Wednesday, July 5, 2017

BCRA spells trouble for providers

By Alex Kacik  | July 5, 2017

California has been approaching universal healthcare coverage in large part thanks to the expansion of the Medicare and Medi-Cal programs under the Affordable Care Act.

Only 3.5% of California's population is uninsured and one out of every two children are covered by Medicaid, according to Marin General Hospital CEO Lee Domanico.

But that could all change under the Senate's bill to replace the Affordable Care Act, Domanico said.

"If that were to reverse itself it would really be devastating for those people and tough for us because that reimbursement could go to zero," he said. "Bad debts would go up, which had gone down through the Obamacare plan with more people insured through the exchanges and expansion of the Medi-Cal program."

If the Senate bill becomes law, providers could be faced with ballooning uncompensated care that forces service cutbacks, potential staffing reductions or hospital closures, health experts said.

The now-delayed bill, coined the Better Care Reconciliation Act, would slash the ACA's financial assistance to families and individuals who couldn't otherwise afford healthcare, cap Medicaid spending and roll back the Medicaid expansion afforded to states' most vulnerable populations. Those changes could cause 22 million Americans to lose coverage and send insurance premiums surging.

As patients lose access, more will turn to high-cost emergency rooms for care, increasing uncompensated care and squeezing providers' margins.

In other words, providers would be forced to regress.

"If Medicaid gets rolled back, there is no question there is going to be more uncompensated care," Cleveland Clinic outgoing CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove said. "When up to 22 million people lose coverage, that becomes a substantial risk, particularly for safety net and rural hospitals that are already losing money on patient care. But the implications go beyond patients and hospitals, they go to the communities, especially when their biggest employers are hospitals."

The proposed Senate bill would leave states to fill the funding gap or end coverage as the enhanced federal payments for Medicaid expansion would be phased out over three years, starting in 2021.

It would also cap the growth of federal Medicaid payments at the medical inflation rate, which is estimated to be 5.6% annually, beginning in 2020. Come 2025, the growth of those payments would be limited to the Consumer Price Index rate, which has averaged around 1.4% since the Great Recession.

The Congressional Budget Office found that Medicaid spending would be 26% lower in 2026 than it would be compared to current spending trends, and the gap would widen to about 35% in 2036.

The bill permits states to opt out of the ACA's mandated essential benefits, which would allow insurers to turn away patients who need maternity care, mental health treatment, chemotherapy and emergency care, among others.

"We will go back to the days where the uninsured showed up to ER," said Michael Rogers of the Catholic Health Association. "Catholic hospitals would be in a tough position because of our commitment to the poor and vulnerable."

The Urban Institute, A Washington D.C. think tank, estimated that state Medicaid spending would increaseby an average of $565 million in 2022 under the proposed legislation as federal funding for Medicaid would dip by $102.2 billion. Most states would not fill the funding gap and many of the poor and indigent would be without coverage, health experts said.

As uncompensated care rises, operating margins would shrink, especially among hospitals in expansion states. Hospitals in D.C. and the 31 states that expanded Medicaid are projected to see a 78% increase in uncompensated care from 2017 to 2026, analysis from the Commonwealth Fund found. Eleven of those states would see costs at least double, including Kentucky and West Virginia, which would have 165% and 122% increases, respectively. Providers would also face negative credit ratings if the bill becomes law, Moody's Investment Services and Fitch ratings said.

Providers could face trouble with rising uncompensated care, dwindling reimbursements and increasing bad debts stemming to high-deductible plans, said Dr. Lisa Bielamowicz, senior vice president and chief medical officer of the Advisory Board.

"Medicaid cuts over time require huge adaptations of providers' business models," she said. "Some independent physicians who have a significant amount of Medicaid patients would have to close their practices and that burden will fall on health systems."

Even though the proposed bill will bolster Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments (DSH), that will not offset the Medicaid cuts, researchers said. Hospitals in Medicaid expansion states could experience an average 14% decline in Medicaid revenues from 2017 to 2016, the Commonwealth Fund estimated.

"The proposed Senate bill expands DSH payments but I am not sure that will offset the reduction in insurance coverage," said Patrick Redmon of the Berkeley Research Group. "It's hard to think about care coordination and improving population health when you don't see people on a consistent basis, can't manage care and only see people when they are absolutely sick."

