NAMSA and Proposed Legislation for Medicare Supplements

[cadylou]

Hi everyone - I just joined NAMSA and found out that they have a video available for educational purposes. I am sending this information and related info to my client base, so that they can take action, if they choose to, prior to upcoming budget talks on Capitol Hill in 2014. The following is the text to my e-mail if anyone would like to utilize it:


"I wanted to let you know that I've joined an organizationthat is very involved in getting the word out about various policy changes toMedicare that are being discussed as a part of budget talks.


These are going to come up again in 2014, and I think it'simperative that we all assist in letting people know, so that they cancontact their congressional representatives and make their views known.


If you can – do watch this video. It addresses thebasis for many proposals in congress. All are directed at the consumer"over utilizing" services because they "have good insurance". This isactually not based in fact, but here are reports out that proponents of thislegislation use as "a basis for proof" – even when the research isflawed. Overutilization is not driven by the insurance itself, sinceMedicare supplements cannot pay until Medicare approves something as medicallynecessary. Most of these reports also don't distinguish between types ofservices being used – identifying life-saving cancer care or heart surgery, vs.too many unnecessary trips to a doctor. So, take a look – it's abeginning. . . . .


Medicare Outrage on Vimeo


This video gives a good overview of what may be proposed –it's been talked about a lot & would fundamentally change Medicareitself & possibly hurt choices that Medicare beneficiaries now have toshelter themselves from financial hardship (in the form of insurance).


People who are interested in signing a petition about thiscan go to: http://rescuemedicarenow.com/petition


I would suggest people actually call their congressionalrepresentatives, as well. http://www.ahipcoverage.com/contact-congress/


I'll be sending this e-mail to my other clients too,to let them know what is happening "behind the scenes".


I think that you could share this information in yourfriends and others who may be affected by changes to Medicare. This hashuge implications for people going forward – especially since the way it'sbeing talked about is so casual and may just get "slipped" into a budget bill –no voting, no discussion, nothing . . . .


I appreciate you taking the time to read this & look atthe information.


Let me know if you have questions.'



I'm already getting positive responses from client's I've sent this to - so, I think it may provide helpful information, while allowing you to reach out to customers as an expert one more time.


Enjoy!

----------

p.s. - sorry for some of the formatting issues - when I 'cut & pasted' the message, I lost some spacing, etc. - so be sure to correct before sending the message out. thanks.

 

[azmedsupagent]

you just wait till fox news and the silver tsunami get there ears on this new Tax on Medigap Obama is planning. It will be the new scandal of the year.

 

[cadylou]

All of these proposals floating around could put us all out of business. If the Medicare supplement landscape changes significantly because of things like deductibles that aren't allowed to be covered by insurance, and taxes on insurance products themselves . . . we're cooked . . . . .

 

[somarco]

If they did go to a unified deductible for A & B what happens after that? Is the beneficiary required to pay the 20% that Medicare does not pay? Would the 20% be applied to Part A expenses or would A benefit structure remain the same?

 

[cadylou]

If they combine the part A & part B deductible, it fundamentally changes the way Medicare is structured. It would potentially affect the entire Medicare supplement structure, as well. The negative impact of this on insurance products was discussed at a conference I attended in September that was all about Medicare supplements. There were not any good answers. This would also be a big change since there are many seniors who do not actually take part B if they have other insurance that is primary (think Executive who has a nice retirement package), so they aren't making the monthly contribution for the Part B premium either - so, is that equitable? Not sure. It would seem to me that the folks who have both A & B, and are making the part B premium contribution being stuck with this new "unified" deductible are simply being asked for a lot more money up front. Then, not allowing insurance to cover certain deductible expenses, would severely impact desirability of product like Medicare supplements.


Combining the deductible really negatively impacts the healthier person the most, since they now have to shell out for normal activities in the health care marketplace for a longer period of time. It's been proven in the under 65 market that higher deductibles, or more "skin in the game" doesn't necessarily prevent overutilization - all it does it make the patient not seek preventive care - often resulting in what looks like fewer healthcare expenditures, but later may result in higher expenditures in the area of reactive care (due to diseases/conditions that could have been caught earlier not being treated & now requiring surgery, hospitalization, etc.)


When I attended the conference, the big question was why aren't insurance companies who earn substantial amounts in the Medicare supplement space screaming about this to our lawmakers. No good answer there either. . . .

 

[somarco]

If they combine the part A & part B deductible, it fundamentally changes the way Medicare is structured.

You still did not address my question.

Do the other parts of A and B remain in place? The first 60 days of hospitalization at no charge? The 80/20 coinsurance for B?

FWIW, DC is always looking for ways to generate more tax revenue. Trying to balance the budget on the backs of seasoned citizens doesn't work. AARP does quite well thank you by selling Medigap plans. Do you think AARP will remain silent if gap plans are eliminated or taxed?

Just because AARP promoted Obamacare doesn't mean they would back this kind of change.

 

[cadylou]

I can't answer your question, since if they combine deductible - all parts of the way A & B are paid could be impacted. None of those details are ever talked about - only this fixed "combined" deductible, and the fact that they may not allow private insurance to cover that. I have no idea what AARP is doing to lobby against this sort of activity - I'm sure they are doing something, but what specifically, I don't know. Ideas on prolonging the fund by having people go in at an older age, etc. - no longer seem to be getting any press. It's all about taking more money out of the client's pocket before they actually use any healthcare services.


What I do know, is that the American public doesn't really seem to have much of a "say" in any of this - they will just "decide" and possibly slip it into a budget agreement as a bargaining chip. My fear is that once that occurs, it's very hard - if not impossible - to "unring" that bell . . . . .

 

[Bob_The_Insurance_Guy]

Doesn't this proposed bill have a name or an HR number?

Again, fear works! I just want to make sure that we are not using fear solely for our advantage. That's why referencing an HR number, or letting them Medicare beneficiaries know who is behind this bill, would add more validity to our argument.

I am very interested, as #1 is, and would like more specific information.

 

[sman]

I'm on my phone and don't really feel like looking anything up, but if my memory serves me correctly, the additional tax/penalty for those with first dollar coverage plans was in one of Obama's budget proposals.

Here is an article from a few years ago which outlines some of the items being discussed

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2011/july/15/medigap-medicare-supplemental-faq.aspx

 

[cadylou]

There were many different proposals, most notable the Coburn/Lieberman bill from 2011, which resurfaced again in September 2013. Here's a summary of that one:


http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=2741a751-37b5-4847-b1ee-c52c3801754e


There were others, in addition to the HHS requirement in the Healthcare reform effort that required the NAIC to take a look at first dollar coverage in Medicare supplement plans & see if they should be eliminated. I believe (and don't quote me, I'm trying to remember), that their initial look at it determined that these plans did not "create, or contribute to" overutilization of Medicare services.


There was also a push to have the Medical Loss Ratio formula applied to Medicare supplement sales commissions - this didn't happen because of many disparate efforts of different groups who fought hard not to have the MLR apply - but if that idea comes back - forget getting paid . . . .what happened to individual insurance, part D plans & this constant scrutiny in the Medicare Advantage world to cap commissions with be the norm.


Paul Ryan and others also believe that first dollar coverage leads to overutilization, and he wants to get rid of the system the way it exists today and provide "vouchers", so that anyone currently under the age of 55 will be able to buy insurance with a set number of dollars when they become "Medicare Eligible" - that you know will not keep up with inflation. I'd rather have the money . . . .skip the "voucher" - it will be worthless as healthcare costs continue to skyrocket. His proposal would allow those who are over the age of 55 right now, to have Medicare as the program exists today - so they would remain unaffected for the most part.


There may not need to be a "bill" per se, if these ideas are simply wrapped in the packaging of a budget compromise. If they are in there & the budget passes, well, there you are . . . .