Medicare re-enrollment: Time to consider being dissatisfied with a new plan!

It is Medicare re-enrollment season again. It began Oct 15 and runs through the end of the year. This is when, if you are dissatisfied with the Medicare plan that you are in, you can choose a new plan with which to be dissatisfied. I know this, if for no other reason, by the large number of pieces of junk mail telling me of the joy I will have if I enroll in this-or-that Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, not to mention the commercials blanketing television programs. I almost only watch live TV for sports, so I am seeing these on sports shows; I don’t know what it means that sports show ads target seniors. Maybe it’s just that ads on all shows target seniors; it is presumed that we are sitting around doing nothing but watching television so are an audience not only for Medicare Advantage but all kinds of “health” ads, ranging from those for incredibly expensive recombinant-DNA drugs (anything ending in “ab”, for starters) for uncommon conditions to the touting of ineffective (and possibly dangerous) nostrums. At least we don’t see as many ads for mobility scooters “at no cost to you” (albeit to the taxpayers) since some of the vendors went to prison. Unless they are soon to be pardoned, not an impossibility.

There is only one form of real Medicare, “Traditional Medicare” or TM. This is what you paid those Medicare taxes for that were recorded on all your paychecks, to fund the Medicare Trust Fund. Well, at least for Medicare Part A, which covers inpatient care and is what is covered by the Medicare Trust Fund. Medicare Part B, covering outpatient care (including outpatient procedures) is funded by general taxes plus monthly payments from recipients that are graduated by income (based upon the previous year’s tax form, so for the coming year, 2026, based on your last filed return which was for 2024). The base payment this year is $185/month, although subsidies may be available for low-income people. But while TM (unlike MA) does cover you for all Medicare-approved treatment, and it, not the hospital, sets the charge, it does not cover all of what it permits the hospital to charge you. For inpatient care, in particular, it will only pay 80% of whatever it has approved as what a hospital can charge. That is, if Medicare has approved a charge of $1000 for procedure X, it will only pay the hospital $800, and you are on the hook for the rest. So (if you can afford it) you should buy a Medicare Supplement (Medigap) policy to cover that. There are several types, but at least they are standardized benefit packages (labeled by letters A-N, except E, I, and J; these letters not to be confused with the Medicare Parts A, B, C, D). In addition, you are required to have a drug plan (Medicare Part D), which is an additional expense.

Besides being confusing, that is a lot of expense for TM: monthly payments for Part B, Part D, and your Medigap. On top of that it doesn’t cover all the things you may need or want, like vision correction (glasses; it does cover treatment of eye diseases and surgery), or hearing aids. That facilitates the marketing of Medicare Advantage (officially Medicare Part C), as intended: one easy monthly payment (which, depending upon the MA plan, may be completely covered by Medicare without out-of-pocket payments from you) covers it all – inpatient, outpatient, drugs, and glasses, hearing aids and even gym memberships! Why would you not want this?

I have written previously why you may not want MA (The WiSER program to erode your Medicare coverage: Not WISE for you! Sept 22, 2025, Medicare and Medicaid at 60: Need more -- and more threatened -- than at 50!, Aug 6 2025, and other older posts), which boils down to the fact that they are health insurance plans like the one you had, and can, and do, delay and deny coverage for individuals in order to save money (or, really, make more money!) They usually are HMOs or PPOs with a limited panel of doctors and hospitals for which they will pay. While the Medigap and Part D coverage you need with TM are also sold by the same insurance companies, these benefits are much more explicitly stated and required by law to be provided, although there are certainly efforts to get you to use cheaper drugs (usually not the “ab” drugs being advertised in the next commercial!) If you travel a lot, you may find that MA plans are often based in one geographical area. Also, many “destination” hospitals that people travel to in order to receive excellent care for conditions like cancer (eg., Mayo, MD Anderson) do not accept MA. To a large extent, having an MA plan is like having the insurance that non-Medicare recipients have, warts and all. There are reports (such as in Health Care Un-Covered) that, in addition to raising their rates and cutting benefits, MA plans will be “exiting certain markets” (the unprofitable, or really less-profitable-than-they-would-like markets), leaving residents in those areas without available coverage.