The bill could also bring some unintended consequences as providers and physicians adapt and invest in infrastructure that supports new payment models. The majority of medical practice leaders are still not ready to comply with the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, and sweeping changes in healthcare policy may further slow that process, said Rebecca Altman of the Berkeley Research Group.

"I wonder if there isn't a tertiary effect on MACRA adoption when all of sudden the volume of patients isn't there to make the return on managed care teams efficient," she said.

For now, providers will have to wait. Amid mounting dissent, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell delayed a vote on the ACA replacement bill until after the holiday recess.

"I haven't talked to any provider that supports the Senate bill," Cosgrove of Cleveland Clinic said. "The ACA has never been more popular."

Alex Kacik is the hospital operations reporter for Modern Healthcare in Chicago. Aside from hospital operations, he covers supply chain, legal and finance. Before joining Modern Healthcare in 2017, Kacik covered various business beats for seven years in the Santa Barbara, California region. He received a bachelor's degree in journalism from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in Central California.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170705/NEWS/170709998?utm_source=modernhealthcare&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20170705-NEWS-170709998&utm_campaign=am

MA Plans Consider Contracting, Quality As MACRA Lays Value-Based Framework

Reprinted from MEDICARE ADVANTAGE NEWS, biweekly news and business strategies about Medicare Advantage plans, product design, marketing, enrollment, market expansions, CMS audits, and countless federal initiatives in MA and Medicaid managed care. 
November 3, 2016 Volume 22 Issue 21
CMS in a recent final rule implementing the provider payment portion of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) unveiled a “pick-your-own-pace” approach for Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) providers that will be subject to new reporting requirements and performance measurement starting next year. Yet despite some new flexibilities contained in the final rule, which was released on Oct. 14 and is slated for publication in the Federal Register on Nov. 4, stakeholders agree that the Quality Payment Program will accelerate the move toward risk-based contracting in Medicare Advantage and beyond.
And organizations that must work with providers to achieve their own quality metrics are seeking ways to support their contracted providers as they face new performance measures, according to industry observers.
Introduced in a May 9 proposed rule, the Quality Payment Program replaces the Sustainable Growth Rate model used to pay FFS physicians and allows them to seek reimbursement through one of two paths: (1) the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), which consolidates three Medicare physician reporting programs, requires reporting of measures in four performance categories and includes bonuses and penalties depending on performance; or (2) the Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM), which applies to provider organizations that accept significant downside risk through specific models (e.g., Track 2 or Track 3 of the Medicare Shared Savings Program), includes an automatic 5% bonus and exempts clinicians from the extensive MIPS reporting requirements (MAN 6/16/16, p. 1).
While CMS in the final rule retained the Jan. 1, 2017, implementation date, it included several reporting options for the first “transition year” to help physicians avoid negative payment adjustments and excluded some smaller practices from MIPS. Moreover, since the majority of Accountable Care Organizations in the Medicare Shared Savings Program are Track 1 and therefore do not accept downside risk and would be subject to MIPS, CMS said it is developing a new ACO Track 1+ model with lower levels of risk that would still qualify as an Advanced APM. CMS now estimates that 25% of eligible Medicare clinicians could be in an Advanced APM by the second year of the program.
“We are at a tipping point in both how physicians/providers and payers’ systems really deal with quality delivery but also how it gets reimbursed,” observes Patrick James, M.D., chief clinical officer, health plans and policy and medical affairs at Quest Diagnostics. “By broadening the opportunities to participate, it’s just going to accelerate getting physicians in those APMs and ultimately the transition to value-based reimbursement, opening up more opportunities for risk-based contracting in Medicare Advantage and elsewhere.”
Given this great shift to value-based reimbursement, MA plans currently have two main goals: (1) ensure that their star ratings strategies support the performance measures physicians will be tracking through MIPS and (2) ensure that their value-based contracting strategies align with the APM their contracted physicians may choose, explains Andrew Davis, vice president and general manager for Medica, a Minnesota-based not-for-profit insurer with MA membership in several states.
