Medicare Advantage Plans

[physasst]

10.4 million enrollees, 3,354 plans with an estimated expense, or cost of 12 billion more than treating those same 10.4 million patients with traditional Medicare. Defenders claim that these plans offer expanded benefits, that poorer retirees will not be able to otherwise get, as they cannot afford a supplemental Medicare plan.
The problem lies in the fact that these plans will generate about 157 billion in additional costs over the next decade. Obama has said that he wants a bidding process to cut the proposed expenditures for the Medicare Advantage plans. Baucus, Grassley, et al, would like some other way of solving this problem without cutting payments.

Ahh, the joys of congress. Sen Baucus and Grassley, need to realize, that the pie is only so large, and you cannot simply keep taking MORE out of it, without adjusting the size of the pie. It'll be an interesting debate.

What say you?

Do you think we should cut them, or find other ways to finance them?

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief_pdfs/healthpolicybrief_1.pdf

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MOHS_01]

10.4 million enrollees, 3,354 plans with an estimated expense, or cost of 12 billion more than treating those same 10.4 million patients with traditional Medicare. Defenders claim that these plans offer expanded benefits, that poorer retirees will not be able to otherwise get, as they cannot afford a supplemental Medicare plan.
The problem lies in the fact that these plans will generate about 157 billion in additional costs over the next decade. Obama has said that he wants a bidding process to cut the proposed expenditures for the Medicare Advantage plans. Baucus, Grassley, et al, would like some other way of solving this problem without cutting payments.

Ahh, the joys of congress. Sen Baucus and Grassley, need to realize, that the pie is only so large, and you cannot simply keep taking MORE out of it, without adjusting the size of the pie. It'll be an interesting debate.

What say you?

Do you think we should cut them, or find other ways to finance them?

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief_pdfs/healthpolicybrief_1.pdf

My vote is to do away with them. BHO's plan is the next best thing... competitive bidding should be the way all transactions are handled. I wish that MC would do the same thing with docs -- just as long as MC is not the only payor in play.

 

[Miami_med]

These things really prove my point that the public-private hybrid payment scheme is the worst of both worlds. They cost more than both Medicare and Private policies, and they provide less than Medicare. Rather than setting up a ridiculously complicated beauracracy with 10 million different health plans vying for government money as they attempt to then deny the benefits they are getting paid to protect, the best thing would really be to let the public be public and private be private. I think any discussion as to the role of government in health financing would be better served with a starting point that did away with the hybrid disaster.

 

[cpants]

These things really prove my point that the public-private hybrid payment scheme is the worst of both worlds. They cost more than both Medicare and Private policies, and they provide less than Medicare. Rather than setting up a ridiculously complicated beauracracy with 10 million different health plans vying for government money as they attempt to then deny the benefits they are getting paid to protect, the best thing would really be to let the public be public and private be private. I think any discussion as to the role of government in health financing would be better served with a starting point that did away with the hybrid disaster.

I have to agree with you. Every middleman inserted into the equation means either increased cost, decreased delivery, or both. Even with competitive bidding, each additional player by definition takes value rather than adding it.