The Daily
Herald (Everett, WA)
By Froma Harrop
A
resurfaced Barack Obama has uttered those three little words: "Medicare
for all."
Does
that mean that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was a bad idea? Not at
all.
The ACA
was a triumph in that it cut the number of uninsured Americans by 20 million.
And it hardened the idea that no American, regardless of income or pre-existing
conditions, should suffer or die for lack of health coverage.
Does
the ACA have flaws? It does. But it serves as an important rung in the ladder
toward less chaotic and universal health coverage.
"Medicare
for all" is a fairly vague term that could mean many things. Some see it
leading to a Canadian-style single-payer system. Canada's model has its virtues
— simplicity being the chief one — but it doesn't rank so high in international
comparisons as others combining government and private coverage.
How
about Medicare Advantage for all? Medicare Advantage refers to the managed-care
plans run by private insurers. Medicare pays them a monthly fee per enrollee to
cover hospital care, visits to the doctor and other services guaranteed under
the original Medicare. Many offer extras, such as eyeglasses and hearing aids.
Sometimes they offer drug coverage and even gym memberships.
About a
third of Medicare beneficiaries now choose them over the traditional
fee-for-service program. Studies show that the enrollees are generally happy
with their plans and the care is high-quality.
Like
other managed-care plans, these require using an insurer's network of
providers. The rules vary, however. People can buy more expensive plans if they
like — or they can opt for a plan with virtually no out-of-pocket expenses.
There's even a system for low-income subsidies. Standardized and listed on an
online marketplace, the Medicare Advantage plans are easy for beneficiaries to
figure out.
And
there is some value added to private coverage, certainly at
the point of delivery. The cap on the plans' funding provides a financial
incentive to help people with chronic conditions navigate the health care
system. The plans do a decent job of making sure that patients follow through
on treatment.
As for
the politics of it, Republicans have long been boosters of the Medicare
Advantage program. They like its reliance on private insurers.
Medicare
Advantage for all would steer conservative theorists away from their
"consumer-oriented" pipe dreams — those tax-advantaged health savings
accounts, health reimbursement accounts and the like tied to catastrophic
coverage. These schemes create an even more complex bureaucracy, all for the
sake of some abstract notion of a "free market."
Let's
be blunt. The government must limit its spending by fiat. Then we can let the
market step in and sort out the details. Under Medicare Advantage for all, the
insurers would become, in effect, regulated utilities.
As now,
Medicare's overseers would have to keep an eagle eye on how they reimburse the
companies. There's a history of paying Medicare Advantage insurers far more
than they spend on medical care.
The
good news embedded here is that the Medicare Advantage plans can save money in
ways the traditional fee-for-service program does not. And it needs repeating
that people are signing up for them by choice.
For
younger Americans, the ACA is what they have at the moment. Republicans intent
on killing it are dealing with the unpleasant reality that public opinion has
swung from hostility to the reforms to support for them. Too chicken to do an
outright repeal, Republicans are engaging in quiet sabotage, weakening its
financial footing bolt by bolt. They're now trying to end protections for those
with pre-existing conditions while saying they're not.
What to
do now? Preserve the ACA and think Medicare for all. And while thinking that,
consider Medicare Advantage for all.
https://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/opinion-the-advantage-in-one-medicare-for-all-proposal?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:&utm_campaign=Health%20News%2020180913
No comments:
Post a Comment