With the star quality ratings program, MA plans are “focused on incenting and rewarding and collaborating with providers to improve those results,” remarks Davis. But with MIPS bringing in a whole new set of measures for providers, “stars needs to fit into the context of MIPS. So how do you attempt to over the next three to four to five years align the goals and objectives you have for your MA products and performance through the providers along the same lines of what they’re going to be doing to reward their performance for Medicare fee-for-service?”
Shift to Value Will Depend on Market
Moreover, meeting those goals and ensuring the overall success of MACRA will be largely dependent on an insurer’s service area, their MA product strategy and the providers in that mix, suggests Davis. “For example, in Minneapolis, we have what may be a disproportionate share of large systems that are participating in a number of the [Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation] demos — Pioneer ACOs, Next Generation ACOs, etc. — and we have a lot of the care being provided through these large, integrated systems,” he explains. “So we’ve got high APM alignment, but every market is going to be slightly different around what the provider mix is, MIPS vs. APMs, and where your MA product focus is going to be. This is not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach.”
However, physician readiness is a major issue as the transition year approaches, say Davis and James. And Medica is still in the “front-end phase of assessment” when it comes to figuring out how it can support providers, identifying gaps in their technology infrastructure and leveraging the diversity of contracting that it has with various providers.
“For example, how are you going to have the right level of data and analytics to track patient flow, predict risk, [and] assess where you should be putting energies in terms of the risk stratification of your patient population? Clearly that is going to be a whole area of opportunity, particularly on the APM front,” suggests Davis. “Everyone has to enable the success around this, and health plans and technology companies can get in a position to support physicians to really get to this new paradigm.”
Medica’s technology partner, HealthEdge, for example, provides a core administration system that features “dynamic” claims processing — and it’s that “range and flexibility” in the adjudication and reimbursement that will be an advantage to providers using the system, he adds.
Speaking first-hand from his time spent working in the field and as medical director of hospital integration for Health Midwest (now HCA Midwest Health), a 14-hospital integrated delivery system in the greater Kansas City area, James points out that “physicians are not typically trained in risk, and documentation often is variable within the practice.” New systems such as those established in the Quality Payment Program will require better tools to manage risk, including actionable data at the point of care, he suggests to MAN.
Physicians Need Quality Measure Support
He points to a study released in July by Quest and technology company Inovalon, Inc. in which 74% of hospital-affiliated primary care physicians and health plan executives indicated that quality measures are too complex, making it difficult for physicians to achieve them. And while three-quarters of all respondents agreed that quality measures are useful in improving care quality, only half said that those set under value-based care models are top of mind when physicians meet with patients. Separating that finding out by health plans and physicians, however, the former measured slightly higher at 59% vs. 46% for physicians, suggesting that health plan executives may be unaware of the true complexity at the point of care, observed Quest.
Moreover, 79% of all respondents agreed that physicians do not know the quality metrics that apply to individual patients. And 64% of physicians and health plan executives said that physicians do not have the tools needed to succeed in a value-based system.
Through the Data Diagnostics tool launched a year ago by Quest and Inovalon, physicians can order member-specific data analyses at the point of care that are partially designed to help them stay on top of quality metrics, adds James. The report, which physicians can order through their existing workflow, utilizes all available patient data to determine quality programs for which a patient qualifies (e.g., HEDIS, star ratings, the exchange marketplace Quality Rating System) and to analyze the patient’s current status as it relates to each measure set. For example, that report may show when an MA beneficiary with diabetes requires an eye exam, kidney disease monitoring and/or blood sugar control to comply with certain CMS star ratings measures.
View the final rule at http://tinyurl.com/jceb3xx. Download the Quest study at http://ddx.questdiagnostics.com/june2016study.
https://aishealth.com/archive/nman110316-02?utm_source=Real%20Magnet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=113700883

