We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
Doing the Math
New Study Shows Why Republicans Are Wrong About Privatizing Medicare
- This article was published by the Center for American Progress.
Republicans routinely claim that shrinking the government’s involvement in health care would eliminate waste, inefficiency and significantly lower health care costs. But during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, these same politicians lambasted Democrats for cutting $500 billion from Medicare and Medicaid, and specifically argued that the government’s overpayments to private health insurance plans participating in Medicare Advantage (MA) were essential for preserving seniors’ access to services — particularly in rural areas. “The fact of the matter is, the bottom line, is that these are 10 million people that are going to lose benefits. And that’s what it boils down to,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) warned during the mark-up process in the Senate Finance Committee.
Since President Obama signed reform into law, however, the GOP’s doomsday predictions have gone unrealized, and today a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) shows that some private plans are still abusing the system and reporting higher patient severity than is actually supported by medical records. As a result, the government is paying private insurers substantially more than it spends on traditional fee-for-service Medicare:
GAO found that diagnostic coding differences exist between MA plans and Medicare FFS. Using data on beneficiary characteristics and regression analysis, GAO estimated that before CMS’s adjustment, 2010 MA beneficiary risk scores were at least 4.8 percent, and perhaps as much as 7.1 percent, higher than they likely would have been if the same beneficiaries had been continuously enrolled in FFS. The higher risk scores were equivalent to $3.9 billion to $5.8 billion in payments to MA plans. Both GAO and CMS found that the impact of coding differences increased over time. This trend suggests that the cumulative impact of coding differences in 2011 and 2012 could be larger than in 2010.
In contrast to GAO, CMS estimated that 3.4 percent of 2010 MA beneficiary risk scores were attributable to coding differences between MA plans and Medicare FFS. CMS’s adjustment for this difference avoided $2.7 billion in excess payments to MA plans. CMS’s 2010 estimate differs from GAO’s in that CMS’s methodology did not include more current data, did not incorporate the trend of the impact of coding differences over time, and did not account for beneficiary characteristics other than age and mortality, such as sex, health status, Medicaid enrollment status, beneficiary residential location, and whether the original reason for Medicare entitlement was disability. […]
GAO’s findings underscore the importance of both CMS continuing to adjust risk scores to account for coding differences and ensuring that those adjustments are as complete and accurate as possible.
In other words, Republicans were wrong in trying to preserve the government’s subsidies for private insurers during the health care battle and they’d be foolish to stand in the way of more reforms now. Medicare Advantage can only be a viable option for seniors if it can help control health care spending. Eliminating waste, fraud and abuse from the program is crucial to improving Medicare’s sustainability and bending the cost curve.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
In 1979, I traveled to Beijing for a quick visit and the following year to Guangzhou, Shanghai, Beijing and Tianjin to visit potential sites for a joint venture manufacturing company with Chinese partners. Discussions were held with provincial governments and the newly established China International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC). CITIC had been formed in 1979 as a State owned investment vehicle by Rong Yiren under the approval of Deng Xiaoping to bypass the existing bureaucracy. Its aim was to attract foreign capital, technology and management techniques to China and encourage Chinese investment abroad. I had met Rong Yiren on Read on →
In 1972 I had waited two years to receive an invitation to visit China and then four days to get a seat on the train from Hong Kong to Guangzhou. The travel time to Guangzhou, via Hong Kong, by commercial airline and train, was about twenty-six hours. In the years that followed I made many trips to China. Each time the visits became easier, there was no waiting for invitations to visit the country. In the 1980s tourism became a major source of income for China as the country opened up to the western world. It had a lot to Read on →
As a young boy doing my homework while staying over with a favorite aunt, I was puzzled by a word and asked her where her dictionary was. She looked at me with befuddlement and finally said she didn’t have one. I thought that odd, but continued to ponder away at the word “sundry” which I also thought odd, and just assumed in my youthful innocence that it was simply a misspelling for “Sunday.” I’ve always had lots of dictionaries lying about, even foreign ones since my late wife was a professional translator. Somewhere hidden out of sight are a couple of vintage Rom Read on →
Sometimes the universe surprises you. A few months ago, I received an email from independent filmmaker Frank Huguenard. Having read some of my posts on the science of consciousness, Frank wanted to know if I'd consider being interviewed for a film on that subject. Cautious (and camera-shy), I was a bit wary and politely asked for more information. Frank suggested that I view his three previous films -- Beyond Me, Beyond Belief, and Beyond Reason, each available through his website BeyondMeFilm.com. All are thought-provoking treatments of controversial subjects. The latter deals mindfully with the interface between science and spirituality, the subject Read on →