THCB

Can Medicare Reach Its 65th Birthday?

Every day, 10,000 people in the U.S. celebrate their 65th birthday, making each one of these seniors eligible for Medicare. The very program that gives America’s seniors access to affordable health care will turn a youngish 48 on July 30, but in a biting irony, it could go bankrupt before reaching its 65th birthday.

We cannot wish away or ignore the reality that Medicare’s Part A trust fund — the portion that pays hospital claims — is currently projected to run out of money by 2026. The good news, however, is that it is possible to put Medicare on a sustainable path if we can surmount current political hurdles.

It is no secret that Washington is better known for what it is not doing than what it is doing these days. Partisan gridlock has proved to be an insurmountable impasse for potentially worthy legislative efforts. This is especially true when it comes to making the changes needed to sustain Medicare’s future, where Washington is truly making things much harder than they need to be.

Much of the current debate has focused on reforms that would only slightly defer Medicare’s pending insolvency, with the potential for mere cost-shifting. With many of those recommendations, political disagreement is so strong that an extremely limited chance exists to pass a compromise version. However, even if enacted, these reforms would only address the symptoms of Medicare’s condition rather than the underlying problem. The result would only help Medicare limp to its 65th birthday at best.

There is a much more meaningful reform out there that addresses the underlying problem, and, surprisingly, bipartisan consensus exists around the need to end the fee-for-service system in Medicare.

The current fee-for-service payment system compensates physicians and other health care providers for each service they deliver, such as an office visit, test or other procedure. While it is critical that providers be fairly compensated, Medicare’s fee-for-service structure contributes to inefficient care that is often disconnected with actual patient outcomes. It has accelerated the program’s financial imbalance with inflationary spending that has little or no connection to helping beneficiaries get healthier.

Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives agree that changing fee-for-service Medicare would extend the program’s timeline by addressing the root cause of its troubles. A number of proposals released this year can serve as a starting point for deliberations in Congress. They include those developed by leading think tanks, such as the Bipartisan Policy Center and The Engelberg Center at the Brookings Institution, as well as those introduced, or currently being drafted in Congress, including the Medicare Physician Payment Innovation Act of 2013, initiated by Reps. Allison Schwartz, D-Pa., and Joe Heck, R-Nev.

The underlying concept central to these proposals and to meaningful, broader Medicare reform is to transform the system so that it rewards value instead of volume. These proposals support the advancement of innovation so that beneficiaries truly receive effective care. Moving away from fee-for-service to new, value-driven payment models is the first step to improving care for beneficiaries.

New models are already being tested by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and across the private sector that reimburse providers through bundled or capitated payments. Under these models, instead of paying for each individual service, providers are paid a single fee to take care of each patient or set of patients, based on their specific illness or a defined episode of care, with all services covered by that fee. This allows physicians greater flexibility to deliver and personalize patient care to increase effectiveness and often times allows them the chance to share in any savings from improved efficiencies, if quality is maintained or improved. Unlike fee-for-service, these new payment models provide the right kind of incentives, encouraging the best, rather than the most care.

If we are to help Medicare reach its own 65th birthday, it is vitally important that policymakers begin to rise above partisan factions, engage in constructive deliberation on these issues, and take action. The opportunity exists, and the cause is great. Medicare is an important part of our nation’s history and reform must be made a priority if the program is to live on and remain for generations to come.

To ensure Medicare celebrates its 65th birthday, we must act now.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin is president of the American Action Forum. Kenneth Thorpe is the Robert W. Woodruff professor and chairman of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Emory University. Both are co-chairs of the Partnership for the Future of Medicare, a bipartisan organization focused on ensuring the long-term security of Medicare.

This column originally appeared in USA Today on July 20, 2013.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

13
Leave a Reply

11 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Gail VokseRoger CollierRalph KlingerBrentPeter1 Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Gail Vokse
Guest

Why are people living much longer today than they were before?

Because of medical care. In order to keep people alive in the future, the money will have to come from somewhere.

