2000 Monthly News
November
Homepage -- Programs
and Services -- Contact
Information
2000 Monthly News
November
Elder Services Promotes Lillpopp, Adds Two New Staff
Elder Services awards $35,000 in federal funds for
elder support services
New information on Alzheimer’s disease. By Jay Ellis,
D.O., F.A.A.N.
Promotion of Nancy McCarthy to Residential Service Coordinator
Medicare to increase payments to nursing homes
Candidate views on Medicare
Candidate views on Medicare
By Jane Bryant Quinn, Columnist
You’ve read plenty about the dueling Bush and Gore plans for adding
prescription drugs to Medicare. What you've heard less about is the candidates'
view of Medicare itself, and how they'd want the program run in the years
ahead.
As a country, we're going to have to pay more for medical care than we do
today. The population is aging and people want help (today, it's drugs;
tomorrow, it will be long-term care). What's the most cost-effective way to
make this work?
For 35 years, the answer has been the government's Medicare program. It
operates efficiently, with standard forms, one schedule of benefits, super-low
overhead and, mostly, a doctor of your choice.
Vice President Gore thinks that, at present, Medicare just needs touching up.
He'd keep the program pretty much unchanged, except for adding the option of
prescription drugs.
To save money, Gore talks about reducing waste and fraud (the government has
actually made some progress here, in recent years). He'd also encourage
lower-cost competition from Medicare HMOs.
Governor Bush, by contrast, dreams of a new kind of Medicare. He wants two
Medicare packages one with drugs and one without. Private insurers would
offer competing plans. They'd all have the same core medical benefits. But the
plans could add options, to appeal to different types of people.
In Bush's world, the government would still pay the bulk of the program's cost,
as it does today. But the private health-care market would set the price.
Each year, the plans including original Medicare would vie for members, by
touting their benefits and premium costs. The government would subsidize your
chosen plan at some fraction of the average private-market price. If your plan
costs more than the subsidy, you'd pay the extra amount yourself. Bush's
intentions raise questions that the public hasn't begun to think about.
Would his price-driven market raise the cost of original, fee-for-service
Medicare, forcing even unwilling seniors into Medicare HMOs (those are
private plans that deliver Medicare services)?
What about the high cost of insuring people who switch to drug coverage only
after they learn they'll need a lot of pills?
Will Medicare HMOs become a more dependable business than they are
today? (Since 1998, nearly 1.7 million seniors have been temporarily stressed
and stranded when their HMOs left the field.)
Once private insurers control the market, will they demand higher government
subsidies to cover the Medicare population?
How much medical choice do seniors really want to pay for?
As a way of delivering benefits, Medicare HMOs are more costly to run than
original Medicare. That's because the traditional system has such huge
economies of scale. With the government, there are no marketing costs, sign-ups
are automatic and the premiums are electronically paid. The Medicare
bureaucrats that conservatives love to hate spend less than 2 cents out of every
dollar on overhead.
By contrast, Medicare HMOs spend an average of 15 cents out of every dollar
on administration, according to June Gibbs Brown, inspector general for the
Department of Health and Human Services. The actual range is huge anywhere
from 3 percent to 32 percent.
The HMOs' costs include marketing, billing (still done substantially by snail mail),
debt collection and decisions about medical treatments, not to mention salaries
and profits.
An HMO's higher overhead can be justified, if it covers its costs with intelligent
health-care savings. As costs are squeezed out of the system, however, the
private sector's high overhead becomes a drag. It represents money paid to
private bureaucrats, rather than doctors and hospitals. It's money shunted away
from care.
"There's not a lot of evidence that private insurers can make money on seniors,"
Patricia Neuman of the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, D.C. A high
percentage of this population is acutely or chronically ill. Without a government
subsidy, seniors couldn't be insured at all.
But private competition has a role in assessing cost, says Paul Ginsburg, head of
the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington, D.C. Instead of
setting subsidies for Medicare HMOs, he says, Congress should let the plans set
their own premiums for a given benefit package, and let the public choose. In
other words, a touch of Bush.
But, Ginsburg adds, original Medicare has to be set apart. You can't expect it to
match the HMOs on price. So there you have a touch of Gore.
Medicare can't turn down the sick, so only government can afford the price. But
competition can help tell the government what the price should be.
Syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with the permission of the Berkshire Eagle, which published the article October 8, 2000.