MACRA Poses Questions for Health Plans As Providers Gauge Networks, Payments

Reprinted from HEALTH PLAN WEEK, the most reliable source of objective business, financial and regulatory news of the health insurance industry. 
August 1, 2016 Volume 26 Issue 27
Health insurers are not quite looking over the shoulder of physicians and provider groups when it comes to the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), but they certainly are attuned to how this possibly game-changing legislation will be implemented when CMS releases a final rule on the statute, expected around Nov. 1. Vendors and health plan consultants tell HPW that what is fundamentally a law to promote new payment schemes by incenting physicians and health systems to enable more efficient and quality care has a definite spillover impact on carriers.
The law, which replaced the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) model in spring 2015 (HPW 2/15/16, p. 1), is on the face of it a real disruptor of the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) revenue model. MACRA provides a 5% annual bonus for the small percentage of medical providers who participate in Alternative Payment Models (APMs), risk-bearing coordinated-care models that move physicians away from FFS. Under MACRA, provider groups can qualify if they take downside risk for at least 25% of their payments (the 25% figure will increase to 50% in 2021).
MACRA also created the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), which administers bonuses or penalties based on how well physicians perform relative to other physicians on a complicated set of quality and value measures.
And although some of the deadlines and start dates seem far off, starting on Jan. 1, 2017, physicians’ and other providers’ performance will determine their future payment rate updates. Because of the time required to gather and evaluate performance data, spending and other performance measures in calendar year 2017 will provide the basis for physician payments in 2019.
For those vendors active in the health insurance space, the advent of MACRA has brought opportunities to offer carriers new tools to manage APMs, according to Ray Desrochers, executive vice president and chief marketing officer for HealthEdge. The 11-year-old company markets software centered on providing a next-generation core administrative platform to the health insurer market.
“There is a tremendous amount of anxiety right now as everyone seems to realize that the one-size-fits-all version of health care that we have all known and loved is indeed going to be replaced by some number of these new health care business models,” he tells HPW. “But many of these execs really just don’t know how they are going to get from where they are today to where they think they need to be tomorrow.”
For payers, Desrochers says, it is important to really look at MACRA as more than just a law for the Medicare population. “At the end of the day as you read through the rule, you quickly realize that the folks who are participating are actually going to be incented as well for good behavior for their Medicaid and even their commercial populations as well,” he explains. “We believe that what is going to happen as a result of this is that the folks who are participating, since the Medicare business tends to be some of the lowest margin business that they deal with, are really going to want to take advantage of their other populations to try and increase their scores. And in doing so, I think you are going to start to push some of these new models on the health plans.”
This could result in providers setting the pace on new payment models and possibly leaving plans behind on the technology front. Desrochers notes that most claims management software in place now was designed for FFS. “So now when you start talking about something that is truly variable [like APMs], and can be variable in a number of different directions and based on scores, I think health plans are getting nervous about this. But they are also starting to dig in and figure out what it is going to mean for them and how they will need to adapt [by updating systems] to be competitive in this new marketplace,” he continues.
Updates Are Complex Change for Plans
The situation is not unlike the rollover to ICD-10 in recent years (HPW 10/12/15, p. 6), but as that update caused so much drama for stakeholders, it also should be remembered it was a relatively simple technological fix, sort of a Y2K problem as computers rolled from 1999 to 2000, Desrochers says. “What is going to happen this time is they [health plans] are looking at something they are going to view as far more complex than that. We are not just transforming data and allowing data to be more complex. We are actually going to be changing some of the inner workings of these health plans from the standpoint of introducing a new level of variability that dramatically and exponentially increases the complexity of what they are dealing with,” he says.
For the last 40 years, most health insurers’ IT platforms have been based on a simple configuration model that allows for limited variation — and for most part those systems have been very good at the various FFS models, Desrochers says. But MACRA and the push to value-based payment models in the broader sense is forcing health plans to make payments in a very different way.
HealthEdge, at a cost of some $200 million, built an English-like, health care-specific language that allows people within the plan to pretty quickly and easily configure all of this variability, Desrochers says.
Exactly when MACRA is going to be up and running is not certain, however. Although there is some scuttlebutt in Washington about CMS delaying the implementation of MACRA, Anne Phelps, principal and U.S. health care regulatory leader for Deloitte LLP, tells HPW the situation is likely more nuanced. “I wouldn’t use the word delay because many of the deadlines are set in statute, but CMS has a lot of regulatory leeway or ability to…offer some transition time, or potentially they could say the first three to six months are sort of practice or a good faith period,” she says.
There also could be caveats and exceptions added to the implementation process, like more time for rural or small practitioners to get on board. Reflecting this thinking, CMS acting Administrator Andy Slavitt told a Senate Finance Committee hearing on July 13 that the agency is open to multiple approaches on MACRA implementation timelines, including alternative start dates, shorter reporting periods and other measures to give physicians and clinicians the know-how to get with the program.
Paul Ginsburg, Ph.D., director of public policy, Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California, tells HPW that allowing more time for doctors and providers to prepare is something CMS should strongly consider. “Physicians clearly are entitled to more time. They have to wait for a rule that will come out in, say, November of this year and starts being effective in January. That does not seem very realistic,” he says.
Small Physician Practices Could Crumble
Despite the promise of MACRA and the ongoing move to value-based payment models, Ginsburg has reservations. “The more I look into it [MACRA], the more concerns I have. This is a very disruptive law, “ he explains. Rather than accomplish what the law set out to do — attract physicians to APMs and diminish the role of FFS — the proposed rule has not allowed a clear path for physicians to achieve bonuses and the explanations in the draft proposal have left many stakeholders concerned about what comes next.
Ginsburg is concerned that CMS has placed too much focus on the MIPS part of the statute, which could be a big detriment to smaller physician practices. “Under MIPS, the bonuses and penalties are very large, and it is a very difficult thing for small practices to do well under MIPs. This leads to the concern that a lot of physicians will throw in the towel and beg hospitals to acquire them,” he says. There is also the lag time between performance reporting that starts next year and the bonus/penalty phase in 2019. “A physician may think they are performing well, but don’t know how peers will perform. This creates two years of uncertainty on how they are doing before they find out,” Ginsburg says.
How this all affects health plans, in his view, is that on the commercial side the larger physician practices and clinical groups could get larger and leave carriers with less leverage in contract negotiations as the little guys slide away. “For insurers the real interest in MACRA is making sure MACRA keeps small practices viable,” Ginsburg adds.
https://aishealth.com/archive/nhpw080116-02?utm_source=Real%20Magnet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=113700882

