Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Conservative Principles Inherent in the Medicare Reform Legislation
Various sources, including Sen. Bill Frist's site, Sen. Rep. Policy Comm., and the White House ^ | 2/6/04 | My2Cents, and various sources

Posted on 02/06/2004 10:08:46 AM PST by My2Cents

The Conservative Principles Inherent in the Medicare Reform Legislation

(This article was written from information gleaned from a variety of sources, including the White House, the Senate GOP Policy Committee, the Sen. Majority Leader's website, the Amer. Assoc. of Health Plans., and from the author's experience in the health care industry.)

There has been much murmuring among conservatives over President Bush’s domestic policies, stemming mainly from spending initiatives. “Spending like a drunken sailor” is pretty much the way it’s been characterized.

Central to the discontent has been the passage by Congress, at the urging of the President, of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Virtually all of the attention, and ire, of grassroots conservatives has been directed at the price tag of the bill – an estimated $395-500 billion over the next ten years. Yet hardly any attention has been given to the overall provisions of the bill, many of which are consistent with conservative principles, and which indeed were supported by many conservatives in Congress. Because many the provisions of the bill reflect conservative principles, it is very likely that the estimated price tag of the bill is overstated since a major goal of the reform legislation is to reduce the overall future costs of Medicare, and health care in general, as the provisions of the bill take hold.

While the prescription drug benefit for the fee-for-service side of Medicare has received virtually all the popular attention, other provisions of the reform legislation include:

-- enhancing the ability of Americans to pay for their own health needs through expanding the availability of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs);
-- new accounting measures which will enhance accuracy in monitoring the solvency of the overall Medicare program;
-- expanding lower-cost choices in medical coverage for senior Americans rather than placing all into the traditional (and more expensive) fee-for-service side of Medicare;
-- reducing the rising cost of prescription drugs across the board; and
-- cost-containment provisions including income thresholds for Medicare Part B premiums starting in 2007 (the higher the income of an individual or a couple, the less the federal subsidy, and the higher the premium paid for Medicare coverage), and an increase in the Medicare Part B deductible with future raises in the deductible indexed to inflation.

Prescription drug coverage -- Incorporating the efficiencies of the private sector

The provision of the Medicare reform bill attracting the most attention is the prescription drug benefit. The big reason for this is that the drug benefit is admittedly the most costly aspect of the bill. But it should be pointed out that even the large estimated cost associated with the drug benefit is simply that -- an estimate -- and an estimate that is based on, if you will, a "worst-case scenario." The actual cost of the drug benefit is not known, and may end up being much lower than the Congressional Budget Office has projected.

One aspect which could result in this benefit being not as expensive as anticipated is that it is not actually an entitlement in the traditional sense of government assistance programs. First, the drug benefit program is voluntary; while available to every Medicare beneficiary, not every beneficiary will accept the benefit. In actuality, it is not a traditional government-run program at all. The Medicare prescription drug benefit will be made available through private drug benefit insurance companies or health plans which will administer the benefit. The benefit will, literally, be run as a commercial benefit plan, not as a traditional government program.

Similar to any private sector benefit plan, the Medicare drug benefit will require a monthly premium paid by the beneficiary; it will requirement the payment of an annual deductible; and once the deductible is paid, the benefit program requires a "coinsurance" cost paid by the beneficiary -- a 25% cost-sharing up to $2,250 of drug expenses. Such cost-sharing provisions have proven effective in controlling the cost of health care coverage.

Because the drug benefit is voluntary, Medicare beneficiaries are not required to buy into it. Many Medicare beneficiaries already have some form of Medicare supplemental coverage which includes a drug benefit, so they will likely be disinclined to sign up for the new Medicare drug benefit. Also, an aspect of the Medicare reform bill is to introduce competition between the Medicare program and private sector plans. There may be drug coverage products in the commercial market which provide a better deal to Medicare beneficiaries than what the Medicare reform bill provides. Another aspect of the Medicare reform bill is the enhancement of the managed care side of Medicare. Many of the existing private health plan products offered as an alternative to the fee-for-service side of Medicare already contain a prescription drug benefit, hence, the cost of drugs is already being paid by Medicare for those enrolled in such plans, which means that for these beneficiaries there will be no increase experienced in paying for their drug coverage. And since these plans will be offering comprehensive or "full-service" medical benefits, including prescription drugs, the cost to the consumer of the health plan's drug benefit may actually be less than the cost of the benefit as designed by the Medicare reform bill.

Additionally, the very inclusion of a drug benefit to Medicare will reduce the cost of the program. For example, prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs which eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine to treat their conditions.

