November 10th, 2011 by DavidHarlow in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
On my way to the annual two-day blowout health law seminar put on by Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) on Monday — I was second in the lineup, speaking about post-acute care and some of the innovations in that arena for dual eligibles, among other things — I heard a fascinating piece on NPR on one of the ideas floating around the supercommittee charged with cutting $1.2 trillion from the federal budget. The idea: increase the minimum age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67, and save a bundle for Medicare in the process.
The problem with this deceptively simple idea (Social Security eligibility is migrating from 65 to 67, too, so it seems to be a sensible idea on its face), is that while it would save the federales about $6 billion, net, in 2014, it would cost purchasers of non-Medicare coverage (employers and individuals) about $8 billion, net. Why? The 65 and 66 year olds are the spring chickens of Medicare — they actually Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at HealthBlawg :: David Harlow's Health Care Law Blog*
January 5th, 2011 by BobDoherty in Better Health Network, Health Policy
No Comments »
On January 1, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling became the first of the baby-boom generation to qualify for Medicare. She’s hardly alone: The baby-boom generation will cause enrollment in Medicare to soar. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare enrollment will increase from 47 million today to 64 million in 2020 to 80 million people by 2030. At the same time, the ratio of workers paying into the program to support each Medicare enrollee will drop from 3.4 (2010) to 2.8 (2020) and then to 2.3 workers per beneficiary in 2030, denying the program the tax revenue needed to sustain it.
What happens then? Well, the President and Congress would have a dismal menu of political and policy choices. They could impose huge tax increases, inflicting great harm on working families and the economy, and they probably couldn’t raise enough money anyway from taxes without other changes in the program.
They could slash benefits for everyone enrolled in Medicare, impose means-testing so only low-income elderly would qualify, increase beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket contributions, limit access to beneficial services (rationing, anyone?), cut how much Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, and/or privatize the program (but if you are over 65 and have chronic health conditions, good luck finding affordable private health insurance). Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty*
November 15th, 2010 by RyanDuBosar in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News
No Comments »
Today begins a lame duck session of Congress before it breaks for Thanksgiving. It’s the final chance to work out a temporary patch to Medicare reimbursement before a 23 percent cut takes effect Dec. 1. Doctors are going to stop taking new Medicare patients if the cuts happen. And, as one breast cancer surgeon explains, if Medicare stops paying, so to private insurers and even military health programs. Congress will meet in December, but the damage will be done.
This all is happening two weeks before the baby boomers become eligible for Medicare. That populous generation starts to turn 65 beginning on Jan. 1, which means they become eligible for Medicare on Dec. 1, which, as we mentioned, is the day the 23 percent Medicare pay cut kicks in. Boomers will continue to become eligible for Medicare, one person every eight seconds, until December 2029. (CNN, The Washington Post, USA Today)
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
