. I will depend on soon. And progressives of all people will take it away? And replace it with???????
Okay, your last sentence made me laugh.
Many doctors will not accept ‘regular’ Medicare because payments are apparently not ‘competitive.’ My doctor says he will accept Medicare Advantage but that if I don’t buy into it, I’ll have to find another doctor. Thoughts?
I don’t have advantage so I pay my doctor in full for each visit and am then paid directly from Medicare.
What’s the difference between what doctor charges for an office visit and what Medicare reimburses you? Does your doctor discount his regular fee for service? Does he/she charge what regular insurance would pay? Or do you pay full pay as if you were uninsured?
Medicare has repaid me almost every cent – just a few dollars difference. Don’t think the doctor discounts her regular fee. Each visit is $140.00.
My dad is an eye doctor so I have the solution, find another doctor. My dad wont take alot of insurances cause they dont pay enough. There are plenty of doctors that will take medicare, but it doesnt mean these guys are any less qualified. He also said that even some of his most loyal patients, going back 20 years or more, when faced with the same problem, just started paying cash. So thats also an option if you really like your current doc.
OT. New York Senate voted down Gay Marriage 38 – 24. Damn.
Thoughts?
Yeah, I’ve got thoughts. My idea is that if you want to receive a federal license to write prescriptions, you have to take Medicare patients. That doesn’t mean I don’t support improvements to Medicare reimbursement rates (I do).
I managed a pediatricians office for several years (5 docs & 2 nurse practitioners), and we didn’t much like taking Medicaid patients because of the reimbursement, but we did, and everytime the discussion came up the Doc that founded the practice would end it (bless her heart) by saying we’re not only here to make money, we’re also here to help.
I would like to see the reimbursement rates improve, but I don’t see anything wrong with connecting the receipt of a federal license with accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients. Plus, if all providers were required to accept them, I’m betting the uproar to improve the reimbursement rates would be such that it would get done. Just my opinion, YMMV.
Of course regular Medicare will not be “competitive” when we hand over 10-50% more money to Medicare Advantage plans so they can in turn pay more.
More truth from Comedy Central: Health care in Mexico
Thanks for the info. I’d never thought of going this route.
It is fucking hilarious that a site that constantly defends entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that are going bankrupt and have costed trillions more than initially projected is getting on somebody about a “boondoggle” that exceeds government projections. Two words: beyond parody. Such nonsense can only go unchallenged in the echo chamber that is this site.
The Obama Record: Record unemployment, record deficits, record tax cheats in his Cabinet, no legislative accomplishments.
Coburn talking about decisions being made by the government instead of their physicians. Christ all mighty how many nursing homes has this fellow been in. I have spent the last two years in several nursing homes and private insurance companies are cutting off patients every day from services, physical therapy etc. My dads private insurance plan with “un” Secure Horizons/United Health has cut him off from physical therapy so many times I quit counting. I have objected each time and gone through all of the paper filing etc each time but if someone does not have anyone to advocate for you with these private insurance companies they cut your ass off. (have talked to many seniors who have been cut off)
S
C
R
O
L
L
P
A
S
T
T
E
H
S
T
O
O
P
I
D
Yet you think that private insurance will be able to “compete” with a public option when the government is doing the same thing? Wow, such amazing intellectual consistency.
Very convenient to drop the last eight years of a disastrous administration in the Obama administration’s lap who have been in office for 1o months and a few weeks.
We know your type. One of those folks who impregnates someone and says look what they did to themselves. Drops the responsibility of your actions in someone elses lap. We know your kind.
While simultaneously suggesting 9/11 was the predecessor’s fault even though W had been in office almost as long as Obama has been now.
Hypocrisy is charter principle of teh stoopid.
STRONG PUBLIC OPTION – SOUTH CAROLINA SHORT FILM RESISTING REPUBLICAN SABOTAGE OF HEALTH CARE EVENT
Our South Carolina short film THE CURE FOR DOUBT was the result of our resistance to local wealthy Republican almost last-minute sabotage of our original HC reform event in support of a STRONG PUBLIC OPTION where we managed to hold a Speak Out event at another venue here on Hilton Head Island.
