Monday, October 7, 2024

Open Enrollment Season for Medicare and Medicare Advantage: What you should know

This is an unusually long post, but I decided it was better to have all the information in one post rather to divide it into two. Hopefully you can find the part/s you feel of use to you.

It is Medicare re-enrollment season again, so it seems to me to be a good time to review some of the key issues seniors should consider when deciding to sign up for the same, or a new plan. I have written about Medicare and Medicare Advantage a number of times (e.g., “Insurers in trouble for the wrong reason: Wall St. wants them to rip you off for even MORE!”, Aug 22, 2024; Medicare Advantage: OK, it's bad for the country, but what about for me?, Dec 6, 2022) and have been critical of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, but I hope that this piece will be more informational. If you are Medicare eligible, You probably get a lot of “information” from both Medicare and MA plans at this time of year, the former providing nothing that could much help you decide (“it’s all good!”) and the latter not only assuring you that MA is the right thing, but that their MA plan is the best one for you. There are some things you should know, and consider, and I will provide some information and some opinions, trying to carefully label the opinions.

To begin with, it makes a difference if you are first starting on Medicare or are doing your annual re-enrollment (and perhaps changing plans). If you are starting, this is not necessarily the time of year when it happens; it happens whenever you turn 65. At that point, you are required to enroll in Medicare Part A, which is what covers inpatient hospitalization and is the only part paid for by the Medicare Trust Fund, funded by your Medicare deductions. If you are still working and are covered by an employer health plan, you do not need to enroll in Part B yet. Part B, which pays for doctor (and other clinician) fees and all outpatient care (including that rendered while you are actually in the hospital, even sleeping there for a night or two; this is a neat trick but not part of this discussion), is paid for by monthly payments by you, supplemented as necessary by general taxes. The “standard” monthly premium is now $174.70 (if your mean adjusted gross income, MAGI, as a couple is less than $206,000), but it can be decreased or eliminated for low-income people and is higher for high-income people thorough a formula called IRMAA (Income-related monthly adjustment amount). More of this financial information is here, from Medicare, and here from a private counselor. The IRMAA is based on your last tax return, so if you retire in 2024, it will be based on your 2023 return. If you think that you will make a lot less in retirement than you did in the last year you worked, you can appeal this, providing evidence that your MAGI will be less than it was before retirement. Anyway, you must enroll in and pay for Part B once you are no longer covered by your employer’s plan, and if you don’t you are subject to significant penalties.

There are two other letters, Part C and Part D. Part C is Medicare Advantage, about which more in a moment. Part D is the Medicare Drug Plan, passed under the GW Bush administration. It requires Medicare recipients to have such a plan, all of which are sold by private insurance companies, mostly the same ones that sell insurance to pre-Medicare people and also sell Medicare Advantage plans. It is good for them (opinion) as everyone is required to pay them a premium, and they work hard to pay out as little as possible, as do all insurance plans. (See my blog post Medicare Part D: Learn from my mistakes, Dec 13, 2022). I’ll just say now it can be confusing; you may want the plan with the lowest premiums, especially if you are not on drugs that require a high co-pay, but that is sometimes hard to figure out. You gotta do it, though.

Which brings us to the choice between Traditional Medicare (TM), a government funded system available to all eligible people (over 65 and some others with disabilities), and Medicare Advantage, which is not Medicare (despite the name) but a group of private insurance products paid for with Medicare dollars. In general, these are very similar to HMO or PPO plans for pre-Medicare customers. Both have advantages (no pun intended, by me, although the renaming of the program by Congress from Medicare+Choice is apparently an intentional effort to promote it), and disadvantages. A recent Associated Press article (‘Medicare Advantage shopping season arrives with a dose of confusion and some political implications’ Sept 28, 2024) notes that MA benefits are becoming less and choice of plans fewer.

