Update 3/14/2023: A reminder of the PSARA webinar on Monday, March 20, 5:00 p.m. (PDT) - “Don’t Let Naked Profiteering Destroy Our Medicare” featuring Dr. Ed Weisbart, Missouri chair and national board member of PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program), Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine at Washington University, St. Louis, 2004-2021. See registration announcement at FILES below or click HERE to register directly.
[Our Guest Writer, Rick Timmins, is the Co- Outreach Vice President of the Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action (PSARA) and leads the PSARA Whidbey Island Committee. He is a retired veterinarian and educator. This article originally appeared in the March 2023 issue of The Retiree Advocate, a monthly publication of the PSARA Education Fund and is reprinted here in its entirety with the permission of the publisher.]
John Ehrlichman, an advisor to President Richard Nixon, had an interesting discussion with him about changes being considered for Medicare. Ehrlichman described the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) business model to Nixon: “All the incentives are toward less medical care, because…the less care they give them the more money they make.” Nixon’s reply: “Fine.” This led to a major change in the trajectory of Medicare.
Passage of legislation in 1972, 1973 and 1997 gradually introduced the concept of for-profit health care corporations, such as HMOs, to what was originally a non-profit public program. Part C was added to parts A and B of Medicare, and was called Medicare+Choice. When it was renamed Medicare Advantage (MA) in 2003, the systematic privatization of Medicare began.
At first glance, MA might seem like a good deal. The monthly premium is low or non-existent for most plans. Co-pays for most services are less than Traditional Medicare (TM). MA plans tout more services such as vision, hearing, dental and gym memberships (depending on the plan). Most MA plans include Part D (prescriptions). MA has a cap on out-of-pocket expenses (up to $8,300 for 2023) And, celebrities tell us it’s wonderful. What’s not to like?
Let’s start with how MA companies make a profit. In TM doctors and other providers are paid for the services they render (Fee For Service) by Medicare. In MA, Medicare pays private insurance companies through “capitation,” at a rate based on the number of patients in their system and the severity of their medical needs (identified by codes). Additionally, companies are rewarded with bonuses based on a complex system of benchmarks, bids and quality incentives. The capitation system incentivizes insurance companies to provide less care in order to make more profit. How do they do that?
Limit access to care. MA plans control costs through a network of physicians, hospitals and other providers with whom they contract for services at a set price. Beneficiaries are restricted to that network, limiting the choice of providers. The extra services offered by some MA plans (vision, hearing, dental) are minimal, and restricted to specific contracted providers, who are often difficult to access. By limiting choices and access, the insurance companies make more profit.
Deny and delay care. Unlike TM, MA beneficiaries are required to receive pre-authorization (PA) from the MA plan for diagnostic procedures or referrals to specialists or for certain drugs. In a survey of physicians by the American Medical Association in 2021, 93% reported delays in the care of their patients due to PA. Ninety one percent (91%) said it had a negative impact on outcome, and 34% report that the requirement for PA has resulted in serious consequences for their patients. In the AMA survey, 82% of the physicians reported that patient frustration with the delays caused by PA can lead to patients abandoning their treatment, which reduces costs to the insurance companies.
In 2018, the Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated whether MA plans would boost revenue by denying access to coverage. Indeed, the OIG found that 13 percent of denied prior authorization requests and 18% of payment requests that were rejected would have been approved under fee-for-service Medicare. Millions of beneficiaries were illegally denied necessary care.
Game the system. The code submitted to Medicare describes the severity of a health issue. By intentionally changing the code to one that indicates greater severity (“upcoding”), MA insurance companies can raise the amount that Medicare will reimburse them. MedPac (a nonpartisan agency that advises Congress about Medicare issues) reported that in 2020, total Medicare payments to MA plans averaged 4% more than to TM, even though MA plans spend 10 to 25% less per beneficiary. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a summary of audits of payments to just a sample of MA insurance companies, revealing $12 million in overpayments (many due to upcoding), averaging $1,000 per beneficiary. The total cost to taxpayers is much higher, since this is a limited sample. CMS has estimated net overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans at $11.4 billion for 2022. If no changes are made to the system, and this trend continues, the Medicare Trust Fund could be depleted by 2028.
Myth: Medicare Advantage offers lower cost and higher quality health care than Traditional Medicare.
Fact: Medicare Advantage is a duplicitous scheme to increase the profits of insurance companies through denial and delay of health care and submission of fraudulent data to Medicare.
Myth: Medicare Advantage will save Medicare money.
Fact: Medicare Advantage costs Medicare more than TM, through excessive administration costs, profits, and fraud. It will hasten the depletion of the Trust Fund.
Future articles in the Advocate will expand on just how dangerous privatization of health care can be.
Comments by Readers
David A. SwansonMar 06, 2023
I wonder if there is a difference in satisfaction levels between those who have a medicare advantage plan with an insurance company or a group of private practive physians, on the one hand, and those who are members of a not-for profit healthcare provider’s advantage plan ( such as Kaiser Permanente), on the other hand? I cannnot speak for the former, but I can say that as a member of one of the latter’s advantage plans I have not encountered the problems listed and I would rate my experience as highly positive.
M. Lynda HanscomeMar 06, 2023
“not for profit” providers’ (REACH) and medicare advantage both rip off both patients and Medicare; just at different intersecting points. They may say “not for profit” but I would seriously question those words. It is Patients OR Profits and the minute any private entity gets involved, it is all about Profits.
Dick ConoboyMar 06, 2023
A valid question and I don’t have the answer. Perhaps there have been some studies but I just don’t know.
That being said, satisfaction can be a measure but behind that is the question of how the Medicare money is being spent regardless of the client experience. The patients might not be aware that they are being shortchanged. If funds are being siphoned off by the medical provider, that means less availble for other Medicare recipients.
Randy PettyMar 14, 2023
Another webinar on the topic here:
The Health Wonk Shop: Unpacking the Controversy Over Medicare Advantage
Carol FollettMar 17, 2023
Thank you for this information on an utterly confusing situation! I have registered for the workshop. I cannot attend the one you have provided, Randy, so I hope it will be recorded and we can hear it later. Do you know if that will happen. If it will be uploaded for us, would you give us that link too.
Randy PettyMar 17, 2023
Carol, I don’t know if it will be recorded, but they do have a You Tube channel showing previous webinars.
“Hosted by KFF, The Health Wonk Shop features conversations with experts delving into timely health policy issues for deeper discussions beyond the news headlines.” ( KFF = Kaiser Family Foundation)