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 a class on Dante I'm currently enrolled in, Professor Frank Ambrosio of Georgetown University quoted the nineteenth century philosopher Friedric Nietzsche that human beings, as far as we know, are the only animals who make promises. I only add that humans are also the sole ones who break them. According to Ambrosio, Nietzsche puts the significance of human promising and its place with regard to freedom this way: "In man, nature set itself the task to breed an animal worthy of making promises." It's an extraordinary idea. What is it that allows an animal that lives in the here and now to Read on →
Well, He Hands You A Nickel, He Hands You A Dime . . . Such was the way Maggie's brother treated workers in Bob Dylan's "Maggie's Farm," but Charles Oscar Finley doled out considerably more to the Beatles in 1964: $150,000. Charles Oscar Finley longed to be adored, if not loved, though he acted despicably at times. He considered himself a self-made man and expected other men to meet his standards, even as those standards shifted wildly. In the mid-1940s, flat on his back with tuberculosis, Finley envisioned ways to make a fortune in the health insurance business. All Finley had Read on →
One wryly fascinating aspect of achieving "seniority" is that my senses have become more adept at finding free entertainment. Locating alternative sources of amusement has become almost a necessity these days. Daytime television remains abominable, cable TV is objectionally priced (probably by those same pirates who sell inkjet print cartridges) and the ransom one has to give up for seats to professional sporting events is unconscionable. Also, our local news daily, though not unreasonably priced is but a shell of its former self. It is no longer a joy to read. One amusing activity, I find, involves no equipment, no cover cha Read on →
When you get interested in painting you naturally look around to see what others who got this bug have done. Finding out what painters are doing in the U.S. today is like listening to rock on the radio. You have to wade through a lot of “forgettables” before you hear one that will be an “oldie” in ten years. Museums show oldies. Most of their collections have been filtered. The forgettables have been thrown out. On this painting journey you will run across an opinion that painting is dead, irrelevant, old paradigm. You can ignore that, and be sure you will en Read on →