The advantages (OK, I’ll call them plusses) of MA plans include one premium, often completely covered by Medicare dollars with little or no out-of-pocket cost to the recipient, that includes coverage for Part A, Part B, and Part D. It also may include coverage for other things not covered by TM, including glasses, hearing aids, and gym memberships. It may or may not include mental health coverage, and if it does the character and quality of that coverage varies. It rarely if ever includes long-term care. While many of these extra benefits are kind of loss-leaders that cost the insurers little, the big plusses of MA are not needing to pay a Part B or Part D premium in addition, or to buy a Medicare Supplement (no letter code here*) to cover the costs incurred and not paid by TM to its recipients. The big cost for folks with TM is that it only pays 80% of approved charges for hospitalization, so if you have a hospitalization for something that Medicare decides it can be charged $1000 for (this is not what the hospital charges, which can and usually is several times more, but they have to take the Medicare-approved amount), it only pays $800 and you have to pay the $200. Or $2000 if the approved charge is $10,000. Or whatever. It can be and often is a lot, which is why people on TM should buy a Supplement plan that will cover the difference. But cost them more.

So, so far this looks like a win for MA plans over TM: one premium, no Part B or Part D premiums, no need for a Supplement plan to cover the 20%, and some extra perks. This is why they are often well-received by the folks who enroll in them, and what is pitched in their mailings and TV ads. There are, however, some potential (and frequent) minuses to MA plans, which may want to make you consider TM, plus a Supplement.

The key issue is that MA is a private insurance plan, not Medicare, and this can and does result in some limitations as well as some more surprising payment issues, like denial of payment. As I mentioned above, MA programs are like HMO and PPO plans, and this means a limited network of providers (hospital and doctors), usually in your geographic area. Unlike TM, which pays claims from providers on a per-episode basis at the rate set by Medicare, MA plans get your money up front and pays providers based on deals they have negotiated, which is why you are restricted in the places that you can get care (they ones they have the best deals with). This is important, and so it is critical for you to be sure that the places and people from which you get care are “in-network” for them. If you have a second home or travel a lot or spend time with family outside your home region, you want to be sure that you can get non-emergency care there, since MA plans are usually geographic. In addition, you might consider providers you think you might want to get care in the future if something bad happens. For example, many top hospitals that people seek out across the country if they have cancer or another dangerous condition, such as Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, and Sloan-Kettering, do not accept any MA plans, but do accept TM.

The thing is that these may not seem as important to you if you are 65 and relatively healthy and free glasses and hearing aids and gym memberships are nice, but they increasingly become issues as you age. Older people have more diseases than younger (even younger seniors) and use more care. Consider what your future might hold. If right now you just have a few aches and pains, and take a couple of medications that control some conditions, if you live you will get older and as you get older these are likely to get worse. Sometimes people in MA plans that are actually covering their expensive care can find the insurers urging them to switch to TM, since while those companies are happy to accept your premiums (or those Medicare pays on your behalf, which is, BTW, more than they allocate for TM patients) they are less enthusiastic about paying out large amounts, especially when it can go on and on.

The other big minus that comes from MA plans being private insurance is that they can, and often do, deny coverage for things your doctor has ordered. They can do that. If a procedure or treatment is Medicare-approved, TM simply pays it (although, in hospitalization, only 80%). MA plans, however, like other private insurance plans, can deny coverage for a variety of reasons. With some, denial is almost routine for anything expensive. You can appeal it, but most people don’t. And they can deny it again. And most people won’t keep appealing it. Relatively recent legislation requires MA to pay for any Medicare-approved treatment, but that doesn’t mean that they always do; they can deny on technicalities and even if they must pay fines, it is often considered “a cost of doing business” that is less than actually paying for your care.

So maybe get an MA plan when you are younger and healthier and then switch to TM when you need more care? In addition to this being exactly what the MA plans want – to cover healthy seniors and divest of them when they become expensive to care for, the other big issue is eligibility for and cost of Medicare Supplement (Medigap) plans. Under the law, if you take TM when you first start receiving Medicare, all those offering Supplement plans must offer them to you at “community rates”, that is, not adjusted for your individual health status. But if you sign up for an MA plan, and then a year or ten or 15 down the road decide you want to switch to TM for some reason (maybe you are unhappy with the providers available to you, and want to go to an institution that doesn’t accept MA, or are frustrated with the denials you receive for care that you and your physician think you need), you can at this re-enrollment period. But the “community rating” charge for Supplement plans no longer is required; those companies offering them (often the same ones offering MA) can do underwriting. This means that they can assess your current health status and risks and adjust their premiums upward based on it, or deny you coverage altogether. Since you are often making this change when you are older, sicker, and have greater risk, you may not be able to get, or afford, a Supplement. This is a serious consideration, both when you first get Medicare and in the early years of re-enrollment before you become very sick. And, if you live long enough, you probably will. So seriously think about the decision, including both current and potential future benefits and risk of harm.

