Comments on: BUSH WAS RIGHT TO VETO MEDICARE BILL http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/ Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:36:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: SW http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-284261 SW Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:56:05 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-284261 MA is often a great deal for individual beneficiaries, offering an enhanced benefit package at a relatively low cost. On the whole, however, there is no question that this program costs more (to the government and therefore the taxpayers) than the traditional fee-for-service program. Research has consistently demonstrated this, some of it dating back nearly 20 years to when private plans were first offered as an option in Medicare. Arguments about "hidden" administrative costs and cross-subsidization are just that - arguments. There has never been a rigorous study that has demonstrated that MA saves money, either in the short or long terms. That's not to say that MA shouldn't be an option or that the traditional fee-for-service system is the way to go. It simply shows that MA, as currently designed, is more costly. MA is often a great deal for individual beneficiaries, offering an enhanced benefit package at a relatively low cost.

On the whole, however, there is no question that this program costs more (to the government and therefore the taxpayers) than the traditional fee-for-service program. Research has consistently demonstrated this, some of it dating back nearly 20 years to when private plans were first offered as an option in Medicare. Arguments about “hidden” administrative costs and cross-subsidization are just that - arguments. There has never been a rigorous study that has demonstrated that MA saves money, either in the short or long terms.

That’s not to say that MA shouldn’t be an option or that the traditional fee-for-service system is the way to go. It simply shows that MA, as currently designed, is more costly.

]]> By: rjf http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-284210 rjf Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:44:54 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-284210 I am a former employee of one of the large MA companies. MA is not for everyone, but it does offer exceptional benefits over original Medicare. Most plans have a maximum out-of-pocket, usually from $2500 to $5000 a year. Once a member spends that amount on medical, not Part D drugs, the insurance company pays 100% of their medical bills for the rest of the year. For example if the Medicare approved amount was $100,000, the patient responsibility could be $20,000 unless they purchase a Medicare Supplement, which many seniors can't afford. One benefit of the MA plans that will not show up right away is the free health club membership. This is something you have to see to believe. I've seen dramatic improvements in seniors physical and mental health. The result will be fewer medical bills down the road. Prevention is the key. I am a former employee of one of the large MA companies. MA is not for everyone, but it does offer exceptional benefits over original Medicare. Most plans have a maximum out-of-pocket, usually from $2500 to $5000 a year. Once a member spends that amount on medical, not Part D drugs, the insurance company pays 100% of their medical bills for the rest of the year. For example if the Medicare approved amount was $100,000, the patient responsibility could be $20,000 unless they purchase a Medicare Supplement, which many seniors can’t afford.

One benefit of the MA plans that will not show up right away is the free health club membership. This is something you have to see to believe. I’ve seen dramatic improvements in seniors physical and mental health. The result will be fewer medical bills down the road. Prevention is the key.

]]> By: wd http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-282983 wd Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:19:10 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-282983 Actually, MA may be even less expensive than Medicare fee-for-service (boy, there's a misnomer if there ever was one.) Traditional Medicare requires considerable cost-sharing, while cost-sharing is reduced in most MA plans. I don't recall, but I don't think the GAO comparisons factored in cost sharing, Actually, MA may be even less expensive than Medicare fee-for-service (boy, there’s a misnomer if there ever was one.)

Traditional Medicare requires considerable cost-sharing, while cost-sharing is reduced in most MA plans. I don’t recall, but I don’t think the GAO comparisons factored in cost sharing,

]]> By: Catron http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-282929 Catron Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:26:10 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-282929 "MA costs more than traditional fee-for-service Medicare." Actually, SW, if you run the numbers on the basis of comparable benefits, and factor in the hidden admin costs of traditional Medicare, MA is the least expensive of the two. “MA costs more than traditional fee-for-service Medicare.”

Actually, SW, if you run the numbers on the basis of comparable benefits, and factor in the hidden admin costs of traditional Medicare, MA is the least expensive of the two.

]]> By: SW http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-282881 SW Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:34:52 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/08/14/bush-was-right-to-veto-medicare-bill/#comment-282881 Medicare Advantage, in THEORY, combines quality, cost, and access issues in a way that should lower costs. In PRACTICE, however, MA costs more than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Ideological arguments are interesting, but irrelevant in the face of empirical data. There may be ways to modify MA so it can truly fulfill its purpose of providing maximum value in quality, cost, and access. As currently configured, however, it doesn't work. Medicare Advantage, in THEORY, combines quality, cost, and access issues in a way that should lower costs. In PRACTICE, however, MA costs more than traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

Ideological arguments are interesting, but irrelevant in the face of empirical data. There may be ways to modify MA so it can truly fulfill its purpose of providing maximum value in quality, cost, and access. As currently configured, however, it doesn’t work.

]]>