"Health Care Un-Covered", the substack founded by Wendell Potter, also reports on the new report from Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) “No Real Choice: How Medicare Advantage fails seniors of color”, that shows MA plans increase (rather than decrease, as they claim) racial inequity.

PNHP’s researchers found that communities of color are being steered into MA plans not because they’re better — but because they’re cheaper upfront. This dynamic, dubbed the “Gap Trap,” means that affordability is driving people into coverage that often denies care, delays treatment and locks them into narrow networks.

The old “cheaper up front but not once you get sick” gambit.

Plus, from the PNHP study:

·       Black, Hispanic and Asian/Asian-American beneficiaries are disproportionately concentrated in MA plans that score lowest on quality ratings, while white beneficiaries are more likely to live in counties served by higher-quality plans.

·       One study found that MA prior authorization requests were denied 23% of the time for Black seniors vs. 15% for their white counterparts.

·       Despite industry claims to the contrary, racial and ethnic health disparities in the United States are not being reduced by Medicare Advantage.

·       Studies show that Black enrollees are more likely than white enrollees to choose a 5-star MA plan when offered one. They’re just not offered them as often.

·       Racial minority enrollees in MA suffer from worse clinical outcomes and face barriers accessing best quality care because of restrictive networks and misaligned financial incentives. Black MA enrollees experience higher rates of hospital readmission compared to their white peers.

When is having insurance worse than not having insurance?

And, while we’re talking about the insurance that people not yet on Medicare and not eligible for Medicaid (ie., most Americans) have, it is (you may have noticed) getting more costly. At the present time the government is shut down over disagreement between Democrats and Republicans (including the administration) as to whether subsidies that made enrollment in health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) actually affordable should be extended. For those who are fortunate enough to have employer-funded health insurance and do not have to buy plans through the ACA exchanges (154 million people), KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) reports that covering a family of four now costs almost $27,000 a year, after two straight years of more than 6% increases, and 26% over 5 years. That is a lot, especially if the family is paying a hefty portion of it (often 50% or more) out of pocket.

It's not a good situation for people not yet on Medicare, not for those on Medicaid, not for those receiving subsidies to buy policies through the ACA, and increasingly difficult for those on Medicare or Medicare Advantage. How about we covering 100% of everything through Traditional Medicare, enroll every American of all ages in it, and fund it by not having to pay insurance companies?

Don't miss laughing at, and more important being informed by, this John Oliver video!

The greatest quality deficit? Physically destroying the health care system, and, oh yeah, the people it is supposed to serve

I have previously quoted from the important JAMA paper by Schiff, Bindman, and Brennan “A Better Quality Alternative: Single Payer National Health System Reform” (JAMA Sept 14, 1994, 272(10):803-808) the observation that “denial of care” is the “gravest of quality deficits”. It is generally hard to argue with this; if people are denied care they are not going to get quality care. While it can be argued that there are some forms of care that is worse than no care, this is clearly not what the authors have in mind. They are talking about the fact that people are denied appropriate care because they do not have money or insurance. More than 30 years later this still rings true, in an America that has not yet seen a health insurance system that covers everyone, as every other well-to-do country has, and indeed is even more threatened by cuts in the coverage that we do have. As I write, the federal government is facing a shutdown, with the Democrats in Congress demanding continued funding for those who received coverage from the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA, “Obamacare”) of 2010, while the administration and Congressional Republicans steadfastly refuse to consider this, arguing mainly the high cost. This demonstrates once again their complete inhumanity and heartlessness, in no small part because earlier this year they cut more than that from the taxes of billionaires.