On the OFA blog over Thanksgiving THE CURE FOR DOUBT was commented on,
among others, that our guest speaker, Dr. Mikkelson, was very compelling and explained certain aspects of HC reform better than the Congress had up to now – AND THIS INCLUDES MEDICARE ADVANTAGE.
Which was the intent, we knew we also had something relevant to contribute to the public option debate that is going on right now.
So we scrambled and did our non-Hollywood best to make a new, helpful setting for our distinguished guest (see a few of his CV highlights on the youtube page.)
The Cure for Doubt has been posted on youtube.com, among other places,
edited according to youtube’s requirement that it be ten minutes or
less.
But I SUGGEST viewing the original version first, over thirteen minutes, see download link below.
I ALSO suggest good speakers (composer Bjarne O. combined Latino rhythms, Chinese erhu, and African-and Native-American voices with his orchestral palette in the spirit of Unity for the ending.)
We hope that folks will comment on the youtube page in the attempt to generate a discussion that can lead to positive actions for CHANGE.
Please be kind and pass this along, so it can do good.
Thank you.
The Cure for Doubt: (Original Version)
http://files.me.com/filmmusic2/ghcywf.mov
Streaming version:
http://files.me.com/filmmusic2/51xu0z.mov
youtube.com link with shorter version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRQ6R5JDX5Y
what are you talking about. I always advocated giving the public option and private options on the exchange the exact same amount of tax credits per person.
82% of hispanic/latino seniors making less than $20,000 per year have Medicare Advantage according to 2007 data.
1 in 3 hispanic/ latino seniors overall eligible for Medicare have MA
1 in 4 african-american
1 in 5 white
many of these plans have no premium and include medications.
boondoggle or not — these poor, non-white groups will be screwed if the bill passes as written
But without these cuts, the bill is too costly and won’t be approved and then there will be no public option for anyone.
Project much? If you are so angry that you have to invade other people’s space to yell at them, you need to get psychiatric help to deal with your anger management issues. But then you probably don’t have insurance.
I keep reading on FDL, HP, folks talking about Medicare Advantage, etc., and it is obvious most have no clue as to how an HMO works. If you do, good for you. If you don’t, than you should find this primer on HMO’s important in understanding this discussion. Most people I know don’t know how they work, and neither did I when I went to work for one; took me six months to figure-out how things really worked.
I spent a total of five years in management of a mental health HMO; can it be done ethically? I thought so at the time, but in retrospect, probably not. Why? Because there is always a conflict of interest between the needs of the patient and the need of the medical manager to generate money. In a standard HMO, the medical manager is the primary care physician.
First, you have to understand the term “capitation.” This is the monthly fee paid to the primary care physician by the insurance company to provide the care as designated by the insurance contract for those individuals enrolled in the HMO and under the physician’s care. Any medical care not provided directly by the primary care physician, that would be, a specialist, is paid for by the PCP to the specialist. Unless, of course, the PCP has not authorized the consult with the specialist, in which case it is not a covered expense and the patient is responsible.
When I became the director of an HMO mental health clinic, we were responsible for providing all of the mental health services to the 24,000 member Medical HMO. Prior to the establishment of the mental health clinic, each primary care physician who had patients covered by the HMO had that responsibility. They were paid $3.29 monthly for mental health services. Do the math, and these primary care physicians were being paid collectively by the insurance company almost a million dollars yearly for providing for mental health services. How many of them were referring their patients for psychotherapy services? Almost none. You see, for most of them, the “mental health” part of their capitation was just gravy. Would they see folks in the office for antidepressant medication? Oh, sure. Refer to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation? Rarely. Refer to a psychologist of clinical social worker for psychotherapy? Almost never. Why? Because the cost of doing so came out of their pocket.
In an HMO, it is largely the physician—in some cases the utilization review nurse—who limits what services are paid for, not the insurance company. And the physician has every incentive to limit care because paying for it is money out of his/her pocket.