Despite Protests, MA Plans Must Wait for MACRA Payment Status

Reprinted from HEALTH PLAN WEEK, the most reliable source of objective business, financial and regulatory news of the health insurance industry. 
November 14, 2016 Volume 26 Issue 40
Now that HHS has issued a final rule (81 Fed. Reg. 77008) implementing the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) starting on Jan. 1, 2017, the health insurance industry remains upset that CMS excluded Medicare Advantage (MA) plans from possibly qualifying for the program’s Quality Payment Program until 2021.
In the rule released on Oct. 14 (HPW 10/24/16, p. 8), CMS said at first the new value-based bonus system would be based on traditional Medicare, not MA. To qualify under the advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM), MA plans will have to wait and be considered for inclusion under the All-Payer Combination Option.
MACRA, which replaces the Sustainable Growth Rate formula, is meant to modernize and streamline physician payments under a new quality-based system. The rule spells out the two paths physicians can take to participate, with the first involving performance measured by the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and the second limited to physicians who participate in advanced APMs and get a 5% bonus on Part B revenues.
2019 Looms as Key Year
Starting on Jan. 1, 2017, physicians’ and other providers’ performance will determine their future payment rate updates. Because of the time required to gather and evaluate performance data, spending and other performance measures reported for calendar year 2017 will provide the basis for payments in 2019. For vendors active in the health insurance space, MACRA has brought opportunities to offer carriers new tools to manage APMs (HPW 8/1/16, p. 1).
The insurance industry argues that MA plans, since they are receiving capitated payments, should be part of the first-batch 2019 APMs considering the risk they are taking. CMS, however, wants a different kind of model to start, according to Anne Phelps, principal and U.S. health care regulatory leader for Deloitte LLP.
“As for the MA classification, under MACRA in order to be what they call an advanced APM the incentives have to be aligned to move practitioners into these arrangements, and you have to do three things: bear downside risk, not upside risk; second is to have to apply the new performance measures (MIPS) to practitioners; and you also need certified electronic health records,” she tells HPW. “That is why the list of advanced APMs is limited since very few models have downside risk in them. But over time they will expand.”
When the list of APMs grows after the first two years of the program, then MA plans can apply for status under the All-Payer Combination Option or another payment model. “If you can show that you are applying the three principles to these other payers, like Medicaid or MA or the commercial market, then you can draw down higher Medicare dollars,” Phelps says. “Some plans and leading providers with a lot of MA business, they would like to see CMS say, ‘well, you know MA right now is an advanced model because it is capitated.’ But it is capitated at the plan level and CMS is hesitant. We will have to see maybe what Congress says because MA does not meet the criteria of MACRA since capitation cannot be just at the plan level but at the practitioner level. They are sharing in the risk.”
She says it is important to note that MACRA is going to have different iterations within the regulatory process and a number of annual updates and changes that will occur as well. Another area of interest is that there could be some similarities between MA stars quality performance program measures and MIPS performance measures in MACRA. MIPS administers bonuses or penalties based on how well physicians perform relative to other physicians on a complicated set of quality and value measures.
As for the law’s survival under a Trump administration, Phelps says the overwhelming bipartisan support MACRA received will likely keep it protected, but there are always opportunities for tweaks by CMS and Congress, including on the MA issue. “Many people feel MA is a coordinated care risk-bearing arrangement, so I think it will be looked at more closely over the next year or so….This is a dynamic process,” she adds.
Humana Promotes MA Model
Separate from the MACRA argument, but tied to the issue of MA and value-based payment models, Humana Inc. on Nov. 2 said for the third straight year it has seen better health status, improved quality of care and lower costs from its efforts. “For the calendar year 2015 results, Humana compared quality metrics and outcomes for approximately 1.2 million MA members who were affiliated with providers in value-based reimbursement model agreements to 170,000 members who were affiliated with providers under standard MA settings,” the insurer said.
The key findings from this comparison include that providers in the value-based arrangements had 19% higher Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) scores; the value-based members also saw 6% fewer emergency department visits and Humana experienced 20% lower costs for these MA members.
As of Sept. 30, Humana said around 63% of its individual MA members are seeing providers who are in value-based payment arrangements.
Read the rule at http://tinyurl.com/zxuhpna.
https://aishealth.com/archive/nhpw111416-03?utm_source=Real%20Magnet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=113700881