There are many ways to deny care, and rolling back Medicaid expansion is one. Another is closing hospitals, and many, mainly rural, hospitals, have and will close as a result of these cuts. They can also make existing insurance harder to get and more expensive, as is regularly documented in Wendell Potter’s substack “Health Care Un-Covered” and many other venues. I will talk more about this in a future blog post. But another, really effective, way to decrease access is to destroy health care facilities. Much more efficient than starving hospitals for money by discriminatory, greed-focused funding is actively blowing them up, killing the providers, and eliminating the infrastructure for providing care for anyone, insured or not. This is commonly done during a process called “war”, in which a strategy often adopted goes beyond violating the Geneva Conventions by not caring for enemy combatants, but indeed targets the elimination of the civilian health care infrastructure. The Geneva Conventions provide for not attacking health care providers, for caring for the wounded based on need, not loyalty, and certainly respecting civilian health care (some references: Rule 25 on medical providers, International Committee on the Red Cross, World Medical Association, Wikipedia (Medical Neutrality), among many others). I learned about much of this decades ago from a surgeon who worked for the International Committee on the Red Cross (ICRC) and HAD supervised one of its hospitals in Chechnya during the war there. It was this hospital which military combatants invaded, murdering four nurses. At the time, it was horrifying. Since then, such actions have become so common a practice in the 21^st century that, in itself, it almost refutes the idea that human beings have become more civilized over time.

While there are many places where combatants have used attacks on the civilian population and their health care facilities as methods of imposing their will, the attacks by the government of Israel on the healthcare facilities in Gaza stand out in their extent, persistence in the face of world opinion, lack of any sign of conscience, and contribution to genocide. I am not expert in war, but I know that you are supposed to try to not kill civilian noncombatants, and that you are not supposed to destroy medical infrastructure; these are war crimes. In Gaza both are happening; people’s houses and cities are bombed, thousands have been killed, hundreds of thousands displaced, and the facilities where they might go for care – for problems that occur in peacetime, of course, but far more for those inflicted on them by the military attack on them – are destroyed. On purpose. Repeatedly. As part of an immoral and illegal strategy to “win”, by killing or injuring as many as possible.

Israel, unsurprisingly, and its US supporters in the American Jewish Committee, deny this. They say that what they are doing in Gaza is not genocide, and that what they are doing in killing the people of Gaza as well as destroying its hospitals and other health care facilities and healthcare workers are not war crimes. Of course, what is happening is happening, but they are picking apart word, like the application of a particular term (“genocide”, “war crime”). I am also no expert on the definition of genocide (like, what percent of a group do you have to be trying to kill for it to qualify), but those who are most expert say that what Israel is doing in Gaza is genocide. No responsible independent body has even tried to justify what they are doing. The argument cannot be that “because we are Israel, what we are doing is ok, although it would be intolerable if anyone else did it especially to us”. Nor can it be that “no matter what we do, no matter how horrific or destructive, because we are a Jewish state, any opposition to it is anti-Semitism.” Of course, this position is without logic.

There can be no justification for the Holocaust, for any reason, for anyone. But just as the atrocities being committed by Israel do not mean “Hitler was right”, the fact that the Holocaust happened – and that there is serious anti-Semitism in the world today – does not justify those atrocities being committed by Israel. In true fascist tradition, the government of Israel is not only committing these atrocities, destruction of healthcare infrastructure and healthcare workers, killing civilians including children en masse and starving them, it is blocking international aid from coming to the people of Gaza. These flotillas of boats bringing aid, contrary to what Israel says, are humanitarian and the people doing it are brave and noble. The government of Israel, and those Israelis and non-Israelis who support its actions, are … not. Interested in knowing what is happening in Gaza? There are many sources, but here is a recent article from the NY Times, longstanding Israel supporter on the destruction of Gaza. Or how about the video, if you need visual evidence.

There are terrible threats to the health of the American people, longstanding and persistent threats from greedy and evil for-profit insurers and pharmaceutical manufacturers and PBMs and health systems and private equity. These have been exacerbated by the Trump administration’s hostility to covering all people, such as the cutbacks in Medicaid expansion from the ACA, an issue on which the Democrats have finally shown some spine although the GOP commitment to not spending the money in order to maintain tax cuts for the wealthiest has led to a federal government shutdown. It is a very bad situation for many Americans, especially those with the greatest vulnerability.

