Five questions about GOP's plan to privatize Medicare

Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:27pm EST

Related Topics

(Reuters) - The Congressional Super Committee negotiations are coming down to the wire, and Republicans are demanding that Medicare privatization be included in any final budget deal.

The news comes on the heels of GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's recent call for creation of a "premium support" option that would let seniors choose between traditional fee-for-service Medicare or a defined amount of money that they could use to shop for a private plan in a federally-sponsored Medicare exchange marketplace. Romney's proposal is a cousin of the privatization plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, and endorsed by the House of Representatives earlier this year.

Even if the Super Committee process stalls, the future of Medicare will be a key issue in the 2012 Presidential race, and any restructuring of the program would impact billions of dollars of healthcare spending and tens of millions of beneficiaries. How would privatization impact seniors? How would benefits change, and what would it mean for seniors' cost of healthcare? Here are answers to five key issues.

1. What are Medicare premium supports and vouchers, and how would they change the current Medicare program?

Proposals for Medicare premium supports and vouchers all have one thing in common: They would transform Medicare from a program of defined benefits to one of defined contribution. Much like the transition from defined benefit pensions to defined contribution 401(k) plans, the change would shift risk from an institution (the federal government) to individuals (seniors). Medicare today promises to deliver a specific set of benefits to seniors; premium supports and vouchers would provide a defined government contribution toward whatever healthcare cost they incur in the private market.

But there's a significant difference between premium supports and vouchers. Vouchers could be set purely on the basis of meeting federal budget-cutting goals. Premium supports usually take into account some measure of the cost of purchasing private coverage.

Romney hasn't released details on his Medicare proposal, but it appears to most closely resemble the proposal of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force, which was chaired by Alice Rivlin, the Clinton Administration's budget director, and former Republican Sen. Pete Domenici.

The Rivlin-Domenici plan would limit the government's per-beneficiary financial contribution to a formula tied to Gross Domestic Product plus a percentage point. In this sense, Rivlin-Domenici really is more a voucher than a premium support.

2. Would privatization cut healthcare costs and shrink the budget deficit?

Vouchers would reduce federal Medicare spending by capping benefit payments. But the assertion that privatization can reduce overall healthcare costs is ideological; the argument here is that unleashing competitive marketplace forces will lead to innovation and cost savings.

Yet traditional Medicare has a much stronger record of controlling costs than the private insurance market. As the largest U.S. purchaser and regulator of healthcare, Medicare has purchasing clout far beyond what any single private insurance plan could exert.

An analysis of federal data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) found that between 1970 and 2009, Medicare spending per enrollee grew by an average of 1 percentage point less than private health insurance premiums, or one-third less during that period.

Private Medicare Advantage plans have been gaining marketshare, but they don't reduce federal health spending. In fact, Advantage plans currently are reimbursed by the federal government at 114 percent of traditional Medicare rates -- a payment scheme that was put in place to encourage private insurers to participate in the market and to help them compete with traditional Medicare. (The Obama Administration's health reform law freezes those payments Advantage calls for gradually reducing those payments over a period of years, ultimately equalizing reimbursements with traditional Medicare.) Medicare Advantage plans also have benefited by marketing to healthier seniors who are less costly to serve.

"Premium support is just another approach to privatizing Medicare and moving away from the traditional fee-for-service plan," says Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at CBPP. "A lot of the arguments about lower cost and efficiency in private plans just don't hold up."

3. Would seniors have to pay more out of pocket?

Yes. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that under the House-endorsed Ryan plan, the total cost of providing benefits to a typical 65-year-old in 2022 would be $20,500. The government would contribute $8,000 of that amount, with beneficiaries paying the remaining $12,500 -- more than twice what they would pay under traditional Medicare ($5,630).

The Rivlin-Domenici proposal hasn't been scored by CBO, but if its voucher didn't keep pace with rising healthcare costs, beneficiaries who want to stay in traditional Medicare would have to cover the difference.

The alternative would be to enroll in a private plan with lower premiums. But those plans might be allowed to keep costs down by offering less generous benefits, restricting provider networks or requiring higher cost-sharing via co-pays or higher deductibles. Much would depend on the specifics of how new rules and regulations would be drafted that govern the private plans.

4. How are these proposals different from the current Medicare Advantage program?

Medicare Advantage lets seniors opt for an all-in-one private plan that covers hospitalization, doctors' visits, drugs and other benefits. But the private plans must commit to provide services at least equal to those provided under traditional Medicare. Many of the new privatization plans would permit variation in benefits and premiums.

5. Wouldn't these Medicare exchanges resemble the exchanges being created under Obama's healthcare reform?

While there are some similarities, the exchanges under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would provide support designed to keep up with health insurance inflation. Also, the ACA exchanges are designed to cover millions of uninsured Americans, while proposals like Rep. Ryan's actually eliminate traditional Medicare over time, and force seniors to enroll in private plans.


The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (5)
oldtechie wrote:
Don’t you get it? This solves two problems. Cutting medical care to the elderly means they die younger and thus cut Social Security Payments!

Nov 17, 2011 7:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oldtechie wrote:
Don’t you get it? This solves two problems. Cutting medical care to the elderly means they die younger and thus cut Social Security Payments!

Nov 17, 2011 7:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Dalton wrote:
The Republicans have been efficient over the last 30 years at helping concentrate more and more of the wealth of the country into fewer and fewer hands at the very top of our society. With their trickle-down voodoo economics based on more and more tax cuts for the very wealthiest among us, the Republicans have certainly done their part to give us the greatest inequality of income and the greatest inequality of wealth the country has seen since the Great Depression. Now that the Republicans have helped concentrate all that wealth up at the very top they certainly don’t want any new taxes on all that wealth which might diminish their accomplishment. So instead of perhaps the ultra-wealthy and very wealth helping out with the deficits and the debt and maybe some funding for the country’s infrastructure, the Republicans are content and happy to let the shrinking middle class and the bottom 40% of Americans who have no assets pay the price for deficit and debt reduction. Don’t anyone even suggest having those ‘poor’ wealthy people chip-in and help out on the revenue side, instead just attempt to address the budget deficits and reduce the national debt with cuts only. Cuts which most effect the poor, the hungry, the elderly and the struggling middle class. Of course Republicans have first and foremost made their pledge to Grover Norquist, so they will need to honor allegiance to that above all else.

Nov 18, 2011 12:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.