Quote of the Day

"Adding specialty pharmacies to an LD [i.e., limited-distribution] network is not surprising, but DROPPING a pharmacy from a network is very rare."


— Bill Sullivan, principal consultant for Specialty Pharmacy Solutions LLC, in a recent client alert reacting to Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s decision to remove CVS Specialty from its limited-distribution specialty pharmacy network. 

349,455 ...

... is the number of members as of June 2017 enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Senior Advantage, a California-based Medicare Advantage (MA) plan and the top MA plan in the U.S. California's Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. also holds the second spot in MA enrollment; its Kaiser Permanente Senior Advantage LA, Orange Co. has 192,310 members. 

Social Security and Medicare Are Lasting Sources of Independence


In July, communities everywhere celebrate our nation’s independence with fireworks, family, and friends. A strong community also creates independence as we help each other recognize our full potential.
Social Security has been helping people maintain a higher quality of life and a level of independence for over 80 years. And Medicare has been doing the same for over five decades. Most people first become eligible for Medicare at age 65. For many older Americans, this is their primary health insurance and without it, they might not enjoy an independent lifestyle.
Medicare can be a little confusing to newcomers so we’ve broken it down into segments. The four parts of Medicare are as easy as A, B, C, and D.
§  Part A (Hospital Insurance) helps cover inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing care, hospice care, and home health care. Most people get Medicare Part A premium-free since it is earned by working and paying Social Security taxes.
§  Part B (Medical Insurance) helps cover services from doctors and other outpatient health care providers, outpatient care, home health care, durable medical equipment, and some preventive services. Most people pay a monthly premium for Part B. Some high-income individuals pay more than the standard premium. If you don’t enroll in Medicare Part B during your initial enrollment period and then decide to do so later, your coverage may be delayed and you may have to pay a higher monthly premium for as long as you have Part B.
§  Part C (Medicare Advantage) allows you to choose to receive all of your health care services through a provider organization. This plan includes all benefits and services covered under Part A and Part B, usually includes Medicare prescription drug coverage, and may include extra benefits and services at an extra cost. You must have Part A and Part B to enroll in Part C. Monthly premiums vary depending on the state where you live, private insurer, and whether you select a health maintenance organization or a preferred provider organization.
§  Part D (Medicare prescription drug coverage) helps cover the cost of prescription drugs. Many people pay a premium for Part D. However, people with low income and resources may qualify for Extra Help to pay the premium and deductible. If you don’t enroll in a Medicare drug plan when you’re first eligible, you may pay a late enrollment penalty if you join a plan later. You will have to pay this penalty for as long as you have Medicare prescription drug coverage. To see if you qualify for extra help visit socialsecurity.gov/prescriptionhelp.

Will you be age 65 soon? Even if you decide not to retire, you should apply for Medicare. You can apply in less than 10 minutes using our online Medicare application.

Visit www.socialsecurity.gov/medicare to learn more about applying for Medicare.

http://blog.socialsecurity.gov/social-security-and-medicare-are-lasting-sources-of-independence/