Medicare

New Health Care Coalition Calls on Lawmakers Not to Ignore Retiree Health Care

Alex Hogan — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:13:10 -0700

As members of Congress return to Washington, D.C. to address health care reform, a new alliance of businesses and labor unions is reminding policy makers not to forget the health care needs of a key segment of the population: Americans aged 55-64.

The Bridge Years Health Coalition, which includes the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Communication Workers of America and Verizon Communications, is launching a public campaign to let President Barack Obama and lawmakers know that any serious health care reform bill must ensure access to affordable, quality health care for the approximately 33 million Americans who are nearing retirement but are facing an increasingly uncertain financial future.

In a letter the coalition addressed to congressional leaders, it writes that for these "Bridge Years" workers:

(M)edian income is dropping and their health is declining. Many are in financial jeopardy - retirement savings slashed by falling equity markets, worried about whether they will be able to keep their jobs ... The availability and cost of health insurance can be the difference between a secure retirement and economic collapse.

Workers who fall into the 55-64 range find themselves in a precarious position in today's economy. Too young to receive Medicare, they are viewed as too "old" by many private insurers, with premiums as much as five times higher than those for younger workers.

For those between the ages of 60 and 64, nearly one and three applicants for individual insurance are denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. This lack of affordable insurance makes early retirement impossible for many workers, which means holding on to a job that provides coverage becomes the difference between financial stability and ruin.

For companies that do provide health care coverage for retirees, the rising cost of health care is creating a tremendous financial strain.

According to IBEW International President Edwin D. Hill:

Retiree health care is becoming one of the most contentious issues our union has to deal with when we sit down at the bargaining table. Our members and our employers need some relief from Washington so the health care of our retirees isn't put at risk.

The coalition advocates that Congress explore different options to make sure bridge years workers are covered, including:

* Giving them a choice of plans that are subject to a reasonable age rating limit and ban exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

* Government-funded relief to employers that offer retiree health benefits.

To read more about the Bridge Years Health Coalition, click here.

Medicare Advantage Organizations: Actual Expenses and Profits Compared to Projections for 2006

Alex Lawson — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:10:29 -0800

Medicare

Armand Biroonak — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:20:46 -0700

Rising Health Care Costs are to Blame for Rising Medicare Cost

Armand Biroonak — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:00:00 -0700

The Congressional Budget Office reports the main factor in the rising cost of Medicare is the growth of health care costs—health expenditures as a percent of GDP have more than doubled since 1970, growing from 7.0 percent to 14.8 percent in 2002.

Bush's Medicare Drug Plan Leaves Millions Paying Higher

Armand Biroonak — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:00:00 -0700

President Bush’s push for further privatization of Medicare's prescription drug plan stuck 3.4 million Medicare beneficiaries with high drug costs.

Prohibition to Drug-Price Negotiate Costs Government Billions

Armand Biroonak — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:00:00 -0700

Bush's Medicare prescription drug plan prohibits the federal government's ability to negotiate drug prices--costing the government an estimated $90 billion annually.

Bush Administration's Medicare Advantage Plan Costs Double

Armand Biroonak — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:00:00 -0700

The Bush Administration’s privatized “Medicare Advantage” plans are rising twice as fast as costs in traditional Medicare, according to the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

Negotiate Prescription Drug Prices

Bernie Horn — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:25:51 -0700

Price Negotiations Can Save Medicare Billions

Armand Biroonak — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:00:00 -0700

If Medicare were allowed to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, the program would save approximately $90 billion a year, which could be passed along to the elderly in the form of lower costs or greater benefits.

Obstruction Boosts Insurance Fat Cats

Isaiah J. Poole — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:31:28 -0700

Senate conservatives went into their customary obstruction mode again late Thursday, choosing to protect the interests of insurance companies while shortchanging the health care needs of older Americans and ignoring the will of the majority.

Thirty-nine conservatives supported a filibuster of a bill, passed overwhelmingly by the House, that would prevent a 10.6 percent cut in the reimbursement rate for doctors accepting Medicare patients starting July 1. To offset the cut, the bill would have trimmed taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program. A bipartisan majority in the Senate supported the bill, but the usual coterie of block-and-blame conservatives played their "Dr. No" role as they have since the beginning of the term.

Medicare Advantage, instituted at the behest of conservatives who want to ultimately privatize Medicare, cost taxpayers $7.1 billion more in 2006 than it would have cost of its participants were in the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program, The Government Accountability Office found in a February report. One reason, the GAO says, is that on average only 87 cents of every dollar spent on Medicare Advantage actually go to health care; the rest goes for administrative and marketing costs—and, of course, insurance company profit.

The bill, HR 6331, would have shifted $14 billion over five years from the insurance companies in Medicare Advantage so that Medicate fee-for-service doctors would be properly reimbursed for their costs. Without that shift, no doubt thousands of the 600,000 doctors now participating in the Medicare program would simply stop accepting Medicare patients. The Bush administration issued a veto threat, and the block-and-blame conservatives in the Senate lined up behind it.

The Medicare Advantage program was sold as an alternative to the what conservatives considered unnecessarily high costs in fee-for-service Medicare, but as The New York Times reported in May, Medicare Advantage has quickly developed its own, predictable trail of waste and inefficiency:

... Generous federal payments to private Medicare Advantage plans — set by law — have created a “tremendous incentive” for insurers to maximize sales by aggressive marketing. ... The report says insurers often encourage agents to sell these products by paying larger commissions and bonuses than agents would receive for selling other health insurance products.

The resulting mish-mash of confusing plans, oversold at times by zealous marketers, is a bad deal for taxpayers. Keeping the program as it is will cost an additional $54 billion through 2012, the GAO said, and while some of that money does help pay for some services that are not covered under traditional Medicare, it's right to ask why taxpayers should be subsidizing insurance companies when it is demonstrably more cost-effective for traditional Medicare to provide those same services.

But this is what we get with blind ideology. The next time a conservative inveighs against government waste, ask them about Medicare Advantage and that $54 billion, and ask why Senate conservatives are so determined to keep that particular bit of waste on the books.