In short, while the Medicare drug benefit is available to all beneficiaries (those in the fee-for-service side, as well as in the managed care side), and since the cost estimates are largely based on the assumption that most will take advantage of the new benefit, the price tag placed in the drug benefit may actually be on the high side since many beneficiaries already have a drug benefit, or commercial products may provide a better deal than what the bill's design provides.

Reducing the Cost of Drugs

The bill also contains provisions, unrelated to Medicare, which will lower the cost of all drugs -- benefiting not only Medicare beneficiaries and the program, but every consumer. The law injects competition into the Medicare marketplace, which will drive down the price of drugs. Private health plans have largely been successful in negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare prescription drug program or a Medicare Advantage program will reap additional savings, since these plans will likely combine the attributes of a private insurance company and a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). PBMs are designed, in part, to negotiate discounts with pharmacies and drug manufacturers on behalf of health plans.

In addition, to help American consumers of all ages, the new law provides incentives to encourage the use of generic name drugs, which are usually less expensive than brand-name drugs. The law also streamlines the bureaucratic process to bring generic drugs to the market faster.

Expanding Health Care Choices

One of the main cost-containment aspects of the Medicare reform bill is the creation of a new "Medicare Advantage" program to replace the "Medicare+Choice" program established by the Republican Congress in 1997.

"Medicare+Choice" (M+C) was the addition of a managed care side to the Medicare program, providing a cost-effective option to the more costly fee-for-service design of traditional Medicare. Medicare+Choice was intended to bring the efficiencies of the commercial managed care design into Medicare. However, the funding formula for M+C in relation to the traditional fee-for-service side established by the Clinton Administration never enabled M+C to prove its promise of cost containment. (Some have speculated that the Clinton Administration's disdain for the commercial managed care industry after it helped defeat "HillaryCare" in 1994 motivated it to choke the life out of M+C before it could prove it's worth; clearly, the Clinton Administration never intended to allow M+C to succeed.)

As a revamped managed care side of the program, Medicare Advantage will allow beneficiaries a wider range of health coverage products, including preferred provider organizations (PPO) and HMO options, opening up the Medicare program to commercial health coverage designs which have proven more cost-effective than traditional fee-for-service indemnity insurance products. These more cost-effective alternatives will enable both the beneficiary, and the government, to share in anticipated cost savings.

According to a recent survey conducted by the American Association of Health Plans of commercial plans intending to sell products to the Medicare market, Medicare-Advantage beneficiaries will see immediate improvement in their coverage over current Medicare coverage, at an overall cost savings to the Medicare program due to the managed care approach. For example:

-- Lower cost sharing: The management of coverage built into the Medicare Advantage program will allow plans to lower monthly premiums, in some cases dramatically. As an example, one health plan in New England will decrease its premiums by an average of 23% -- with beneficiaries saving as much as $67 per month compared to current out-of-pocket costs; there is also expected to be a reduction in the cost of co-pays and deductibles.
-- Enhanced benefits: In addition to prescription drugs, many plans will be able to provide benefits not found in the traditional Medicare design, such as preventive screenings (e.g., for prostate or breast cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) which will enable diseases to be found earlier enhancing the likelihood of cure and lowering the long-term costs of treatment, and disease management programs.
-- Increased enrollment: After five years of slow growth and declining availability of private plans available through the Medicare+Choice program, plans are now expecting to add -- not subtract -- beneficiaries in the program. That is a strong sign of confidence in the direction of Medicare reform, and will result in greater cost savings for the Medicare program overall as more beneficiaries opt for the Medicare Advantage program.
-- New Products: A number of companies which intend to market products through the Medicare Advantage program plan to also offer Health Savings Accounts, drug discount cards, and new Medigap packages in addition to the basic scope of benefits guaranteed to Medicare beneficiaries. The reform legislation passed by Congress enables modernization of the Medicare program through the joining of product innovations brought in by the private sector.
-- Coordination of benefits: An element of the commercial health care marketplace, this practice has resulted in slower increases in health coverage premiums than have been experienced in the standard indemnity market. It will not be an element of Medicare through the Medicare Advantage program.

Summary

The passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 will provide all Medicare beneficiaries with the option of a standardized prescription drug benefit, but the bill also contains provisions which move the Medicare program on a path of privatization, introducing competition into the system, and expanding the quality of benefits and care to beneficiaries while instituting new cost-containment methods. The estimated cost of the reforms -- primarily the drug benefit provision -- are admittedly hefty. But the conservative principles of competition, private sector administration of the drug benefit, innovation in administration of benefits, and cost-containment provisions, could very likely bring down the overall cost of the program, while bringing Medicare coverage up to the level and quality of private benefit plans, and into the 21st Century.

