THCB

Much More Reform Needed for Medicare?

This week’s startlingly gloomy annual report from the Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds lent new urgency to the need for further Medicare expenditure reforms. Whether Washington DC politicians will respond with more than sound bites is less likely.

The Trustees’ report shows a dramatic deterioration—even based on the most optimistic assumptions— in the financial position of the Part A Trust Fund, along with expectations of continued faster-than-GDP growth for Parts B and D.

Compared with the prior year’s Trustees’ report, which forecast that the Part A Fund would run out of money in 2029, the latest report estimates that the fund will dry up in 2024—five years sooner. The reasons for the sudden acceleration of financial disaster include a significant drop in revenues from taxes on workers’ earnings due to the ongoing recession, and new forecasts of longer life spans for beneficiaries.

The report also includes new forecasts for Medicare Part B and Part D, which operate on a pay-as-you-go basis using mixes of beneficiary premiums and general federal monies. While Parts B and D will not exhaust their respective trust funds, they will have increasing impacts on the deficit as their federal subsidies are forced to increase. Medicare B costs are projected to grow at a 4.7 percent annual rate (based on current law), and Medicare D at a 9.7 percent rate through 2020, compared with forecasts of 5.2 percent annual GDP growth.

Unfortunately, the preceding estimates are optimistic ones, and assume both the imposition of the physician rate cuts required by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and the implementation of all cost controls included in the Affordable Care Act.

No-one, and obviously not the Medicare Trustees, believes that Congress will allow the impending 30 percent slashing of physician fees to take place. Far more probable is that Congress will—as it has every year since 2003—choose to duck what would otherwise be a draconian reduction, one that would lead to a wholesale exodus of doctors from Medicare. Assuming that Congressional behavior does not suddenly change, Part B cost increases will jump to a 7.5 percent annual rate, not the wildly optimistic 4.7 percent.

Almost as unlikely is that the Part A cost controls included in the Affordable Care Act will all be implemented. The primary mechanism—the Independent Payment Advisory Board—is already under fierce political fire from Republicans. Even if the IPAB survives, both its appointees and its recommendations depend on approvals by a Congress that has shown no willingness to make difficult cost-cutting decisions.

And that’s the problem. House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s proposal for shifting much more of Medicare’s costs to beneficiaries has been disowned by his Republican colleagues—and given Democrats a huge political gift. The IPAB is under fire and could be dumped. Earlier, more nuanced proposals, like those from the co-chairs of the 1999 Bipartisan Medicare Commission, have died for lack of political support. With an election beginning to loom, and both parties looking to the senior vote, the chances of responsible bipartisan solutions seem far, far, away. Meanwhile, Part A and the federal deficit are rushing towards their respective precipices. It’s political bankruptcy in every sense.

Roger Collier was formerly CEO of a national health care consulting firm. His experience includes the design and implementation of innovative health care programs for HMOs, health insurers, and state and federal agencies.  He is editor of Health Care REFORM UPDATE.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

13
Leave a Reply

7 Comment threads
6 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
bjcefolaHu WillistonMargalit Gur-ArieJohn BallardNate Ogden Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
John Ballard
Guest

Note to self: No more hot links in comments here after 4:30 PM Fridays. Spam filter makes moderation automatic and the blog apparently goes on automatic pilot while the office is off for the weekend. Mon-Fri only for links in comments.
(No big problem since comments threads are the bottom of the food chain and rarely get read by many even on a good day.)

Hu Williston
Guest

Nate thanks for the response! My understanding of insurance is to share risk and in the case of health care the risk pool we are supporting is everyone in society or at least that is what politicians want Americans to believe. We can all get health care if no where else at the local emergency room!! Unfortunately our health care costs much more and provides much less than any other developed country. The rest of the economically advanced world has trouble with health care costs as well as we do but does not have bread lines and does have better… Read more »

bjcefola
Guest

Nate, I think the key element in single payer reform is explicit and public cost control. It is essentially a pact between the public and care providers: providers provide care and people will pay for it, the terms and conditions subject to public negotiation. The funding is of secondary importance, so much so in the case of Vermont it wasn’t included in H202. I think this approach is wise, you can make health care more affordable by regulating price and delivery regardless of funding mechanism, and without cost control health care won’t be affordable no matter the funding mechanism. The… Read more »

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

bjceffola, Medicaid is/was single payor and while it controls cost due to the requirement it not incur debt in the traditional sense it has been a complete failure for quality. It is also heavily subsidized by private insurance. You don’t need single payor to have a pact that providers get paid. Private insurance pays providers, the problem is the burdens placed on it by failed Medicare and Medicaid and terrible legislation from politicians that have no idea what they are doing. “the terms and conditions subject to public negotiation.” Are you familiar with the history of Medicare? This is how… Read more »

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

I strongly agree with your point about the national level. The entire reason our republic was so successful is we allowed for 58 states to do their own thing. Its when we started dictating from the federal level that things start to fall apart.

Hu Williston
Guest

Absolutely bring in a value added tax to cover universal health care and make it be what ever level of health care America wishes to support. It might help to first make transparent where we are spending the money by publishing on the internet the total payment per patient per year of all providers who are dipping into public payments such as Medicare and Medicaid and tax subsidized private insurance. Then decide if we really want to pay 20% to insurance companies and management that provide no medical services. Why not have the “Medical Loss Ratio” money spent for actual… Read more »

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

“make it be what ever level of health care America wishes to support.” What America wishes to support or what the bottom 50%+1 wishes to take from the remaining 49%? How many communist bread lines do we need to see before people learn this doesn’t work? If people are getting it for free they are always going to want more. Hu do you know what insurance is? The purpose of insurance is financing and risk management. Saying we should have 100% loss ratio is as stupid as saying there should be no cost to tax collection. Get rid of the… Read more »

John Ballard
Guest

I agree that as long as the costs of medical care continue to rise faster than the rates of inflation and/or GDP Medicare is “unsustainable” as we know it today. I do not agree, however, that it is now “insolvent” (with an “e”) because it IS currently paying out what it is supposed to. It is true that if nothing is done to control either benefits or charges being submitted for payment the trust fund will be depleted in a short time, but even then the word insolvent is not accurate. Worst case scenarios project the program will pay out… Read more »

John Ballard
Guest

My comment from last Friday may be showing normal to others but it still reads “Your comment is awaiting moderation” when I link.
If it’s in moderation purgatory either publish or delete it. And if it’s published already someone needs to get a bug out of the system.

John Ballard
Guest

@Nate Ogden Difference of opinion, perhaps? Or is that an alien idea for you.

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

you can’t have difference of opion about facts. You can’t honestly advocate Medicare for all as a solution while knowing it is unsustainable and insolvant.

Margalit Gur-Arie
Guest

Sure you can. Raise taxes….

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

How is it we have a post like this right below Sanders calling for Medicare for all. How can people be that detached from reality?