Another Pinocchio for Sebelius
Fact-checking the HHS these days is a full time job. Were they a private insurance company health insurance commissioners would be all over them for statements like this:
Because of the health care law — the Affordable Care Act — the average person with traditional Medicare will save $5,000 from 2010 to 2022, according to a report today from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Ah, now for the facts. Seniors will lose far more than they will gain — a $10 reduction in spending for every $1 increase: Here is what Tom Saving and I wrote in Health Affairs:
Consider people reaching age 65 this year. Under ObamaCare, the average amount spent on these enrollees over the remainder of their lives will fall by about $36,000 at today’s prices. That sum of money is equivalent to about three years of benefits. For 55 year olds, the spending decrease is about $62,000 — or the equivalent of six years of benefits. For 45 year olds, the loss is more than $105,000, or nine years of benefits.
In terms of the sheer dollars involved, the planned reduction in future Medicare payments is the equivalent of raising the eligibility age for Medicare to age 68 for today’s 65 year olds, to age 71 for 55 year olds and to age 74 for 45 year olds. But rather than keep the system as is and raise the age of eligibility, the reform law tries to achieve equivalent savings by paying less to providers. This will decrease access to care for seniors dramatically, and ultimately create a two-tiered health care system — with the elderly getting second class care.
Sebelius won’t let a pesky thing like facts stop her from destroying the American healthcare system in a vain attempt to save it.
10:1 sounds like a great loss to the seniors in America
There is a fine line between educating the public about the benefits they will qualify for; and promoting the Administration’s policy agenda with rhetoric. How can the Dept of HHS claim Americans will save $5,000? Most policy wonks admit expanding health coverage will boost spending, require more preventative screenings and require more coverage than many Americans currently have. These factors are supported by public health advocates, who generally prefer more care, more insurance and lower out-of-pocket cost. But nobody really expects these to lower spending.
Seniors are the ones the Obama admin keeps taking from! First, $715 billion from Medicare, now this?
Well, maybe savings for beneficiaries but question is high costs for whom? Obviously the government through higher rebates on drug prices. There are better ways to reduce the cost of Medicare instead of lowering the payments to physicians,lowering the benefits to patients or even postponing the benefits by increasing the eligibility age.
Dr. Goodman’s blog in Health Affairs points to the fact that Part D of Medicare which deals with prescription drugs will see increase in costs over several years in the future in comparison to other components of the Medicare program, based on the projections made by the Medicare Trustees Report. (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/05/12/what-health-reform-means-for-medicare/)
PPCA doesn’t seem to address one of the fundamental drivers of cost under Medicare-high drug prices. By providing higher rebates on prescription drugs,it does not solve the problem of high medicine prices, an influential factor in pushing the United States per capita expenditure to almost twice the OECD average.
Perhaps better policies that can foster innovation and product-development partnerships for drugs could lower the cost–not just for the beneficiaries but also for the government and private companies. Cost reduction in Medicare would require more strategic policy actions targeted at resolving fundamental problems than some quick-fixes.
HHS outlines four sources of savings.
“First, premiums for Part B physician and certain other services are expected to increase at a slower rate than would have occurred without the Affordable Care Act, resulting in lower Part B premiums over time.”
May cut premium costs, at the cost of reduced care availability.
“Second, beneficiary copayments and coinsurance under Parts A and B will increase more slowly because the Affordable Care Act slows the rate of growth in payments to hospitals and other providers.”
May cut out of pocket costs, at the cost of reduced care availability.
“Third, closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, often called the “donut hole,” will lower costs for beneficiaries who otherwise would have been required to spend thousands of dollars out of their own pockets for their prescription drugs.”
Negotiations with drug companies; good! As such a large buyer the government could do much better than a 50% cut in prices to seniors in the donut hole though.
“Finally, the Affordable Care Act provides many preventive services to people with Medicare at no additional cost.”
Yay for more government spending!
Under ObamaCare there’s absolutely no hope for seniors. How does a $10 reduction in spending for every $1 increase even make sense?
“At no additional cost” always makes me chuckle.