A dying agents warning ‼️

An unfortunate truth that is often ignored by those who have enjoyed good health . . . for those that find humor at the inability to pay MA copays & coinsurance

The likelihood of having problems paying medical bills or debt was significantly higher for older adults with Medicare Advantage than those with traditional Medicare. Differences in the percent with medical bill or debt problems were significant among those with income between 200 percent and 399 percent of FPL and not statistically significant for those with higher or lower incomes.


Among White Medicare beneficiaries under age 65, the rate of cost-related problems was higher among Medicare Advantage enrollees (48%) than among traditional Medicare beneficiaries with supplemental coverage (36%). In contrast to patterns observed for other findings, a larger share of White beneficiaries than Black beneficiaries in traditional Medicare who are under age 65 with disabilities reported cost-related problems, both overall (43% versus 26%) and among those with supplemental coverage (36% versus 19%). This may be because Black beneficiaries are more likely to be dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, which provides relatively comprehensive supplemental coverage. These findings are significant at the bivariate level; however, we were unable to generate reliable multivariate estimates comparing cost-related problems by race for the subgroup of beneficiaries in fair or poor health by coverage type (i.e., Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare) due to sample size limitations.




Choosing between the two (MA or Medigap) requires careful consideration of your finances and health needs. And Advantage plans can carry hidden risks, especially for people with major health issues.

“Some people in Medicare Advantage end up paying unexpectedly high costs when they become ill or find their network lacks the providers they need,” says Tricia Neuman, senior vice president at Kaiser.

With respect to this statement, "These findings are significant at the bivariate level; however, we were unable to generate reliable multivariate estimates comparing cost-related problems by race for the subgroup of beneficiaries in fair or poor health by coverage type (i.e., Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare) due to sample size limitations."

If they controlled for socioeconomic status in their analysis anything left could include race related "causes". Since they didn't include that important variable (where the other study you posted included how percent of poverty line affects the ability to pay for medical care) of course they couldn't find anything by race. A higher percentage of blacks are poor even though there are more poor white people (because there are more white people in this country) this affects statistical outcomes when looking for race differences where socioeconomic status might influence that. In this context this means a higher percentage of Blacks (but not raw numbers as there are more poor whites than blacks)get medicare with medicaid with helps mitigate medical financial issues. What happens is socioeconomic status and race can be confounded.

An example (not in health care) of how this works is that the company that offers the SAT college entrance tests took the entire population of test takers. Looking just at race, Blacks scored lower than Whites on the SAT. One might presume somehow the test is biased. When socioeconomic status was entered into the equation, race differences went away (which makes sense as richer kids of any race are in better schools and are more likely to take test prep classes, etc.). Because the percentage of Blacks who are poor are higher than the percentage of Whites, and poor kids score lower, without also including socioeconomic status race becomes the proxy for socioeconomic status.
 
This is the first AEP that nearly every single one of my med Supp clients has complained about their premium. With nearly 50% of them stating, if my premium keeps on going up, I’m going to have to seriously consider a MAPD.

Not one has changed this AEP, yet, but they are all curious about the switch. Once I mention “network” they’ll say, nope, I don’t want it. But, let’s talk again next year after my next rate increase.
T65 Plan G is pretty much all over $200/month.

On the flip side, I’ve had a dozen or so MAPD clients ask about moving to a med Supp. I tell them it’s great coverage and they can go to almost any doctor they want. A low DED and you’re set. They have all said, let’s sign up! How much is it? Ma’am, assuming you can get approved it’s $250. Every single one of them has said, never mind.
You are also selling in Florida and I've got $100 Plan N's in Texas.

My BCBSTX out of area rates are cheaper than Florida rates. That's nuts.
 
Anecdotes are nice but not as convincing as news articles culled from numerous complaints.

I know two people with cancer, given last rites, and made a full recovery. Both are still alive over a dozen years later.
Actually what is even more convincing is credible research done on some of the topics discussed in this thread. Anecdotes, regardless of what they are about, isn't research and could easily be the rare exception that someone made the effort to only look at those and report on those (news articles), ignoring the overwhelming "other side" (as I am pretty sure was the point your comment was making about the cancer survivors given last rites).

Of course if there is a trend in negative (or positive) comments that are essentially about the same things across anecdotes that likely indicates there is a problem (or plus) that should be investigated more formally with actual research to find out the actual probability of that "outcome"/"complaint being true" happening.
 
Anecdotes are nice but not as convincing as news articles culled from numerous complaints.

I know two people with cancer, given last rites, and made a full recovery. Both are still alive over a dozen years later.
Are you Catholic?

If you are tell Mary I said hello. I'm Baptist and we're not allowed to talk to her.
 
I have no idea how anyone can logically claim that restricting benefits from Original Medicare and requiring who what when where and how as a requirement for benefits is an improvement. By definition; it cannot be. I wont waste time suffering fools that cannot see that MA plans are inferior, and their arguments for are rationlized due to the commissions they pay and being less trouble than Med Supp, and so easily twisted to seem better. The original post is absolutely correct.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top