But this is almost nothing compared to the attacks on health in many places, and particularly in Gaza. The purposeful destruction of cities where people live, mass murder of civilians, huge displacements of people, augmented by the destruction of the very facilities that might provide some treatment and succor, is without conceivable justification.

The authors of the paper cited at the beginning of this piece were, thus, not correct in saying that lack of access is the greatest quality deficit. That is true when there is a functioning health system and some people are excluded. Actively doing what is done in many wars, and what Israel is doing in Gaza, is a much worse assault on not just quality of healthcare but on health and life itself.

The WiSER program to erode your Medicare coverage: Not WISE for you!

While much about American health insurance is infuriating, starting with it treating the healthcare system as a vehicle for making money rather than providing healthcare, “prior authorization” (PA) is one of its most infuriating, and dangerous, practices. It means that before you can get the treatment your physician has recommended, indeed often before you can see the physician you want, the insurance company must authorize it. This practice is ubiquitous in commercial health insurance, including “Medicare Advantage” (MA), a program that allow an insurance company to collect the money allocated for you by Medicare. This means that if you receive a terrible diagnosis, such as lung cancer and your oncologist recommends a specific treatment, it is entirely possible that they will deny coverage for it, especially if your cancer is rare, or requires an expensive drug. You can file an appeal, but even if it is eventually granted, the process takes time, and meanwhile you are sick and your cancer is advancing.

But if you have Traditional Medicare (TM), this has not been a problem. TM covers virtually all doctors and hospitals in the country, covers most treatments, and does not subject the individual to PA, or decide that another (usually cheaper and possibly less effective) treatment, or even no treatment might be better for you. Or that a different doctor or hospital that is “in network” (for them) would be a better choice even if their track record is inferior. The absence of PA is a major reason why many health experts recommend TM over MA. 

Back in January, 2023 I wrote about the proposed ACO/REACH program at CMS (Privatizing Medicare through "Medicare Advantage" and REACH: The Wrong Way to Go!), which would allow companies (many owned by private equity) to purchase primary care practices, and voilà!, all those doctors’ patients were now in the company’s ACO and subject to restrictions on their care, including PA, without having to do anything at all and thinking they were safe because they were in TM! The REACH name was dropped but the program still continues; a friend in northern NJ was just informed he is now part of an ACO because they have acquired his doctor’s practice!

And other assaults on TM and the patients it covers continue. If you live in Arizona, as I do, or in 5 other states (New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington), even if you have TM you will suffer the indignity and damage of PA as Medicare implements a 6-year “pilot program” called WiSER (Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction). No longer will you be able to get any Medicare-approved procedure from any Medicare-accepting doctor at any Medicare-accepting hospital (ie, virtually all doctors and hospitals). Medicare will contract with private companies that will utilize artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to decide whether you can get the treatment. As with ACO/REACH, you have no choice, as participation is “voluntary” by state, but not by individual Medicare recipient. Actually, then it is worse than ACO/REACH, which you could get out of by changing your primary care physician (provided you could find another one!); WiSER will require you to move out of state!

Maybe the AI algorithms know better than you or your doctor. After all, isn’t reducing wasteful and inappropriate services a good thing? If you believe that the high cost of health care is the result of your using inappropriate and wasteful services, you might want to consider that the companies Medicare contracts with to do the PA will be paid “based on a share of averted expenditures.” That is, they will be paid on commission, receiving a percentage of the money saved by denying your care! But that won’t affect their decisions at all, right?

In reality, the use of “inappropriate and wasteful services” by you and your family and friends is not the reason for the high cost of health care. The reason is the enormous administrative costs of the US healthcare system, including the huge amounts made by for-profit insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies (and the eight-figure salaries of their CEOs and other executives), as well as health care providers (hospitals and health systems and the physicians, usually employed by them). This is a system found nowhere else among wealthy countries, every single other one of which comprehensively covers the care of all their people at much lower per-capita cost.

