At Health Affairs Mathmatica’s Marsha Gold takes a look at the expansion of Medicare PFFS plans. Those are the ones that our friends at AHIP are so keen on, because of all the benefits they bring to poor elderly seniors (stop that sniggering at the back!). My word, is she “fair and balanced”!
Perspectives on current MA trends are largely in the eye–and orientation–of the beholder. If one believes that all choice is good and competition brings prices down, MMA has clearly been successful in expanding choice and competition. Because higher payments are driving the market, beneficiaries who enroll also benefit because benefits, even in the more limited plans, probably compare favorably against those of Medicare alone for not that much more premium. It could be that once attracted to MA, enrollees can be moved to more managed products, as some firms have indicated that they want to do.If one tends to believe less in the market, some aspects of current trends are a concern. Most narrowly, the current expansion is fueled by MA payment rates that exceed what traditional Medicare now pays. At least in the short run, this means that Medicare pays more for each beneficiary that is attracted to MA. The added fiscal burden on Medicare is especially high for PFFS plans, because firms are benefiting from "floor" payments. Although individual enrollees may gain, beneficiaries as a whole may be harmed if higher payments add to the fiscal stress on Medicare, making the program less viable in the long run. Choice also makes demands on beneficiaries’ time, is challenging for many not familiar with the issues or those with cognitive limits, and adds the risk that coverage will be unstable if the forces that facilitate firms’ development of PFFS plans also make it easy for them to exit MA.Do the benefits exceed the risk? Although people will differ in their calculations, I suggest that the answer could well be negative.
The joke is that her piece is called Medicare Advantage In 2006-2007: What Congress Intended?
Err, yes Marsha, it pretty clearly was what Congress (or at least the staffers who wrote the law at AHIP’s behest) intended. We, the taxpayer, meanwhile just need to drop trou and bend over.