(This overview of the Medicare reform bill was produced, in part, from information from the following sources):

http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.Detail&Issue_id=27

http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/MedicareModernization011604DM2.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/medicare/index.html


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: atrw; gop; healthcare; healthcarereform; medicare; medicarereform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last
To: My2Cents; PhiKapMom; Mo1; Tamsey; onyx
This is another example of President Bush taking an issue away from the DemocRATS. He's working for true change in the system and not just empty grandstanding which is what the RATS do with these types of issues.

Prairie
41 posted on 02/06/2004 11:52:37 AM PST by prairiebreeze (WMD's in Iraq -- The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
That's a very good post, prairie, and I will have to think through some of the issues. You may change my mind about this bill.

Although opposed to one or two of the president's proposals, I strongly support President Bush. Former conservatives who advocate staying home because they don't agree 100% with the president's proposals are, IMO, placing too little value on the judicial appointments coming up in coming years.

For those who oppose various bills or proposals, I believe the correct and most effective course of action would be to phone and write representatives to vent concerns regarding a specific piece of legislation or spending in general.
42 posted on 02/06/2004 11:58:24 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
The one thing that makes me thing this article is right is that Ted Kennedy hates this bill.
43 posted on 02/06/2004 11:59:17 AM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
I agree that this is a "do-something" President, who takes bold steps because he wants to keep moving on the issues. It is nothing like the paralysis we've seen before, even with Republicans. This is one courageous President!
44 posted on 02/06/2004 12:03:54 PM PST by alwaysconservative (We're rooting for you, President Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
The one thing that makes me thing this article is right is that Ted Kennedy hates this bill.

What's good for Democrats, is bad for America.

45 posted on 02/06/2004 12:04:59 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (All Our Base Are Belong To Dubya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
The one think that makes me thing this article is right is that Ted Kennedy hates this bill.

That says it all. Thanks.

46 posted on 02/06/2004 12:13:31 PM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
AARP is a big fan of ME, apparently, because they keep sending me membership cards!
47 posted on 02/06/2004 12:17:14 PM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents; *ATRW
Excellent work in researching and presenting this material. Will be sending it around..

Ping to ATRW...fyi

Thankyou M2C!
48 posted on 02/06/2004 12:19:56 PM PST by DollyCali (2004: Opportunity for love, growth, giving, doing..... It is our choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
Bush was also willing, in 2001, to sign an HMO reform bill ("Patients Bill of Rights). The bill was sent to conference, but never emerged. The reasons nothing ever came out was that Bush was willing to accept everything the Democrats wanted, except unlimited personal damage awards through litigation. The Dems, thinking more of their trial lawyer constituency than actual patients, balked. Also, the Dems really don't want to settle on a bill, because they don't want to lose HMO-hatred as an issue they can manipulte voters with.

Let all of this be a lesson -- The Democrats really don't want to address problems. They only want to allow problems to fester so they can manipulate voters' frustration every two years. The GOP puts forward real reforms, backed by conservative principles.

49 posted on 02/06/2004 12:24:48 PM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Peach
Former conservatives who advocate staying home because they don't agree 100% with the president's proposals are, IMO, placing too little value on the judicial appointments coming up in coming years.

Anyone ignoring the value of judicial appointments coming up in the next few years, and the impact of this election on those appointments, isn't a real conservative.

50 posted on 02/06/2004 12:26:29 PM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: prairiebreeze
You're #25 adds remarkable perspective, prairiebreeze! I hadn't thought about this problems with relation to the new bill, but it could make a big difference in working to get rid of archaic and counterproductive requirements.

My grandmother in on Medicare now and I've noticed several occasions where the rules forced her into getting other treatment or care that she didn't necessarily need.
51 posted on 02/06/2004 12:30:54 PM PST by Tamzee (W '04..... America may not survive a Democrat at this point in our history....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Thought I would add this AP article about Senator Frist supporting the Medicare Bill on this thread since it came out this afternoon:

Sen. Bill Frist Defends New Medicare Law

By MARK SHERMAN
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday he opposes changes to the new Medicare law this year, despite a raft of proposals, higher cost estimates from the Bush administration and steady criticism from Democrats.

Frist, a surgeon, also said he does not expect major health care legislation to pass Congress this year, although he said he plans to focus on limiting awards in medical malpractice cases, a hot-button election-year topic.