Bringing PA into Medicare is not “wiser”. It is the exactly wrong way to go. What we need is the expansion of Medicare to include everyone in the US, birth to death, and the improvement of that system by covering all health needs, including mental, dental, hearing, vision, and eliminating the 20% hospital co-pay Medicare recipients now are responsible for (and must buy Medigap insurance to cover). The “administrative costs” now being taken out of the “healthcare” system by companies would more than pay for it.

We would then have a system designed to provide health care for the American people, not profit for corporations. Imagine that!

 

adapted from a piece originally written to be a guest essay in the Arizona Star, but not published 

Drink more? Do more prostate cancer screening? I don't think so. But be careful about falls!

If the malignant lies and disinformation coming from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFKJr) and his minions, whom he regularly replaces if they are too inclined to make decisions based on truth and science (see Susan Monarez, head of CDC for less than a month) were not enough, his psycho – but totally dangerous -- baloney regarding vaccines and other health issues provides cover for the re-emergence of other potentially dangerous “health” recommendations. This is par for the course for this administration, which is entirely focused on distracting us from important issues by focusing our attention on other things, brush fires (or sometimes major conflagrations). Trump is quite willing to arrest, brutalize, imprison, and deport people, to start wars across the globe, or whatever it takes to keep the Epstein files – which must contain truly damning information about him – from being made public. 

In the area of health this re-emergence has not been of the major blaze type, certainly nothing compared to the evil of RFKJr’s opposition to, discouragement of, and even blocking vaccines, but more of “well, we have an axe to grind and let’s bring it back out now that we have cover”. Who, after all will worry so much about the issues I address below when they can worry about the return of polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, H. influenza, Covid, etc. And maybe even smallpox! But there have been several recent articles covering health issues which should be already settled. But, heck, if vaccines are not settled, why should these be?

On Sept 2, 2025, the NY Times Roni Caryn Rabin reports that Reduced Screening May Have Led to Rise in Advanced Prostate Cancer Diagnoses,  and follows that with the subhead “Changes in screening recommendations over a decade ago may have inadvertently resulted in later diagnosis of the most common cancer in men, a new study has found.” It sounds pretty scary, as it goes on to report that Black men are the least likely to be screened for prostate cancer and the most likely to die from it. Prostate cancer is being diagnosed at a later stage and the implication – no, the direct assertion in the article – is that it is because of a recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) which in 2012 began discouraging the use of routine screening with PSA (Prostate-Specific Antigen). The Times article, and the article it is based on, from CA: A cancer journal for Clinicians, and the comments of the chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society and one of the article’s authors, Bill Dahut, say “The pendulum may have swung too far in one direction, where we were afraid of overtreatment, and now we’re not finding these cancers early on, when they can be treated and are more curable, and we’re more likely to find metastatic disease that is not curable.” 

This conflates diagnosis of cancer at later stages with (implicitly) increase in death from prostate cancer. Well, doesn’t that make sense? Except that what makes sense is not always true. There is no data in the article that says more men are dying from prostate cancer, only that they are being diagnosed with further advanced cancer. Dr. Dahut says that finding the prostate cancer earlier would make it more curable, but if this were true, the decrease in screening would not only have led to cancers being diagnosed at a later stage, but in an increase in deaths from prostate cancer. How come it didn’t? There are basically two types of prostate cancer: the kind that kills you and the kind you die with, but not from. Medicine has yet to be able to find a test that can identify which kind you have. If diagnosing the kind that kills you earlier can make it curable, that’s great – but then we would see more deaths from prostate cancer as a result of not screening, and we don’t. What has historically happened is that the other, more indolent, kind has been treated and physicians have claimed “cures” – even though men don’t die from it without treatment. But they do suffer the morbidity of treatment (i.e., impotence, incontinence, radiation cystitis, etc.) This, along with the poor performance of PSA as a screening test for prostate cancer, is what led the USPSTF to recommend against screening. This issue has been addressed a number of times over the years on this blog (PSA Screening: What is the value?, March 21, 2009, PSA Screening: “One of Medicine's Great Success Stories"?, Oct 27, 2009,  PSA redux: The USPSTF finally recommends NOT getting it!, Oct 14, 2011, Prostate Screening and the Public’s Health, July 12, 2015, as well as other posts on the benefits – or not – of cancer screening), and essentially, nothing has changed. It is terrible that Black men die from prostate cancer. It is terrible that anyone dies from prostate cancer. If screening saved lives we should do it. But this article presents no new evidence that lives are being lost that could be saved.