Of course, and here is my big opinion, the whole idea of taking something that is GOOD, Medicare, which covers all aged Americans, and turning it over to the private sector to operate as a business where they get paid in advance and try to pay out as little as possible, is BAD. What we need is improved and expanded Medicare for All. Expanded means everyone in our country, not just seniors, are in the same plan; everyone from birth on has Medicare and we do not have a hodgepodge of different programs covering our population. All in it together. Improved means getting rid of all the negatives of the current TM program: paying for 100%, not 80% of approved charges, covering all necessary health issues including dental care, mental health care, and long-term care as well as glasses and hearing aids.

Wouldn’t this cost more? Well, cost whom? The outlay for actual health care for all those expanded and improved services would certainly be more, but the outlay for “health care” which includes profit for insurers, providers, and drug companies would be, for the government and for you out of pocket (unless you are extremely wealthy and can afford it) less. Think about that. Should money you pay, in taxes and out-of-pocket, for health care be used for providing health care to you and your fellow Americans, or should a major portion of it be used to generate huge profits for companies and pay their executives multi-million-dollar salaries?

Think about it.

*Another confusing thing. While Medicare Supplements (MediGap) plans are not as a group assigned a “Part” letter by Medicare, the various plans do have 10 different letter designations, A-D, F, G, K-N (no E, H-J). This is actually good and one of the very few rational and helpful things in US health insurance, as ALL plans of one letter have to offer exactly the same benefits; a K or an N plan from any insurer has to have the same benefits as from any other, so you can just choose the company by cost to you and service. Unfortunately, they do not get better or worse, or more or less comprehensive, as they progress through the alphabet; you have to read what each one covers. That would be asking too much!

 

Saturday, September 21, 2024

Once again, the US trails rich countries in health care -- except in cost! Why do we tolerate it?

Sometimes the news is good, sometimes it is bad (too much of the latter!!). Sometimes it is surprising, and sometimes it is not. Often it is more of the same, and sometimes this is surprising because we had thought or hoped that it had changed, preferably for the better, and sometimes it is not surprising because we knew it had not.

A good example of this is international health rankings, in which the US consistently and continually ranks at the bottom of the wealthy nations and has a health status that is in the middle of what are known as “middle income countries”. These are called middle-income because they are better off than the really poor countries, but compared to the US and similar countries, they are poor.  In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a ranking of health system performance in their member nations, based on 1997 data, in which the US ranked #37 in the world, between Costa Rica and Slovenia, on overall performance. When many were aghast that the US could be like Slovenia, the prime minister of that nation took offense and pointed out that his country had been making significant advances. In the area of Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy (DALE) the US in fact ranked #72! I had reproduced these tables in  US Health Rankings remain low and #Trumpcare will make them worse!, June 18, 2017, and do so again now.

Of course, 1997 is a long time ago. Maybe, since then, we, like Slovenia, have gotten better. Except we haven’t. This is the sadly non-surprising part of the news.

While the WHO has not redone that 2000 survey, in 2017 Bloomberg published its Global Health Index, and, as I said then,

Now, we have new rankings to refer to, the Bloomberg Global HealthIndex from 2017. It would be nice to be able to say that the US had moved up from the 2000 WHO report, but now, at #34 (and still just behind Costa Rica) the change is really insignificant. Slovenia, it might be noted, has moved up, to #27, so maybe their efforts are paying off!