I believe that under my leadership, I and my staff of therapists provided very good mental health services, but we were obscenely profitable. 26% profit the first year; 29% our second year. Our consumer ratings exceeded the norms of the clinics across the nation on every measure but location. Yet, when I asserted to my new regional manager that quality of care was my first priority, and profitability was my second priority, I was told in a fax that “only a naive or novice manager would put quality of care as their first priority.”
I took the phone call from a woman seeking psychological services to deal with her situation. For two years, her HMO doc refused to refer her to a specialist to treat her anal fissure, instead insisting he was adequately treating it himself. She finally paid out of pocket to see a specialist. The next day, he removed her rectum, her vagina, and two thirds of her buttocks, that is how far her cancer had spread.
HMOs are evil, and Medicare Advantage, as well as Humana, are evil as well. Their goal is profit. Simple as that. The managers care not one whit about providing good health care.
Finally, it is instructive to note that most hospice are organized as HMOs; and there are so many of them because they are so profitable.
It seems to me the point of the “cuts” to Medicare Advantage is that payments are wasteful; the R’s fixed it so the private programs (MA) got paid more than Medicare providers, so natch, providers prefer MA.
If we get rid of the MA boondoggle, then payments can be adjusted upwards for Medicare-accepting providers. Then, of course, with a public option, it can be smoothed out for everyone, including Medicare pts and Medicare providers.
Of course, I confess, I have not read the details in this part of the bill, so it may be that as currently written, it won’t work that way.
Jon, do you know?
“On average, HMOs offered extra benefits and rebates equal to 13 percent of FFS costs”
Actually, we don’t really know how much they are being overpaid. The plans bullied CMS into accepting an inadequate risk adjuster. A good risk adjuster can predict future costs pretty accurately but the for profit health plans wrecked the one CMS wanted to use so that they could attract healthier enrollees and be paid as if they were as likely as the general population to suffer an expensive illness. Some of that gravy is then used to attract healthier seniors but most of it goes straight to the bottom line, or rather CEO compensation.
But the GOPers think that’s fine because “Those higher costs also accelerate the exhaustion of the trust fund that supports Part A.” and the destruction of Medicare.
Ding, ding!
It would be interesting to catalog how many health insurance plans are available today across the fifty states as marketed by the big five for profits (Cigna,United Health,Wellpoint,Aetna and BCBS) and then break these plans down into subsets of group coverage,single coverage,dependent(s) coverage and supplemental coverage. Then go through dental and vision coverages again broken down into subsets of high end,mid range and basic.
How many different selections would it total out to?
So with this Medicare Advantage we see where another bracket or category of coverage and payment process was introduced to throw the private for profit insurers some gravy and skim off the top.
If a person were able to compile all American healthcare plans as now presented by the for profit insurers whether employment based,individual based or the variants that show up when one family members health insurance is spread to cover either a spouse or children who otherwise are not covered. Total up all the money paid in for this plethora of plans and subset plans. How much was it for fiscal year 2008? It must be a colossal set of numbers. In plan(s) count and money paid in from employers,individuals and for doctors,clinics and hospitals to process the paperwork blizzard this for profit insurer set up must generate every day,every week and every month.
So why did Barack Obama take Single Payer off the table again?
Make it less complex. Less complicated. Less process barricaded. Keep it simple. What the hell is wrong with Barack Obama? Want to cut costs and improve care and health outcomes? Go with Single Payer. Really stupid to not do so. Really stupid.
As JW reveals above just this one program that WashingtonDC put in place to pass the gravy and skim offs to private for profit insurers called Medicare Advantage complicates Medicare rather than keeping it simple and is a cost escalator boondoggle.
It is sickening.
This American healthcare regime is so not world class. It is stupid class.
But, on the other hand, if we got rid of Medicare Advantage then the Doctor would be faced with a different choice wouldn’t he?
i haven’t read all the way through the senate bill yet, but the house bill cuts medicare payments to nursing homes, especially for rehab services.
Finally, it is instructive to note that most hospice are organized as HMOs
i didn’t know this. in fact, it never even occurred to me to wonder about it. thanks for mentioning it.