5 questions about the GOP's plan to privatize Medicare

Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:41am EST

Nov 17 (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.

FILED UNDER:
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 http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Bucky_2 wrote:
So the quality of your health care is once again determined by how much money you have.

The GOP loves this ideology because they are so sure that they are more worthy of decent health care.

It’s evident because they have more money.. it doesn’t matter how they got that money… the fact is, they have it.

Nov 17, 2011 12:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Carly_EngAmer wrote:
Serious plans will have to be proposed for the reform of Medicare, as the program will otherwise continue to consume unprecedented levels of federal revenues. Medicare spending is expected to jump from $522.8 billion in 2010 to $932 billion in 2020, and will account for between 5.2% and 5.9% of gross domestic product by 2030. With the gradual retirement of the baby boom generation, the number of beneficiaries is projected to grow from 47.4 million in 2010 to almost 81 million in 2030 (http://eng.am/uO83aB).

In order to curb this out-of-control growth, reforms in several areas can be implemented that, if adopted, would save $9.4 trillion by 2035 when compared with Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baselines. The government should implement cost caps (approximately $5,500) on catastrophic illness. This would reduce the use of secondary policies and decrease overutilization of medical resources. Also, the government needs to implement an additional premium on beneficiaries to cover deficits within the Hospitalization Insurance Program – it cannot receive funds from general government revenues to finance its deficits, and will be insolvent by 2020, according to the CBO. Furthermore, beneficiaries’ contribution toward Part B of Medicare should be increased gradually from 25% to 35% to reduce the fund’s reliance on general tax revenues. The same policy should be implemented for Part D of Medicare. Finally, benefits for the wealthiest recipients should gradually be phased out (http://eng.am/uO83aB).

Nov 18, 2011 4:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.