For an ongoing comparison, the Commonwealth Fund publishes a report every few years called “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall” comparing US health outcomes and cost to other high-income countries. I have cited it, in its various editions, on many occasions (Mirror on the Wall: Commonwealth Fund report continues to show US has poor outcomes at high cost, June 26, 2010, ACA: Where are we? And where should we go?, July 27, 2014, US Health Rankings remain low and #Trumpcare will make them worse!, June 18, 2017, Our health system: Not equitable, not effective, and not even efficient. Bad business!, March 24, 2022), and address it in detail in my 2015 book “Health, Medicine and Justice: Designing a fair and equitable health system” (Copernicus). The relative performance and ranking of the other countries varies a bit over the years, but the position of the US at the bottom of the heap, #1 only (and consistently) in cost, and worst in performance, is unchanging. The most recent report, “Mirror, Mirror 2024: A portrait of a failing US health system” has just come out, and the title provides the answer: not good. Not better. Failing. And, probably, failing worse. The study’s conclusion, in the Summary, is:

The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage.

Here is the table of rankings:



And, if you prefer a visual portrayal about how much worse the US health system is performing:



But we do lead in spending:



And, logically, trail the pack by a lot in value for dollar spent:



This is the non-surprising non-news. But, while not surprising, it should be very concerning. It’s not getting better, and there is little reason to think that it will, if past performance is a predictor of future performance. And we’re talking more than two decades of consistent past performance. It is not a question of what the fact are, of what is true, no longer if it ever was. The US health system performs terribly as a health (or even medical care) system. Costs are enormously high, outcomes are consistently poor, and we dramatically underperform every other country that has in any way comparable resources (and many, many with far fewer resources). It is incredibly inequitable. See, for example, some of the countries grouped around the US in the 2017 Bloomberg rankings, such as Qatar, Brunei, and Bahrain – countries with money and inequitable distribution. So, the question is why are we not doing anything about it?

The answer simply requires a little re-framing of the data presented above. I, and likely you, see the incredible cost/performance ratio as a negative, something to be addressed and fixed. But all that money that is being spent is going somewhere, and certainly a large amount of it is not going to provide high-quality healthcare. It is going to profits for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and the Wall St. investors that own them, and for enormous salaries for the C-suite executives who run them, as well as those in the ostensibly non-profit sector (see Why many nonprofit (wink, wink) hospitals are rolling in money by Elisabeth Rosenthal (Washington Post, July 29, 2024). For them the current system is working very well, thank you, they are getting very rich. Your problem, and mine, is that we think that this system should be about providing high-quality and cost-effective care for the American people, at which it is obviously failing. But if we understand it as a cash-cow for these corporations, as a method for transferring money from the rest of the economy to them, it is working great. And, because it is working so well and they are making so much money and spending a great deal of it contributing to politicians, it is unlikely to change.

Unless YOU make it change.  There is, and has been for decades, a loud and effective rant from the corporations and individuals profiting from your health care dollars and their employees (or shall we say “beneficiaries of their largess”) in the legislative, think tank, and punditry arenas, that the Democratic party, and particularly its progressive wing, are radical socialists who are anti-American. This has been very successful. See above, we have kept to the unique American way of doing things. The one that takes money from you in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles and provides you with poor outcomes. That every other wealthy capitalist country has found a way of delivering higher quality for less money is the evidence that it is possible and will not destroy the country. But it will destroy the conveyor belt that takes your money and puts it into their pockets, and this is a terrifying thought, so that they will do anything to prevent it.

Their tactics include both painting mainstream Democrats who merely want to tinker around the edges of the system as flaming radicals, and funding organizations such as the Heritage Foundation to come up with truly radical proposals like Project 2025 (pdf of the health section here) that would institutionalize the worst, most anti-human practices going on today. The strategy is that if they can get half the country to support politicians who support those policies (whether those voters actually support those policies or not), it moves the center of the discussion to the “right” and means compromise will be much less threatening to them. But much more threatening to you.

People want good healthcare for themselves, for their families, and for their friends. They don’t want to pay ever-more for health insurance only to have the insurers deny their care, often as a matter of routine, when they need it. They deserve, as do the people of other countries, a health system that is intrinsically structured to provide the best possible health care for our people and not to make money for Wall St., big corporations, insurance companies and health systems. We know it can be done as it has been done everywhere else.

Make it the thing you vote for and let your representatives know it; you want health care, as the old saying goes, for people and not for profit!


Total Pageviews