On adding an out-of-pocket cost cap to traditional Medicare

Subscribe (free) to xpostfactoid

Medicare's annual Open Enrollment Period is in progress, and enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) is poised to exceed enrollment in traditional, fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare for the first time in 2023. Stat's Bob Herman spotlights advocates' case for erasing MA's most consequential competitive advantage by adding an annual out-of-pocket cost cap (OOP cap) to traditional, fee-for-service Medicare:

At least 1 in 5 people* who choose Medicare Advantage — the alternative to traditional Medicare that is operated by health insurance companies — say they choose it because of the out-of-pocket limits that insurers offer, according to a new survey from the Commonwealth Fund.

According to a Kaiser Family Foundation estimate, as of 2018, about one in six FFS Medicare enrollees (counting only those enrolled in both Part A and Part B**) lacked an OOP cap and were thus exposed to potentially catastrophic out-of-pocket costs. That comes to about 5 million enrollees in 2022. The other 25 million FFS enrollees in Parts A  and B have access to OOP caps -- usually quite low --  via either Medigap, an employer-sponsored supplemental plan, or dual eligibility in Medicare and Medicaid.

In a study commissioned by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Wakely actuaries calculated that adding a $6,700 OOP cap to FFS Medicare Parts A and B would increase per-person spending by 3.5%. Wakely cast that estimate as conservative, as it does not include an estimate of "induced demand"-- i.e., enrollees using more care because it's more affordable. A June 2022 Urban Institute analysis bears that out. Urban estimated the cost of a $7,550 cap -- the highest currently allowable by MA plans for in-network care -- at $25 billion per year, a 5% increase. But that cap is inclusive of Part D, which according to Urban's estimate accounts for about 18% of cost increases. A $7,550 cap for Parts A and B alone would presumably increase FFS costs by about 4%. Urban estimates that induced demand triggered by a $7,550 cap will increase total spending by all payers by $8 billion, or 1.6% (perhaps 1.3% with Part D omitted).  That added cost (not accounted for by Wakely) does seem to bring the Urban and Wakely estimates more or less in line. 

AHIP's hooray for Medicare Advantage: Apples-to-candied-apples, and an open question

Subscribe (free) to xpostfactoid

Bob Herman of Stat casts a cold eye on a new claim from AHIP that Medicare Advantage provides superior value to the federal government:

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s primary lobbying group, funded a new report that was conducted by actuaries at Wakely Consulting Group. AHIP claims the report proves Medicare Advantage...is “saving Americans billions of dollars every year.” The actuaries, however, never use that language in the report.

STAT spoke with several independent Medicare policy experts, all of whom said AHIP’s report was incomplete at best and refuted by other studies that analyzed the same data. 

AHIP's press release asserts that "in 2019, rather than being 2% more expensive than original Medicare, on an apples-to-apples basis, average MA spending was actually about 7% lower than original Medicare."

That conclusion is based on two claims grounded in the Wakely analysis: 

Will Medicare Advantage swallow fee-for-service Medicare?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid 

Medicare Advantage, the private-plan alternative to traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, is threatening to swallow the program. MA enrollment has been growing by leaps and bounds and is projected to surpass 50% of total Medicare enrollment by next year.

That raises the danger, as J. Michael McWilliams points out in Health Affairs, that traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare will lose its capacity to serve as a reliable benchmark for MA pricing.  At present, the federal government pays MA plans a per-enrollee fee that's based, with regional variations and a complex array of adjustments, on the per-enrollee cost of FFS Medicare.  Thanks to that tether, MA plans pay providers roughly what FFS Medicare pays them. And FFS Medicare pays rates set by the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, albeit with arguably too much influence from powerful physician groups* that help set Part B (physician) rates.

How will Medicare enhancement change the current public-private Medicare ecosystem?

Subscribe to xpostfactoid

Democrats' aspirations to add dental, hearing and vision benefits to Medicare raises questions about the interactions between tradition, fee-for service (FFS) Medicare, Medicare Advantage (MA), and Medigap. These center on MA's growing market share, its funding mechanism, the gaps in FFS Medicare coverage that MA plans partially fill, and the value of Medigap for those who can afford it (or whose employers fund it).

Below, a brief outline (distilled mainly from KFF briefs) of how the three programs (FFS, MA and Medigap) interact/compete at present, followed by questions about how pending legislation may alter the ecosystem.

Trump's bid to destroy Medicare

Subscribe to xpostfactoid via box at top right (requires only an email address; you'll get 2-3 emails per week on average)

It's clear that Trump is working to destroy U.S. democracy -- selling U.S. aid and favors to countries in exchange for pursuing trumped-up charges against his political opponents.

Now he's following up via executive order with a bid to destroy Medicare.

