Medicare Summit Debate: Is Medicare A Good Model For Universal Coverage?

One of the highlights of the Medicare Policy Summit was a panel discussion entitled “Medicare Expansion, Entitlement Reform, and National Health Coverage.” The goal of the discussion was to explore the potential role that Medicare could have in serving as a model for universal health insurance coverage in America. I’ve captured some of the key points that each panelist made:

First panelist: Grace Marie Turner, President, Galen Institute.

Grace Marie Turner has been instrumental in developing and promoting ideas for reform
that transfer power over health care decisions to doctors and patients.
She speaks and writes extensively about incentives to promote a more
competitive, patient-centered marketplace in the health sector.

Top 5 reasons why “Medicare for all” will not work:

1. The provider payment rate is not sustainable.

2. It cannot be sold as a free-standing health insurance policy. Medicare is full of gaps in coverage which must be covered with a series of supplemental plans like Medi-Gap.

3. The centralized nature of the benefit structure limits patient choices.

4. There will be political opposition by seniors to opening the flood gates to millions more beneficiaries, which would reduce their current coverage.

5. Medicare is already in debt to the tune of 38 trillion dollars.

What is a better solution to achieve universal coverage?

Private, competing plans can better provide tailored benefits to groups of uninsured. This would also increase patient choice and customization of care. Medicare Part D is run under a private sector model and is currently 40% under budget. This is evidence that the private sector, influenced by market forces, is better at cost containment.

The bottom line is that we have to decide if we want to reform healthcare with top-down directives or by aligning incentives. I believe we need to do a better job of coordinating care – it’s a financial issue.

Second panelist: Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Health Policy, The Heritage Foundation.

Moffit has been an advocate of the free market principles of consumer choice and competition since the early 1990s, when he chastised Congress for keeping such a system of choice and competition ” exclusively for itself and federal workers while considering ways to impose vastly inferior systems on almost all [other] Americans.”

Who do you want to make key healthcare decisions for you?

1. Your employer

2. The government

3. Individuals and families

Other industrialized countries have accepted option #2, but America is a very different culture. We must enlist the states as the laboratories of democracy that they should be. The Medicare Advantage plan is revolutionary.

Third panelist: Robert Berenson, M.D., Senior Fellow, The Urban Institute

Dr. Berenson’s current research focuses on modernization of the Medicare program to improve efficiency and the quality of care provided to beneficiaries.

The consumer-directed healthcare system is not what the public wants or needs. We need supply-side solutions, not demand-side solutions. Medicare has been more successful than private plans at reducing costs.

There’s no doubt that a government-run healthcare system is not what Americans want – but I see no other alternative. The Massachusetts (state level solution) is not going to be successful because they provided universal coverage without any cost containment mechanisms in place, so costs simply sky rocketed.

Currently, 20% of Medicare beneficiaries discharged from the hospital are readmitted, and half of those are due to avoidable complications. Follow up care (after hospital discharge) is not well managed. Most patients discharged from the hospital don’t see a healthcare professional for follow up within 30 days of their discharge. We have to do better.


You may also like these posts

WordPress › Error

There has been a critical error on this website.

Learn more about troubleshooting WordPress.