supersupps
Guru
- 534
We all know that medic-aid ,etc is garbage. When I am elected insurance comm of my state, all full duals will have to enroll in a snp plan,, end of story. I'd like to know the reasoning why many states don't require that now.
Full Duals and Their Freedom to Choose
- Thread starter supersupps
- Start date
First off, most people on medicaid are happy with their covg. I don't see where you come off with the "crap" comment, because that is patently false in many areas. Medicaid is local from state to state and county to county but it isn't crap in most cases.
Secondly, by enrolling a medi-medi client into a snp you can do more harm to them than good if their physicians and clinics are not in network. If you think otherwise then you merely haven't evaluated the situation from all sides.
Lastly, if more cases than not, a snp is much better for the agent than the Med beneficiary. And that my good friend is garbage.
- 2,394
when I lived in calif, I thought the same ting and avoided them like the plague since they would ALWAYS disenroll, resulting in a chargeback. Calif is arguably much worse (generous to poor) in that there are too many immigrants that take advantage of all of the programs.
After my grandmother got very sick and was eventually qualified for nursing home medicaid in texas, I am nothnig but grateful for the excellent care that she received. I wish that ALL middle class ppl could qualify for the same, and much less immigrants.
I'm not even so sure that the states would save $$ by putting all of their medi-medis on hmos. They could end up paying more in capitation than what the beneficiary actually uses.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #5
supersupps
Guru
- 534
You might want to read the WSJ article that states that medic-aid coverage is worse than no coverage at all. Docs that order unnecessary tests, don't show up to the hospital for days to assist in discharging their patients bec they are too busy, etc etc, Medicaid patients have were 80% more likely to have tumors spread than those with private insurance. Similarly, medicaid patients were associated with the longest hospital stays, the most hospital costs, and the highest risk of death.. and they are twice as likely to die in the hospital than those with priv insurance. Contrast that to uninsured patients who were 25% less likely to die from an in hospital death. Medicaid is worse than no coverage at all.
These are all socio-economic problems that frankly have been fortified by our social giveaway programs. The patterns of the poor are sad, but how does a snp change any of this...?
My point about a snp was with the situation in mind of a little old lady who receives appx 670 mo in ss, has medi A&B &-medi, goes to the clinic for virtually all her medical care, and the clinic is not in the network of any MA snp's... So having a snp would do a disservice to a person in that situation because then all care is out of network and their co-pays are much higher than otherwise would be. This may vary depending upon which state as to which is primary, medicaid or the MA plan... but if the MA plan is primary, the snp hurts the Med Beneficiary vs. A&B with no other covg, and reduces payment to the clinic for most care as well.
With that said, no plan of insurance is going to change the behavior of the poor in both financial and moral terms. If only it were that easy.
Similar threads