In the runaway train that is U.S. healthcare costs, Medicare (and Medicaid) is the only substantial brake, in that the government sets prices paid to providers, albeit with outsized provider input. Medicare hospital rates are about half* those paid on average by commercial insurers. Rates paid to physicians average about 78% of commercial rates -- and in high-demand specialties and regions with few providers, commercial insurers often pay four, five and six times Medicare rates.

In countries that successfully offer universal coverage, the government either serves as the sole payer, sets rates for all payers, or oversees all-payer negotiations. The U.S. alone leaves commercial insurers to be divided and conquered by payers. That's the main reason U.S. healthcare costs average about double the OECD average.

In an executive order that begins with a deranged preamble slandering Medicare for All proposals, Trump orders the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare the ground for ending Medicare rate-setting:

Seniors' costs under Medicare for America, continued

Subscribe to xpostfactoid via box at top right (requires only an email address; you'll get 2-3 emails per week on average)

In my last post I noted that while the revamped and expanded Medicare available to all under the Medicare for America Act of 2019 would serve most Americans very well, some people who turn 65 after full enactment would pay more in premium than they would today for traditional Medicare Parts B and D, or comparably priced Medicare Advantage.

They would get far more for the money -- most notably, long-term care insurance, dental, visual and hearing coverage, and 100% coverage for a host of vital services like chronic disease management, addiction and mental health treatment, and care for the medically frail. Still, higher premiums for seniors with incomes above about $50,000 for an individual or $80,000 for a couple is a political problem that needs to be thought out.  Here, I have a bit more data to sketch in.

If Medicare for America passes, some seniors would pay more (and get more) than at present

Subscribe to xpostfactoid via box at top right (requires only an email address; you'll get 2-3 emails per week on average)

Medicare for America,  the bill that would allow anyone at any age to buy into a revamped Medicare at an income-adjusted price (e.g., $0 for the bottom 30% of the income distribution), would be a clear benefit to anyone under 65. Even for those who continue to get insured through their employers, it would offer the true freedom from job-lock that the ACA promised and largely failed to deliver.

Most seniors who turn 65 after the new program would come into full effect (2023 were it to pass this year) would be gainers too (those enrolled in current Medicare before the new program launches would have the option of continuing to pay their then-current premiums). A fair number of new enrollees, however, would pay far more in premium than they would for existing fee-for-service Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan. They would get more for their money. But the expectation that when you turn 65 you can get reliable insurance for under $200 per month is pretty hard-wired into Americans, I suspect. Violating that expectation for a substantial subset of the 3-4 million people who age into Medicare in year one (and every year following) is a political problem to be reckoned with.

Bill Clinton gets personal

Well, it took Bill Clinton a long time to get to the heart of his speech. But what a mighty heart it proved to be. What a giant enterprise. He set himself singlehandedly to counter a billion dollars in attack ads, to break through the core Republican lies and obfuscations.  The big ones, the ones about high-stakes policy: Obama is gutting Medicare. Obama is gutting welfare reform.   Huge cuts to Medicaid won't devastate the poor, the nursing home population, the disabled.  Obama is exploding the debt.  Romney will cut taxes by $5 trillion and reduce the debt.

Listen to me, he said repeatedly in the epic debunk session. He said it secure in the authority conferred by eight years of successful budget combat. Unlike other speakers (who else could take/command the time?) he drilled down in (sometimes fudged) detail. Republicans quadrupled the debt in the 12 years before I took office and doubled it in the eight years after I left office. Listen to me. Obama's state waivers for welfare work requirements are to enable initiatives to increase job placements, not diminish them. This is personal for me -- to claim the opposite is just not true. Obamacare's Medicare cuts are to insurer and provider reimbursements, not coverage for seniors.  I want you to listen -- by erasing the ACA's Medicare cuts, the Republicans will bid fair to end Medicare by 2016.

From Palin to Ryan: a short history of demonizing IPAB

The battle between the parties over Medicare reform is a battle about how best to control costs.  Ryan and Romney rely exclusively on the Competition Fairy, -- the notion that if private insurers are induced to compete for Medicare policyholders, they will find ways to hold down costs.  If that fails, Ryan/Romney would most likely shift costs to seniors, with some ostensible protections for low-income beneficiaries.  The Obama administration, via the Affordable Care Act, seeks to use the government's market clout to change the rules of the payment game for providers, creating new incentives to reduce unnecessary care and new rewards and penalties focused on patient outcomes.

How Wyden muddled the Democrats' attack on RyanCare

Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, is upset that people are casting the Medicare reform plan he put forward with Paul Ryan last December with the Medicare reform plan incorporated in Ryan's 2013 budget:

Flashing an anger and a willingness to counterpunch that’s rarely seen, Sen. Ron Wyden on Monday denounced suggestions that his ideas for reforming Medicare mirror those of Republican Mitt Romney and his new running mate Rep. Paul Ryan.

His protestation below strikes me, however, as a self-cancelling statement: