MA...an expensive boondoggle?

True, but those were Medicare+Choice HMO plans, captive health insurance through a medical group designed to keep costs down.

MAPD are much different animal, PPO, PFFS are going to accelerate the costs as there is little containment and no gatekeeper level cost control.
 
However, MA plans were in place long before Part D and the Medicare Modernization Act.

If funding does go down, that just means that co-pays and premiums will go back up. I do not see funding going away since AARP is now in the mix and if you want seniors vote, you better go along with AARP.

Which AARP are you talking about? The "for-profit" side that is in the MA business, or the advocacy side which is leading the fight in Congress to take funds away from MA's and use them to prevent reimibursement cuts to physicians? Funding for MA's is in trouble bigtime. Preserving doctor choice by keeping the physician reimbursement rate up in original medicare and preventing Medicare from going to a 75/25 split are much bigger issues to seniors than preserving MA's. I do agree that the MA market is entrenched now so Congress cannot do a full frontal assault on it. However, if those zero premium plans continue to creep up to 50-75 a month plans, then more and more seniors will just take a pass and go with a med supp. Too much uncertainty and hoopla and unclear benefits.

The Democrats have MA's solidly within their gunsights so if Obama or Hillary are elected there will be changes. There will be changes anyway because they are not demonstrating the cost savings that even the Republicans intended. Stay tuned.

Winter
 
AARP came out and said that they are wanting MA plans to be funded a 100% rather then the 115% or so they are funded at now.

Zero premium plans will either stay zero premium with higher co-pays or go with a premium to keep co-pays down. Either way they will be a viable option for seniors who cannot afford supplements.

BUT...if they go away, I will be very busy writing supplements.
 
Back
Top