A few days later (Sept 5, 2025) the Times had an article by the same reporter titled Federal Report on Drinking Is Withdrawn with the subhead “The upcoming U.S. Dietary Guidelines will instead be influenced by a competing study, favored by industry, which found that moderate alcohol consumption was healthy.” Yup. Favored by industry. Not only were the guidelines withdrawn by HHS and thus not, as planned, presented to Congress, but HHS promotes a “competing report” by a panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine that “came to a conclusion long supported by the industry: that moderate drinking is healthier than not drinking”. Yay for the alcohol industry! Of course, “Some panelists came under criticism for financial ties to alcohol makers,” but what the heck. It is perhaps surprising, as the article points out, that RFKJr’s MAHA (“Make America Healthy Again”) campaign does not include anything about the use of alcohol – or, even more amazingly, tobacco! When we don’t like the message, we kill the message (and sometimes the messenger), especially in the current administration. But despite the fact that “Science Over Bias, an industry-supported advocacy group, faulted the alcohol intake study for bias: “The Dietary Guidelines should be guided by a preponderance of sound science, not the personal ideologies of a handful of researchers,” it is the industry’s position that is based on bias rather than on evidence. With regard to physical health (not short-term mental health), there is no amount of alcohol that is good for you, and any amount is a little bad. No alcohol is better than moderate alcohol, except for the financial interests of the industry and the scientists on their payroll.

On a somewhat different issue regarding health, not about controversy (screen or do not screen for prostate cancer? Drink alcohol in moderation or not at all?), is the Times article from Sept 7 by Paula Span titled Why Are More Older People Dying After Falls? It doesn’t provide a definitive answer, but strongly implicates prescription drug use (“Some researchers suspect that rising prescription drug use may explain a disturbing trend.”) It’s important. Falls are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in older people. You can break your hip or your head, you can get a concussion or a brain bleed or die. No joke. The association with prescription medication is legitimate, especially certain ones, called FRIDs, or “fall risk increasing drugs”, that are more likely to cause falls though inducing drowsiness, dizziness, drops in blood pressure, etc. Older people are more likely to have more diseases and be on more medications to treat them, and they are also more sensitive to the side effects of these drugs. (Note that drugs do not know which of their effects are “side effects”; we define them as the ones we don’t like!) And they are more likely to suffer serious injuries from a fall. The take-away message is that physicians should carefully review the medications that their older patients (actually all patients) are on, make sure that there is a need for them, and that there is not another less risky (less FRID) drug that could be substituted. Psychoactive drugs “like benzodiazepines, opioids, antidepressants and gabapentin — that act on the central nervous system” should be especially assessed for need, with particular emphasis on the use of more than one drug with similar side effects that can lead to greater risk. The message should not be “stop taking my drugs because the pharmaceutical industry is greedy and trying to drug us all”. Sure, they ARE greedy, and we shouldn’t have to pay so much to them, but that is another issue. They also make drugs that are effective and in standardized doses (unlike “natural” herbs). And often it is the drugs that people like most (because they relieve pain and/or make them feel better) that are most likely to be FRIDs. Exercises to increase strength and balance are important. And, if the risks still cannot be significantly reduced, people may have to modify their lifestyles. For example, it may be necessary to stop walking a big dog.

These are 3 different issues. I included the first two, prostate cancer screening and alcohol use, because they represent efforts to peel back science-based policies that may have been deleterious to the profits of industry, which is like many of the policy changes across the administration over the last 8+ months. The falls issue is a little different; here the concern is to address the risks to the extent possible without overreacting and stopping all your medications!

Medicine and science are complex. But findings can be skewed to fit an agenda, and when that agenda is corporations making more money, a little skepticism is wise.