Medical staff won’t want to work for nothing. It’s not just Medicare that will struggle to see it’s 65th birthday, the economy as a whole is on thin ice.

bob hertz
Guest
bob hertz

One suspects that long before 2026, Parts A and B at least will be melded together. This will enable the whole package to invade general revenue with no hesitation. Based on unavoidable demographics and most growth in per person spending, Medicare in total will cost $1 trillion a year some time in the early 2020’s. That is a lead pipe certainty. The big question is what will federal tax revenues be at that point. I get rather annoyed with political economists who refer to GDP growth onky. It is totally possible for tax revenues to stagnate even while GDP is… Read more »

Roger Collier
Guest
Roger Collier

This is a fascinating discussion about an enormously important subject, but it’s rife with misleading statements. There are in fact two Medicare Trust Funds, Hospital Insurance (HI) covering Part A, and Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI) covering Parts B and D. The key difference between the funds is in their financing: HI depends on payroll taxes, while SMI depends on Part B and Part D enrollee premiums plus general tax revenues. Theoretically, SMI cannot be depleted since premiums and tax revenue infusions are increased each year to reflect anticipated expenditures. On the other hand, HI is projected to be exhausted in… Read more »

Ralph Klinger
Guest

It may be projected so because of the problem that the company is currently facing but it will not always be so. With proper management in terms of finances and operations, the company will be here to stay for a long time. Besides, why should they take away something that have helped them a lot for a very long time.

Matthew Jayden
Guest

I don’t think partisan factions are going to end anytime soon. The delays and glitches are not helping very much either. But, yes, it’d be great if Medicare made it to its 65th birthday.

Bob Hertz
Guest

Thanks. I was not aware that an actual law tied benefits to the trust fund nominal balances.

Given the voting strength of seniors, and given the dependence of many cities on hospital employment, I would say that if the trust fund balance was negative, the law would be changed in about 2 hours on the floor of Congress to allow general funds.

Barry Carol
Guest
Barry Carol

The first line of the 2nd paragraph should read established to be financed with a dedicated payroll tax coupled with a trust fund mechanism.

Barry Carol
Guest
Barry Carol

Bob – My understanding of the law governing the Medicare Part A, Social Security and Disability trust funds is that they are only authorized to pay benefits to the extent that there is a positive balance in the relevant trust fund. So, when we hear that if the Social Security fund balance falls to zero it will only be able to pay 75% of promised benefits means that the payroll taxes coming in during the year following the balance reaching zero will only be sufficient to pay 75% of the benefits due to beneficiaries in that year. These programs were… Read more »

Bob Hertz
Guest

Barry, it is my impression that providers in most other nations negotiate bundled payments all the time. I suppose this is much easier for them because hospital biiling is not bizarre like ours, and rehab centers are government funded. and drug prices are controlled. Anyways, they do it. One side point that is a pet peeve of mine: Holtz Eakin especially has been around Washington enough to know that the Medicare Trust Fund has no money in it to run out of. Medicare checks are cut every month by the US Treasury. It will cut those checks if the trust… Read more »

Peter1
Guest
Peter1

Bob, supposedly fraudulent banks were too big to fail (or prosecute). Think Medicare will be?

Brent
Guest

I quite agree with you Bob, no matter what happens, as long as the Govt. can tax and borrow money, they will keep writing Medicare checks.

Barry Carol
Guest
Barry Carol

I remember reading in the early 1980’s that the Medicare Part A Trust Fund was projected to go bankrupt by 1988. Now the estimate is by 2026. We’ll see. For hospital based care, which Part A pays for, the fee for service model disappeared when the DRG system was implemented in 1983 or thereabouts. Moving to bundled and capitated payments for surgical procedures and management of chronic conditions like diabetes, asthma, COPD, etc. is a fine idea but most physician practices and even hospitals don’t feel able to take on significant actuarial risk because they can’t estimate likely costs for… Read more »

Patrick Monk.RN.
Guest
Patrick Monk.RN.

Nothing will change significantly until some kind of restraint is imposed on the obscene profits that corporate interests derive from human suffering, a good start would be SINGLE PAYER and OVERTURN CITIZEN’S UNITED.
Patrick Monk.RN. SF. Ca.