The Tennessee Republican said the sweeping changes to Medicare, including a new prescription drug benefit for seniors, should be given a chance to work before changes are considered. He said he was not troubled by the administration's estimate that the law would cost $534 billion over 10 years, a third more than projected by congressional budget analysts.

``I have not seen a proposed change that I am supportive of yet,'' Frist said at a breakfast with reporters who write about health care.

He said Democrats are fearful that Republicans will receive credit for passing a law that improves health care for seniors. ``Democrats are out right now banging this thing, using partisan criticism to tear it down,'' Frist said.

Several senators who voted for the bill last year, however, have said they want to change it.

Two of those, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have proposed giving the government the ability to negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies and removing barriers to importing prescription drugs from Canada.

Snowe said the administration's estimate ``is all the more reason to have this legislation.''

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who voted for the Medicare bill, said legislation is needed to enforce the $400 billion cap on the law that the administration set last year.

``I know I would not have voted for a $534 billion bill, and I know other senators wouldn't have voted (for) that big a bill,'' Sessions told Joshua Bolten, Bush's top budget official, at a hearing on Thursday.

Frist, however, noted that the Congressional Budget Office is standing by its $395 billion estimate - the official number for Congress.

As for Snowe's and Wyden's bill, he said recent government studies have reinforced concerns about the safety of allowing drugs from Canada.

The provision that bars the government from negotiating Medicare drug prices originated in Democratic-backed legislation, he said. ``It is the right language,'' Frist said.

Democrats have said their legislation dating back to 2000 included the prohibition because they assumed Republicans would block a bill without it.



02/06/04 12:08 EST

52 posted on 02/06/2004 12:49:53 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Support Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
**All of those items you mentioned are terrific, could they have been done without adding a bunch more spending?**

Nope. Clearly you're one of those people, however, who likes to sit back and say that if we don't spend money on anything, the country will be better off. Sometimes money has to be spent. I think this is something very important and does require money to be spent.
53 posted on 02/06/2004 12:51:42 PM PST by ilovew (In honor of Mike Adams, a high school classmate, who died in Iraq last summer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
"So herein is a major difference between the two parties: With the Democrats you will get nothing but further enslavement to federal entitlements. With the Republicans you get real reforms intended to enable people to break free of those entitlements. Will the reforms work? Time will tell, but the effort is being made."

 

Thanks for compiling this information, My2Cents!

Discerning the 'big picture' of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 is imperative in understanding the dem attacks on it (MoveOn ads, etc.).  This Act begins the taming of one of the 'monsters' the dems keep as enforcers.

 

54 posted on 02/06/2004 12:53:29 PM PST by windchime (Podesta about Bush: "He's got four years to try to undo all the stuff we've done." (TIME-1/22/01))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I'm glad to see some common sense being used in reforming Medicare. I'm especially glad to see that 'means testing' will be utilized so that the prescriptions of wealthy senior citizens are not being paid for by struggling middle class families!
55 posted on 02/06/2004 12:58:54 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
BTW, I love your tag line....LOL
56 posted on 02/06/2004 12:59:46 PM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Ah, yes. The trial lawyers. Mustn't forget their special contributions to the situation surrounding health care in our country. But ambulance-chaser Edwards will stand and spout how he's just like the little guy. Gonna fight for the little guy. Uh-huh.

President Bush has mentioned the cap on financial settlements of malpractice and other lawsuits several times. I believe he'll push it hard in his 2nd term.

Unless some of those who can't see the forest for the trees or past the ends of their self-serving noses help to get him defeated.

Prairie
57 posted on 02/06/2004 1:03:46 PM PST by prairiebreeze (WMD's in Iraq -- The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I agree with you completely.
58 posted on 02/06/2004 1:03:53 PM PST by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Two of those, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have proposed giving the government the ability to negotiate Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies...

No! The way the bill is structured, negotiations with drug companies should be done by the private plans adminstering the benefit! They have more experience in this sort of thing, and many plans have discounts already in place which could be applied to the Medicare drug benefit, simply by arguing that the large new market for those drug companies will provide them economies of scale.

Do we really want the federal government negotiating prices with the drug companies...the federal government, which pays $600 for toilet seats and $65 for hammers?

59 posted on 02/06/2004 1:05:53 PM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
This is an encouraging article. Why wasn't this info brought to the public's attention before now? The Bush administration better get it together and not let the Dems and the extreme right fringe pf the Republican party (plus Constitutional Party devotees) frame the public perceptions.

All we've been seeing on FR is people screaming about the cost and threatening to bolt the party, with inflammatory language like "why should we pay for a bunch of old geezers."

60 posted on 02/06/2004 1:07:08 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson