The Overturned Medicare Veto: A Good First Step Toward Resolving The Problems Of Privatization
Last week’s action by Congress to override President Bush’s veto of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (HR 6331) was a landmark step toward reversing the tide of privatization of Medicare over the last three decades. The votes in Congress were a resounding defeat for conservative policies and the lobbying efforts of the insurance industry. There was no ambiguity in the override votes — 383 to 41 in the House and 70 to 26 in the Senate, with 153 Republicans in the House and 21 Republicans in the Senate defying the president. The courageous leadership of Senator Edward Kennedy, long a champion of better access to health care, helped to head off a disastrous veto of this legislation despite his current medical problems.

The major reason given for the presidential veto was the bill’s cuts of overpayments to private Medicare plans and the alleged “decreased choice available to seniors.” Conservative policy makers were unrelenting in their reaction to the override. Mike Leavitt, HHS Secretary, opined in the Washington Times that “Democrats in Congress have loaded this bill with provisions that undermine choice and, worse, pave the way to still more government control of Americans’ personal health care decisions.”
The bill cancels the 10.6 percent cut in physician reimbursement which would have taken place, instead providing a 1.1 percent increase. The bill’s provisions will cost about $20 billion over the next five years, with about $14 billion coming from cuts in overpayments to Medicare Advantage, the private plans. It will save taxpayers about $45 billion over the next 10 years. New consumer protections will be put in place to reduce deceptive marketing by private plans and to hold them more accountable. Other improvements include reduction of copayments for mental health services from 50 percent to 20 percent (the usual for other Medicare services), new authority for HHS to require coverage of certain drugs, and an increase in low-income assistance for Medicare beneficiaries.
A brief historical review shows just how big a change this overturned veto is concerning overpayments to private Medicare plans. Private Medicare HMOs were first authorized by Congress through the Social Security Amendments of 1972. Payment rates were to be negotiated in advance between HMOs and Medicare on the basis of capitation (ie., the number of enrollees in the plan). HMOs were required to share any cost savings on a 50-50 basis with Medicare, and were limited to a profit of 10 percent of Medicare’s payments. The private market found this unattractive, and by 1980 only one HMO had contracted with Medicare.
In an effort to increase enrollment in private Medicare HMOs, Congress passed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), which liberalized payment arrangements for participating plans. It was assumed that managed care would save money, so payments were set at 95 percent of what Medicare expected to pay, by county of residence, for care of enrollees in traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. Although HMOs continued to complain about poor reimbursement, they could generate large profits by enrolling healthier people needing less care and avoiding sicker patients. It was soon found that sicker patients who were disenrolled by HMOs cost Medicare 160 percent more in the first six months after disenrollment. A 1989 report estimated that Medicare was paying 15 to 33 percent more for care of beneficiaries in private HMOs than in Original Medicare.
When Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, they increased their efforts to privatize Medicare. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) created Medicare + Choice (M+C) plans, with complex reimbursement arrangements that still afforded substantial profits by cherry picking the market. Private plans were not required to adjust their payments because of the lesser risk of their enrollees. The General Accounting Office in 2000 reported that Medicare spent about 21 percent more on M+C enrollees than it would have spent under Original Medicare. Despite this news, Congress passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA) that same year, which further increased M+C payments, with fewer regulatory requirements. Many M+C HMOs gamed the system, raising premiums to generate higher profits, restricting services, and then often exiting the market.
More recently, of course, we had the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (also dubbed the Medicare Middleman Multiplication Act by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman). The MMA continued generous overpayments to Medicare Advantage (MA), the successor to M+C. Overpayments of MA plans average 13 percent higher than Original Medicare (19 percent higher for the most popular private fee-for-service ((PFFS) plans, still with no effective risk adjustment.
So history over three decades is quite clear that private plans cost more than traditional Medicare, are less reliable, and wouldn’t be in business at all without overpayments. The privatized Medicare experiment has failed. The latest action by Congress is an important first step in reversing the failures of privatization, but much more needs to be done. These further reforms are high on the list for further action by Congress:
• eliminate all overpayments entirely (there are still $150 billion in overpayments available to private Medicare plans over the next 10 years, despite this recent modest cut)
• require a level playing field for all private plans (they won’t play!)
• add cost-effectiveness as a criterion for determining coverage and reimbursement policies of Medicare
• and allow the government to use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate discounts for drugs, medical devices and supplies.
Let’s hope that last week’s overwhelming votes in Congress opposing conservative rhetoric and the health insurance lobby emboldens those running for Congress this year, the 2009 Congress, and our new President (Obama!) to build on this important first step toward health care reform.
Buy This Book: http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=376
Adapted from Shredding the Social Contract: The Privatization of Medicare, Common Courage Press, 2006, and by John Geyman, With permission of the publisher, Common Courage Press, Monroe, ME.



Conclusions are off
When the private medicare first started, reimbursement to the private industry was basically set equal to medicare cost, and the private market jumped on this because they used rules/restrictions far more effectively and their costs were lower resulting in profit. As reimbursements were then frozen, private insurers left the market. The republican controlled congress got the insurers back in the game by offering more than what medicare costs, so again, at the chance to make a profit, the private insurers jumped in, and that's where we are today. You cannot argue that private medicare causes costs to be higher... it's just that congress decided to pay them extra to keep them interested. In fact, the very reason they came into the market originally was that they could control the cost better and pocket the difference. The recent vote starts the reversal of that policy. You also cannot argue that without the 'overpayments' that no private insurer would particpate, because they are able to control costs better and do make a profit even when given Medicare-equal costs.
More interesting though is the fact that this system has *nothing* to do with the whole 10% cut to physicians. That cut was a result of the fact that the traditional (public) medicare costs exceeded the medicare budget and so by law, the govt. hits the provider with lower rates. The *reason* for the doctor cuts was because that program is not adequately controlling cost increases.
In order to avoid the politically unsavory task of actually abiding by the system's design and cutting doctor rates, they took money from another source. And after 18 months I guarantee you that once again the Medicare costs will outpace budget, and once again the lawmakers will be forced to consider what to do about the mandatory doctor rate cuts. Where will they get the money this time? Cut Medicare Advantage 5-10 years out (2015 - 2020)? Or will they make the necessary systemic changes to keep both costs and revenues stable?
Even if you completely got rid of the private Medicare industry, Medicare would still suffer from this underlying problem of cost inflation. Cutting benefits or increasing age of eligibility or raising more taxes are short term fixes. What they need is a long term view of cost containment that doesn't simply hit the doctors with lower rates. And for that we need utilization control, without stifling medical innovation.
The private parties should never have had a place
in the system. If under certain conditions cost can be controlled instead of profit those funds should be held available for health care needs. There is no reason any money should be siphoned out of the pot for anybody's profit.
Health care for all. No excuses.
www.nurseconscience.blogspot.com
net value
the only reason is when the net net result is lower....
private insurers are prohibited from making 'too much' profit in this particular system... if revenue exceeds costs by a certain amount then they *have* to give back the money or put it into lower premiums/higher benefits.
But I agree that the 'overpayments' as they are called right now (which were set up in the late 90's) should have been already phased out, now that the market is up and running.
you're right it doesn't make sense to have the total result be more expensive.... some badly managed insurers have actually become so dependent on these programs it's ridiculous...
Medicare vote = band aid
If you're interested in the dismal financial situation in Medicare then read on. Here are excerpts from congressional testimony from Kerry Weems, the Acting Administrator of CMS, given Feb 14th, 2008:
"let me be clear about one thing: this budget is not a panacea for the funding problems looming on the horizon. Every member of this Committee knows that spending on Medicare is growing faster than we can afford. As the President noted in his recent State of the Union address, painful choices lie ahead for policymakers if entitlement growth is allowed to continue unchecked: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, or crippling deficits."
"in just eleven years from now the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund that pays Medicare Part A benefits will no longer be able to pay full benefits. For those of you who think that eleven years is still far off, you should know that we already are on a path leading to exhaustion of the HI trust fund."
"Current Medicare spending levels threaten benefits and access for current and future beneficiaries. Medicare spending is projected to be 3.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009. Under current law, the 2007 Trustees Report predicts that Medicare spending will grow to 7.3 percent of GDP by 2035, and to 11.3 percent of GDP by 2080. These trends are unsustainable. The FY 2008 budget included proposals to begin to address out-of-control costs, but Congress did not act to curb the spending in 2007. In fact, in some cases, Congress intervened to stop CMS from implementing administrative savings proposals."
"let us at least agree to acknowledge that in the absence of major change, the HI trust fund will no longer be solvent by the time any 54-year-old sitting in this room reaches Medicare eligibility"
There is futher text about the kinds of measures they need to take in order to bring the 7.2% cost inflation down to 5% over the next five years... a big goal, which still only addresses short term, and not long term solvency.
Hopefully we're getting closer to a single-payer system.
This huge step by our democratic Congress suggests that they're willing to reform healthcare, and hopefully to a single-payer system once the insurance companies give up and go away.
Single-payer here we come, hopefully.
IF the Democrats weren't so timid!
Ever since 1994 they've largely rolled over and played dead on health care, and let Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk quash any kind of debate.
Universal health care is NOT "socialised medicine"!
Why doesn't anybody ever testify in Congress
That the defense budget is growing faster than we can afford. Now that is true. Health care we all need. We have to afford what we need. But no-bid contracts to KBR to build housing for the troops that ends up being substandard and unsafe--actually electrocuting to death a few of our best young people, that's unconscionable! That's what we cannot afford.
Health care for all. No excuses.
www.nurseconscience.blogspot.com
And the KBRer's Don't Pay Taxes
I get so frustrated with the whole corporate entitlement system associated with the war machine -- KBR contractors only pay taxes on the first $2,000 in earnings in Iraq and elsewhere. All the rest is theirs to keep -- tax free. A gift from you and me. And that's just a small part of the corporate welfare system in this nation.
I grow so weary of the scare tactics on social or human rights issues for which we really can afford to invest resources: like health care.
Medicare reforms are necessary. But continued duping of the elderly and the disabled in order to fatten the profits for insurance companies is just flat the wrong reform. Everybody in the pool, nobody out. It's the right way to reform.
And perhaps if we stopped finding ways to funnel taxpayer dollars to mega-corporations we'd have more resources overall. If everybody -- even the corporate darlings -- paid their fair share, we'd be moving toward a more just nation with better healthcare, education, infrastructure and true opportunities for many millions more Americans. I thought that was our great strength.
Do you suppose Congress needs a bit more goosing by their employers? And I mean you and me.
Right on
I certainly would welcome an end to coporate welfare. Special deals need to end, but that means for the things that people both like and dislike, such as: war profits, subsidized housing (so-called affordable housing), oil subsidies, farming subsidies, auto-manufacturing subsidies, airline bailouts, finance company bailouts. They've all got to go!
However, Medicare private fee for service plans are an example of the govt paying for services... though I agree that current reimbursement is above where it needs to be and can be reduced. The government still needs to contract with the private sector that it cannot or chooses not to do on it's own... (like all the processing of traditional medicare claims that the govt contracts out).
The govt needs boeing and northrop grumman to design planes, just like the govt needs the private sector to create adaptive, modern claim systems that meet the ever changing needs of program administration.
Private FFS medicare could go away, but 10 million seniors have chosen them as a good deal.... there will still be a lot of people that see a good deal even if the reimbursment is brought down to 100% Medicare, where is should be. Getting rid of that would be reducing available options.
Ultimate solution is still a single system for all.
it is not a panacea in and of itself, but under a single payer system, all the other problems become more manageable - much simpler billing systems that remove enormous costs now borne by providers fighting with the insurance companies for payment, easier and more effective health promotion when an individual is in the same system across the lifespan, easier to do research on so many issues when all the needed info is in the public domain. There are huge areas of healthcare research where the insurance records provide powerful data, but right now we can only get it for the medicare patients, since all the private insurers keep the comparable info secret. One could go on.
As for the Medicare private systems, if they can actually take the same patients and deliver the same service for less than the government system, they are welcome to, but they couldn't before, which is why they got Congress to give them the extra subsidies. And of course the patients think those programs a good deal, since they were being artificially subsidized at everyone else's expense.